#but also for people who say science is bad because it ''contradicts the bible''

[redheadedbrunette]

If you say "religion and science are contradictory" I don't trust your opinion on either

[queer-advice-hotline]

To the anon who is struggling with their faith and identity, hi. I get you. I’m in the same boat in a lot of ways. (Discussion of anti-science rhetoric, lgbt-phobia, and conservative Christian stuff for anyone who doesn’t wanna read that)

I was raised Christian, and taught that evolution and the Big Bang were false. I was taught that dinosaurs were real and the earth was billions of years old, but we were still creationists.

I was also taught that being gay or trans was sinful and that gay marriage shouldn’t be legalized. My family was never outright hostile (my uncle is gay and we always loved him, even though “we just don’t agree with his decision” ugh), but clearly bigoted.

I was also raised in baptist churches, who absolutely love to quote the same three verses over and over in order to tell women (like myself) that our whole purpose is to shut up and bear children and take care of the house, that we are to obey our fathers and husbands in everything and cannot teach men at all. Fortunately my parents at least hated that BS, and after every sermon regarding that point my mom would lecture us that that was the only thing she disagreed with with our church, and that me and my sisters could be whatever we wanted to be. She continually pointed out the instances that contradicted what our churches had said about women’s roles.

When I went to college, I made friends, met people with wildly different backgrounds, and began to form my own opinions. I am a supporter of lgbt rights (I believe that there is strong evidence that wording was changed to condemn homosexuality, and that even if it’s a sin, we are called to love each other first and foremost, and that we cannot force our religious beliefs upon anyone else, and that respecting someone’s sexuality and pronouns is just basic fucking courtesy. I’ve even convinced my trump-supporting grandparents to use peoples preferred pronouns and respect gay marriages, with the logic that “you believe it’s sinful, but they don’t, and you can’t force your religious perspective on them. There is nothing loving about making them uncomfortable just because you disagree.”

I also strongly believe in scientific theories like evolution and the Big Bang. There’s plenty of evidence, and if you read genesis with fresh eyes it’s pretty clear to me it’s highly symbolic, not literal. I can believe God created the universe and that he did so through the Big Bang. I can believe God created humans in his image through the process of evolution.

As I was expanding and changing my worldview, I also realized that I was aroace. I’ve never been interested in dating, I don’t find men good looking at all, and my appreciation for women’s beauty is more similar to how someone would appreciate a painting, not someone they want to date or marry or have sex with.

And I don’t believe it’s a problem for me to stay single either. When I told my mom she immediately told me that the Bible says that singleness is, for many, a gift, and only a different path, not a wrong one.

I often don’t know what God’s intention is, but I do know that Christians are called to be the light of the world. So I will always be kind and loving, because that is how you be a light. I always pray for better understanding of how I should do things, but in the end the most important thing is to be kind.

Sorry if that was rambly, I just wanted to let you know that you aren’t alone in these struggles, and that you can believe different things without being a bad person. Personally, my family doesn’t know that I’m now fairly liberal and that I believe in evolution and the Big Bang and such, but I’m okay with that. If they find out, I’ll tell them more or less what I just said here. Best of luck to you and to anyone else in a similar situation 💛

Thanks for sharing, I’m sure this will be helpful for a lot of people.

[missdrummond]

Album 77 Initial Reactions

*SPOILERS*

????? Of course Renee said no??? She is not a woman of faith she would be a terrible choice for this project????

Like defending someone else's beliefs is the kind of thing I would do for fun but I acknowledge that most people wouldn't want/be good at doing that. Including you Mr. Whittaker. Imagine if one of the kids came up to you and said they needed help on a paper which demonstrates how evolution is compatible with Christianity or that evolution disproves Christianity. You know perfectly well you wouldn't help them.

I don't like this new portrait gallery it's just imagination station and it's lost it's charm.

So, the sciencentist is referring to the beginning of Romans and I'd just like to point out that Paul is talking about Judaism as well as Christianity since they hadn't properly separated at that point.

I like the faith and science are compatible argument. However the claim that Christianity "invented" science is a gross simplification. Yes, Christains founded a lot of old universities. You know who else did? Muslims. Which would actually support the faith and science compatibility argument as well but we're not going to talk about that are we?

Also how does any of this help Camila the assignment was for how faith is BETTER than science. Which is an awful assignment but the AiO world is so strange I'll believe it. I mean I technically don't actually know what goes on in public schools maybe this kind of objectionable nonsense happens all the time. (It doesn't)

This misses the entire point of the portrait gallery.

Huh, didn't know God not being IN the universe was this widespread a doctrine. Cool.

That was actually a nice speech there Mr. Whittaker. *polite applause*

No, Galileo's problem wasn't that he contradicted the Bible (that is also a part of it) it was that he contradicted a specific Church doctrine and metaphor about Jesus. Actually I should fact check myself, I can't remember reading that from a reliable source so I probably just heard it somewhere my apologies to myself if I'm wrong.

Funny if I remember right exiling people is frequently what you did to heretics. Isn't that what happened after the council of Nicea?(Which I know is an unrelated event its just the first exiling I thought of) Renée's point still stands regardless of how well he's been treated.

Are you.... Tousen doing a bad italian accent?

Oh no. This is about evolution again.

Ok they made it subtle. And yeah this story most definitely sounds more like the kind of thing that was happening in this era. Would have been a good opportunity to point out that even pre reformation "the church" wasn't one entity with completely unanimous beliefs because if everyone hated his theory then there wouldn't be controversy really.

No! This wasn't a portrait gallery episode.

I need to read up on Galileo.

Bouns reaction:

First not everyone is here because the Mona Lisa is captivating. But I'm just bitter because I want people to talk about other paintings.

Second you can't destroy the painting then say why do people like it. That's like saying tell me why people like cake but you only get four, eggs, sugar, etc.

Third Renee loves math if she doesn't start going off about the golden rectangle or something I'm going to be sad.

She didn't that's a bummer. Like I know art theories are not full proof methodological tools for making good art, however it would be logical for someone in Renee's position to try and argue that perspective.

Ultimately I give this episode a thumbs up 👍 overall I like that the episode exists.

[theconservativegaychristian]

Rethinking the Marriage and Sexuality Discussion

I had a sudden revelation when I was praying tonight, fueled by a lot of tough conversations I’ve had this week. But I’m so grateful the Lord is pushing me and growing my understanding of these topics.

I believe a big reason (if not the main reason) the debate about same-sex marriage in the church is so much more fraught now is because we as a culture used to believe being gay was a choice. If you believe a person has the choice in their sexuality, then encouraging them to marry someone of the opposite sex so they can have an easier time having reproducing is not a bad thing. Loving Christians could GENUINELY believe in a caring manner that queer people had access to everything their straight counterparts did; a legitimately passionate marriage where one could most likely have biological children if they desired. It is akin to choosing to get married rather than live together unmarried. For most people, that’s a pretty easy choice to maintain the respect of your family and community.

Now that we know that you can NOT change your sexuality or gender identity at will, things are much more complicated. Affirming and non-affirming Christians are realizing that to prohibit same sex marriage would mean forced celibacy (something entirely unbiblical); and consequently, for those who are not specifically called by God to celibacy (which encompasses most queer as well as straight people), a lifetime of this specific form of loneliness, lost and broken dreams, alienation from the life lived by most people around them, consensual feelings of love that must be eternally pushed aside, and an inherent feeling of unworthiness that comes from desiring something that God created (love, marriage, and family), and that produces good fruit, but being taught that to act on it would be a destructive moral abomination.

......

Whew... That’s a lot of potential hurt.

There’s a reason we consider the science and secular morality of this topic IN ORDER TO understand God’s will and the scripture to the best of our ability. Just as we did with slavery. Just as we did with evolution. Just as we did with the societal equality of women. Etc, etc, etc... For some reason, despite the bible speaking literally or overtly almost nothing about queer topics in comparison with these others, conservative Christians (a category I actually identify in) are still choosing this hill to die on. I continually hear, from wonderful well meaning Christians, “Yes but...” “I wish it wasn’t the case but the Bible forbids it.” “I don’t understand why but Jesus says no.” It doesn’t seem logical but God doesn’t allow it.” “I see why allowing marriage is better for gay people but I don’t see theological support for it.” “Rejection and discrimination leads to suicide, but we can’t allow these people to participate equally or people might think being gay is okay.”

Believe it or not, reality and God exist together. God’s works do often seem to contradict logic or our experience, but that is why there is a HUGE amount of sources that need to go into the Christian ethic. The Holy Spirit working in individual Christians and also in their group conscious, tradition, science, scripture, history, language, prayer, revelation, the list goes on. To simplify discernment as coming from just one of these is a huge mistake, because it makes God seem one-dimensional. I fully believe that the gospel of salvation itself is simple enough, but virtually nothing else is to us because we are ALL fallible. We’re doing our best, but our best will never reach the full truth and love of God himself.

Whatever side you fall on, please consider looking at all of these things and the scriptures TOGETHER, and don’t be afraid to just listen to someone who disagrees with you.

Grace and peace.  

[hollowandeceptivephilosophy]

Snippets on Theological Issues Pt. 1

Inspired by the Zondervan Counterpoints Series

Miraculous Gifts

I’m a continuationist, though I only particularly expect to see gifts when the church/individual needs to be doing something radical. The performance of gifts in churches in “holding patterns” is not expected by me. (And to be fair, sometimes churches in a given society need to be in holding patterns, not every church is the church in Corinth).    Church Growth

Generally not a fan. The Social Sciences are generally based on a non-Christian ideology and cannot be adapted by the Church without substantially subverting her message. (Aspects of the social sciences are cool and good, but the underlying presupposition is based upon assuming that the fallen world is the way the world actually is in an ontological sense; this is okay for handling pragmatic or day-to-day matters, but will result in the subversion of the church’s ability to genuinely condemn the world).  On the other hand, churches often use “tradition” as an excuse to not actually answer the questions that people are raising today. This is bad and a violation of the great commissions.  (Loudly answering the wrong questions is about as useless as softly answering (perhaps incorrectly) the right questions).  Apologetics

I think apologetics is useful when it focuses on diffusing particular arguments against Christian Faith, I don’t really think it is useful beyond that.  More particularly, I don’t think evidentialism works as a general model (because evidence is always in relation to given tradition of inquiry, there is no “neutral” evidence), and I don’t think presuppositionalism works either (because while God is in fact necessary for truth, in our intellects he is not, because our intellects cannot comprehend God and thus cannot rely upon him as a fundamental postulate in the way that the presuppositionalists would require; God stands at the end of the process of reasoning, wherein we recognize that the core ideas which we have been using all along only find their true meaning and source in him; but this is the opposite of presuppositional theory). The Reformed Epistemology position is probably the one that I’m closest too; but I don’t think foundationalism in the sense in which they work is terribly useful; our core concepts are inherited from the traditions in which we work, and while we have freedom to improvise within those traditions, we aren’t reliant upon some kind of foundational intuition in the way that the (limited) amount of reformed epistemology I’ve read implies.  (Instead, the sense in which we have a general revelation of God is due to things inherent to anything which could be called a language and linguistically structured desire/sense of self/being-in-the-world; these things guide us towards “general revelation”, not some mysterious intuition. (Though, I entirely confess perhaps that’s what the Reformed Epistemology school has been driving at, in which case I’m quite close to them; and I have enormous respect for them regardless).  Inerrancy

I accept that everything in the Bible is true in some sense, and is binding upon my thought and intellect. I cannot discard any part of the Bible as merely a product of its times, instead I must accept (and to a limit extent, join with) the long effort of my fellow Christians to understand the Bible as the Truth about the Word of God. 

At the level of the text: I accept that the final revisions of the tradition were divinely inspired, and that what they say is normative for Christian faith and practice. While it is not accurate to say God “said” every part of the Bible, he certainly has endorsed every part and said a great deal of it (most of the Prophetic books, most of the Pentateuch etc.) Basically some parts God said, other parts he edited, other parts he published (if we are using the modern publishing process as an analogy).  However, I also believe that what God is saying through the text usually is far more than what the original author was saying, and that there can be substantial tension with what the original author would have understood the text to mean. (But I think that about all texts; the original author and even the original community of interpretation do not necessarily exhaust or finally determine the meaning of a text; though their opinions are quite significant as they are the most fluent speakers of the idiom of a text [under normal circumstances]). However, God still chose this text as God’s text (in way not dissimilar to how he chose this people as God’s people) and therefore one must accept it as chosen by God and not something that can be ignored. So, while there can be tension between God’s intent and the author’s intent, there are limits to the sense in which there can be irreconcilable contradiction between the two.  Law and Gospel

The Law is a form of Gospel, the Gospel is a form of Law. The differences between them are based upon the ontological differences inaugurated by Christ’s Life/Death/Resurrection, and the resulting epistemological differences. 

(The Law kills only because the Law faces sin qua unredeemable and has to fight against it as an enemy; a contradiction only overcome by Christ who in being God could make those naturally enemies friends and children once more. But this is an ontological change, not merely an ethical or “conceptual” one).  The differences between the ethical norms of “the Law” and the ethical norms of “the Gospel” are grounded in this ontological difference. (And thus, some precepts of the Old Testament do not apply to Christians, or at least are not necessary for Gentile Christians). 

I also accept that the Church has the power to generate law, albeit the law that the Church generates is contingent and prudential, not necessarily true in all cases. (as all laws are)

The Law of the Church, to be legitimate, must also be grounded in the revelation of Christ and the new order of being he inaugurated. 

Sanctification

I have a sufficiently sacramental theory of redemption that most of the sanctification debates don’t really interest me.  I don’t really believe in a second work of the Holy Spirit (Other than, maybe Confirmation), I do believe that in every individual case of sin mature Christians can resist; but factually speaking due to corruptions of will or intellect patterns of sin tend to persist throughout the Christian life. (But I also believe in purgatory, so... I think everyone does get sanctified before heaven). 

Christian Spirituality

I don’t really understand what this means, but insofar as I do understand... I think each major doctrinal loci properly speaking is a source of deep existential satisfaction, along with the scriptures and the Church (understood to encompass both the living and the dead).  Both excessive individualism and excessive communalism will result in a failure to continue to seek God through Christ Jesus as the Center though, as all of these things only have coherence in that (and through our baptism).  Divine Providence

God’s causal activity is not in competition with creatures, and is ontologically an entirely different sort of thing. (So God “divinely” causing things never precludes a creature “creaturely” causing them). (See Tanner and Aquinas) [God of course can use divine causation to, in one way or another, cause things in a creaturely sense, such events are what we usually call miracles. But this is not God’s typical mode of causal relation to things].  Thus while God causes everything that occurs, that tells us very little about how God governs the world.  Otherwise I broadly accept a Molinist view: God chooses this world among other worlds he could have chosen to create. Since creating a world is, for God, a non-temporal event, he knows all that will happen in this world, but the things that happen are co-determined by the internal logic of this world (and indeed, God could not have created *this* world without creating *this* world with *this* internal logic). 

Eternal Security

I don’t really believe in this, other than in the sense that God’s creation of the world includes the creation of all who will be saved. However, individual persons accept and reject God’s grace, and thereby accept or reject salvation that is available to them; and their position can change over time.

The Problem of Canaan

The major problems in this text are resolved by recognizing that the reformulation in “genocidal” or “holy war” language is a polemical response to Assyrian theories of religious war, and is meant to indicate that God fights powerfully for his people as well.  The earlier layer of stories which the later author is adapting include elements which make it reasonably obvious imo (Such as Rahab, Gibeon, etc). that the actual conquest was not genocidal [and indeed, historically speaking probably resulted in the assimilation of many rural Canaanites as new tribes of Israel]. There is still some tensions (after all, God definitely endorses a war of conquest even if it was not historically genocidal, and is reformulated in more absolute terms later, and is apparently consenting to being used in what is functionally state propaganda.) But I do think that this is inherent to choosing to become a God to a particular people who exist in a particular place and time.  

(So I guess my view is a mixture of: the events didn’t happen in this way, and the primary point is not ‘God wants you to kill Canaanites” but rather “God has destroyed powerful enemies utterly in the past, much like these empires claim they can do; he can give us triumph over Assyria”. And then of course there are the spiritual and Christological readings which add even more depth.) 

[pastor-dj]

Modern Science and Modern Evangelical Christianity: Strange Bedfellows

Many bloggers and media pundits seem to suggest that “science” and “religion” (and by “religion” they usually mean Christianity) are opposite forces that are at complete odds with each other. Well-known celebrity science advocate Bill Nye’s new TV show is all about promoting science and “defending” it from the “anti-scientific claims of religious leader.”  As a Christian myself, not only do I believe that there is no contradiction between scientific fact and Biblical truth (as opposed to scientific theory vs. speculations about Scripture), I also believe that the quest for truth – whether through scientific exploration or theological study and reflection – is always something God delights in. All truth is God’s truth, and both 2+2=4 AND John 3:16 are equally valid, even if the methods for discovering the truth are different.  But I find it fascinating that there are two big issues in which both scientists and evangelical Christians seem to be stuck together in the same boat.

The first is this: (1) who speaks for either group? The Roman Catholic Church has a big advantage over the rest of the Christian family, as they have the Pope who is the only one authorized to speak on matters of theology, doctrine or practice. But for evangelical Protestants, who speaks for them? Pat Robertson? Franklin Graham? Joel Osteen? Rick Warren? Paula White?  All of them are people the media will go to for a quote. But while there is a broad consensus among Christians on the main issues of the faith (salvation, Lordship of Christ, etc.), when it comes to secondary issues (baptism, interpretation of Revelation, speaking in tongues, etc.) or hot-button political/social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, there are many different answers you might get to these questions.  No one person speaks for all Protestant evangelical Christians. And when the media reports that Christians disagree on some things, it leads a lot of people to believe that Christians don’t agree on ANYTHING.  Now, if you can get past the profanity, crude sex jokes and unrelated tangents, watch John Oliver’s show from last season on “Scientific Studies” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw) and you see the same dynamic at play. Every week, there is a report in the media on a new “scientific study” about a food or some product that will either (a) give you cancer, (b) prevent cancer (c) help you lose weight, (d) make you fat, or (e) any combination thereof.  It’s no wonder, as Oliver notes, that so many people distrust “science” when it all seems so contradictory. At one point, he angrily berates Al Roker for suggesting that people “just pick the scientific study that works for you” (in all fairness, Roker probably said it in jest) by shouting: “No! In science, you don’t get to cherry pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway!” That’s what religion does!” And he’s right! – or at least, he’s right about how many humans approach religion (i.e., cherry picking the parts of the Bible that they already agree with while ignoring the others). So, if science is not this big monolith, with all scientist moving in lockstep, who “speaks for science”?  Well, just like evangelical Christianity, people like Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and others are jockeying for position, trying to get the most media face time, and hoping to be the official spokesman. But, both sides are facing an uphill battle.

           The second issue that both groups are facing is this: (2) when either science or Christianity gets in bed with politics, the search for truth becomes secondary.  Politics is all about, as Charlie Sheen used to say, WINNING. It’s all about your side winning the debate, shouting down your opponent, and making your side look good and the other side look bad. And that unfortunately is what both evangelical Christians and scientists have been doing for the last several decades. Early on in the history of the Church, Christianity was outlawed by the Roman Empire but despite its suppression, it grew exponentially even though the followers of Jesus risked their lives by doing so. But then, the emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the state, and overnight, Christians went from persecuted to favored status. Suddenly, Christian leaders and teachers were members of the emperor's court, and got caught up in palace intrigue and king-making instead of sharing their faith --  something we've struggled with in many Western countries ever since. So many evangelical Christians give their blind allegiance to either the Democrat or Republican parties hoping that the trade-off will be more power and prestige (regardless of whether or not the party fully espouses Christian virtues). And in the same way, many scientists have aligned themselves with political movements and given them their full allegiance without taking into consideration other studies and other potential conflicting data. Many scientists, having been goaded into support global warming as a political issue rather than as a scientific inquiry, are now so fully immersed in their political position that they won't stop to consider any conflicting data (as we saw from the “Climategate” scandal several years ago). Rather than searching for scientific truth and trying to educate the public about the dangers of damaging the earth’s ozone layer, instead it's all about proving that “Al Gore was right and his Republican opponents were wrong!” and shouting “DENIER!” at anyone who questions them. But when you try to ask these scientists “what can we do help stop global warming?” it's like they don't care about what we can do to fix it. All they seem to care about is being right and winning the debate.

           Personally, I don’t know if the scientific data available has convinced me that every time there is a record high temperature somewhere in the world it is the result of man-made global warming as opposed to circular weather patterns. But, I also don't need for the former to ultimately be true for me to be convinced that pumping lots of fluorocarbons into the atmosphere is bad and it's going to wreak havoc on the environment. I also don't know if I believe that either the Democrat or Republican Party is “more Christian” than the other and deserves our full allegiance. But, I believe that even if we don't choose sides, we could still work together to make a huge difference in this world. It would be great if both scientists and evangelicals could put down their guns and knives and poison pixels on the internet and start listening to one another and working together the solve some of the bigger problems in this world. Because when it comes down to it, we are both pursuers of Truth.

[skeptic42]

Reason - A Misnomer

BLUF: Earthquakes are just pent up teenage rage.

While searching for Michael Shermer’s Reason to Believe, I came across, Reason to Believe, a creationist apologetic site (and probably more).  Of course the web address is “reason.org.”  (Hence, a misnomer)

So, I started poking around.  The author of the article “Addressing Skeptical Challenges, Part 1,” was in a debate with a skeptic.

Now let’s watch the tactics unfold.

“The skeptic viewed belief in God as nonsense in light of the problem of evil...”

This is the skeptics summarized objection.

You say that the creation, reflecting the rational nature of the Creator, was therefore orderly and uniform and that humankind was created in God’s image. If this is so, how do you explain events like natural disasters that cause mass destruction, millions of deaths, and indiscernible suffering throughout the entire history of the world? If this is orderly and uniform, what do you think would be disorderly?

Looking up the Problem of Evil (PoE) from a difference source (WP), as put forth by Epicurus in ancient Greece.

If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.

There is evil in the world.

Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

Further:

God exists.

God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.

An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.

An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.

A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.

Evil exists (logical contradiction).

So, we can see that it’s only a portion of the argument.  Evil in "the problem of evil” is defined not just men’s cruel acts, but also natural evils (disasters) - I’m not a fan of referring to natural disasters as evil, but it still works  (I’ll explain later*).  But the summarizing actually includes some bits about the order of nature.  I’m not sure why anyone would conflate the two, and I don’t have access to the debate itself.

But...

The author, Kenneth R Samples, starts with the orderliness and uniformity of natural laws as being derived from god.  I do agree that natural phenomena (disasters) do follow these laws.  (I would never use disasters are disorder in nature.)  And that this does “wreck havoc on Earth and humankind.”

This doesn’t address the PoE.  It’s a dodge.

“If God does not exist and the universe is merely the product of blind, natural processes, then there is no true evil in the world.  There is only matter in motion (so to speak) that helps some and hurts others.”

This pulls the response further away from address PoE.  Natural disasters are now just events (I agree), but doesn’t address PoE, so it’s not an actual response to PoE.

Then then moves on to 

“On atheism, the unfolding of purely natural and accidental events does not carry moral objectivity.”

Which is also true.

“But since the skeptic is obviously and rightly troubled by the suffering natural disasters cause, he seems to appeal—even without consciously knowing it—to an ultimate standard of goodness that transcends the physical world.”

Now the argument has been twisted into a morality issue.  If disasters carry no moral objectivity, and disasters cause suffering, therefore suffering is measured against goodness.

“Evil can exist only if there is a standard of goodness from which it transgresses.”

So, he’s turned the suffering of natural disasters into a morality issue and therefore “evil,” watch where he goes with this...  two places

1

“The existence of evil, therefore, far from disproving God, can be marshaled as an argument in favor of the existence of God as the standard of goodness.“

Whoa!   We’ve gone from evil disproving god to favoring god.  What’s more, as the standard of goodness.  This is a massive assumption.  A leap of faith.  Not really, it’s a break in reason.  (Hence, a misnomer.)  It a false dichotomy.  It also goes looks like this:

Natural disasters happen for no moral reason

Natural disasters cause suffering, suffering is a moral issue

Therefore god exists.

Samples then goes on to elucidate natural disasters:

“... natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis are not all bad.“

As long as no one suffers.

“For example, these extraordinarily powerful events provide positive impacts on the earth’s environment.2 Natural disasters carry both negative and positive aspects. They involve trade-offs.”

He doesn’t give examples, but he does site a source - reason.org.  That’s right, he cites his own colleagues.  They don’t actually provide “positive aspects” of natural disasters, only that they occur.  I will agree that natural forces are at work throughout the universe.  They are only disasters when human suffering is involved.  (An avalanche hits a resort full of people, disaster - an avalanche slides down the side of a mountain, natural process.)  They have no moral agency or reason for happening, they are effects of natural causes.  While cause and reason are synonymous, I am using different definitions.  The difference is causes means process and reason means purpose.

The only “positive” link cites is (again reason.org) “ The high level of tectonic activity on our planet makes life possible,“ which leads nowhere.  (I didn’t check the Internet Archive.)  I suspect plate tectonics is only one piece of the puzzle to the rise of life on earth, but it does make me wonder, why would god need earthquakes to create humans.  Just a bit of dust will do.

2

And now where onto two.

Samples then actually blames mankind for natural disasters, as does Fazale Rana in the summary of his video response to Seth Andrews video Intelligent Design.  Mankind causes natural disasters.  Did you know we had that much power?  Really!  You might think the shaking is from Fracking, but it’s our ability to kill, steal, take god’s name in vain, covet our neighbor’s wife’s ass, and working on the Sabbath.  But it’s not just us, let’s not forget children dishonoring their parents.  Earthquakes are really just pent up teenage rage.

And do you know why we have so much power?

The bible tells me so.

“Scripture confirms that nature can indeed at times be inhospitable to humans (see Genesis 3:17–19).”

Gen 3:17: Cursed is the ground because of you;

Why?

“Because you listened to your wife”

Ladies, this is why we don’t listen to you.  Okay, that and ESPN.

Nevermind the rest of Gen 3:17-19, it says something about having to farm for the rest of our lives, and doesn’t actually have anything to do with what god meant by the ground being cursed because of man.  Well, Eve really.

Seriously, that’s why we don’t listen to our wives.

Samples then poses a couple of questions:

“How can a world that is the product of blind, nonpurposeful processes account for and justify the crucial conditions that make the scientific enterprise even possible?”

“How does naturalism justify the inductive method, assumptions about the uniformity of nature, and the existence of abstract, nonempirical entities such as numbers, propositions, and the laws of logic if the world is the product of a mindless accident?”3″

(#3 is Samples citing himself)

Answer 1: Read up on science.  Science is possible because mankind developed it as a way of studying nature.  Read Chapter 6 of How to Think About Weird Things.

Now, if you’re asking “How can a world that is the product of blind, non-purposeful processes account for life?”, that’s a different question.  Again, there is a lot of science out there, read it.  We don’t know everything, but the god of the gaps is not the answer.  Invoking god is an argument from ignorance.

Answer 2: Again, I will refer you to How to Think About Weird Things.   The inductive method starts with many observations of nature, with the goal of finding a few, powerful statements about how nature works (laws and theories).

Abstract non-empirical entities such as numbers, propositions and the laws of logic.  These are human products.  Numbers were created to count objects, the number itself is an agreed upon abstraction.  But whether you want to give the number as three, drei, tres, tre, trois, there are still three objects.  

Now accident is a rather broad term.  Mishap?  I don’t think life is a mishap, though our last presidential election could serve as evidence otherwise.  An event that takes place without one’s foresight?  Sure.  Why not?  The laws of the universe are such that things can (and have) turned out the way they are.  Christians look to the odds of a singe event happening and declare that they are impossible.  And certainly, any one single instance is astronomically improbably.  But there is the law of large numbers.  Look at it like the lottery.  The odds of you winning are extremely slim.  The odds of someone winning are pretty damn good.  And while someone might not win this lottery, it would be astronomically improbable that no one would ever win a lottery again.

Now, if you want to fully address the PoE, I welcome a response.

I have some questions of my own.

If god exists and is angry at the US for allowing gay marriage, then why does god then send hurricanes and tornadoes into the bible belt?

If god exists, why does he stand by while people suffer?

* I have never been a fan of describing natural disasters as “evil.”  To me evil implies cruel intent.  But in the instance of the PoE, it works, and makes sense.  If god exists and has the power to stop suffering (in the case of natural disasters) then to withhold that power and prevent suffering is to allow it.  How would you feel if the fire department stood by and let a building full of trapped people burn down without doing anything?  You’d call that evil (amongst other things).  You’d be outraged.  That’s what god is doing.  Watching while people suffer.  That is why natural evil works on the PoE.  And it’s only part of the argument; Samples ignores the rest.  

[confrontingbabble-on]

“Some of the world’s largest religions emerged during the Iron Age, and the rules in their sacred texts likely helped families and communities (or at least some subset) to thrive under Iron Age conditions. Today, we live under very different conditions. We know things our ancestors didn’t. We hold powers and face challenges they could not have imagined.

Here are a few of the moral mandates from the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) that some people still practice on religious grounds but that a growing number of others consider morally dubious given our current circumstances and knowledge.

Hitting children—The Hebrew Bible instructs parents to beat their children, most explicitly in Proverbs 23: “Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish them with the rod, they will not die. Punish them with the rod and save them from death.” Traditional Muslim teachings exhort parents to beat boys if they don’t pray regularly by the age of seven.

Research in psychology contradicts this advice, pointing to few if any developmental benefits and an increased risk of aggression in children who are hit. Parenting experts suggest better means of raising children and managing misbehavior. Even religious leaders who may feel obliged to approve spanking because it is endorsed in their sacred texts (some of whom fiercely defend the god-given right of parents to hit their kids) now tend to send mixed messages and encourage other forms of discipline first.

Teaching children to rely on faith— Religions often treat faith or even religious certitude as a virtue. In fact, in Protestant Christianity it is the ultimate virtue, the one that sends people to heaven or hell. Believe and be saved, says the Christian New Testament, and one of the tenets of the Reformation was sola fide—by faith alone. Defenders of Christianity may marshal logic or evidence to support belief, but when backed into a corner, many default to I just know—and they teach children to do the same.

By contrast, modern cognitive science recognizes the sense of knowing as a feeling state that can be triggered under a wide variety of circumstances, not all of which have a basis in reality. Advocates for secularism argue that faith, by definition, means committing to a set of beliefs that are poorly grounded—or even contradict the best available evidence. We humans are prone to confirmation bias, for example, or self-serving “motivated” reasoning.

In belief-based religions like Christianity and Islam, doubt is seen as a sign of weakness or a moral failing, a sin. But knowing what we now know about human cognition, faith increasingly looks like a bad epistemology, a not-very-effective way of sifting what is real from what is not. By contrast, the scientific method has been called “What we know about how not to fool ourselves,” because it forces us to ask the questions that could show us wrong. Unlike faith in received dogma, the scientific method promotes a growth mindset. This is one reason that a growing number of people see religious indoctrination of children as an abuse of trust.

Restrictions on women’s movement and attire – Religious modesty and virginity rules for women emerged when a person’s place in society depended on paternal lineage. Women and men had no way of managing their fertility other than abstinence; and mama’s baby, papa’s maybe could create social havoc. Societies had a strong investment in controlling female fertility.

Modernity values people based on who they are, not on their lineage; and women now have reliable means to manage their fertility. Our life course need not be defined by the form of our genitalia. But male ownership of girls and women is so foundational in the Abrahamic traditions that conservative believers often find themselves most comfortable with gender hierarchy. Conservative Christians promote “male headship”—a version of separate-but-equal; conservative Muslims rationalize veiling—which (though it can mean different things to different believers) is rooted in male ownership of female sexuality; Orthodox Jews demand that women shave their heads and ride on separate sides of the bus.

Fortunately, although religions may slow cultural evolution, they rarely succeed in stopping it altogether. Even within conservative religious communities, leaders often claim that restrictive practices elevate women and offer them genuine equality. Their thinking may be Orwellian, but it is a far cry from that of the men who wrote the sacred texts, for whom male dominance and control of females was simply a given.

Pronatalism – “Be fruitful and multiply,” God tells man in the book of Genesis. Throughout the Bible, sons are seen as signs of God’s favor, the more the better. In the Christian New Testament book of 1 Timothy, readers are told that women, who brought sin into the world, will be saved by childbearing (2:15). The Roman Catholic Church, when it emerged, promoted a high birthrate—not among priests, which would have been a drain on church assets—but among lay practitioners, which added to the ranks of the faithful.

Today some devout Catholics and quiver-full Protestants (along with ultra-orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Muslims) still see bearing many children as a form of righteous submission to God’s will. They eschew family planning, taking a “let go and let God” approach to birth control. But as world population approaches eight billion, putting increasing pressure on natural resources and other species, many people now view large families the same way they might view gluttony. Most, including most religious believers, think it is more moral to take excellent care of a few children than to produce as many as possible.

Proselytizing mandates – Christianity tells believers to “make disciples of every creature,” and over the centuries Christians have sent missionaries to the far reaches of the planet, some willing to kill or die in order to win a “harvest” of converts. They have been celebrated as saints and martyrs, or in modern times as altruistic heroes. But many people now see cross-cultural proselytizing as a form of imperialism that disrespects the complexity of indigenous and foreign cultures.

To make matters more morally dubious, missionaries often leverage their superior access to information and wealth—enticing conversion by bundling evangelism with desperately-needed food, medical care, education or crisis services. To a missionary who sees the threat of hell as the ultimate risk and the promise of heaven as the ultimate good, the ends may justify the means; but outsiders see exploitation of power differentials, which most ethical codes discourage. Some countries now limit or constrain missionary activities to protect vulnerable communities and people.

Kosher slaughter rules – In the Torah, God commands that animals be slaughtered according to religious rules, and over time Jewish scholars fleshed these out. The animal is to have its throat slit with a very sharp knife that has no defects. It must be conscious at the time of the cut and must die from blood loss. These rules may have originally had health value for humans or animal welfare value for livestock, but with the availability of modern stunning, they have become controversial. Stunning animals immediately before slaughter can reduce suffering. Many Muslims think that Halal slaughter rules similarly prohibit stunning, but there is disagreement among Muslim scholars about this. Some animal welfare watchdog groups in Europe and the U.S. have advocated the banning of Kosher and Halal slaughter, while others are working to improve the practices in ways that reduce fear or suffering before and during slaughter.

Capital punishment – The human history of killing offenders goes back almost to the beginnings of written history. Death by axe, death by being thrown into a quagmire, death by beheading (which is where we get the term capital punishment), by boiling, by stoning . . . Over the millennia, all manner of death has been meted out for all manner of offences. The Hebrew Bible prescribes death for almost 30 transgressions ranging from murder and kidnapping to blasphemy and sassing, and the Quran is similarly enthusiastic about execution. (You can compare both texts here, or find out here if you deserve death according to the Bible.) Building on the Abrahamic tradition of blood atonement, the central premise of New Testament Christianity is structured around the idea that punishment by death can set things right.

For two hundred years, opponents of the death penalty have worked to reduce the number of capital offenses and the cruelty of execution methods or to advance philosophical and practical reasons for abolishing state-sanctioned killing altogether. Some of this opposition has been lead by devoutly religious people, and it has shifted thinking in a wide variety of cultures. Over 100 countries have abolished the death penalty.

Intolerance of other religions – In order to recruit and retain members, religions often make exclusive truth claims and promise exclusive rewards. Many also threaten those who fail to join or who choose to leave with punishments in this life or the next. Islam’s prescription of death for apostates is just an extreme version of this broader dynamic.

Inquisitions and holy wars have been seen by past generations as righteous because they compelled people to live according to the one right law. Even short of bloodshed, religious teachings can be profoundly divisive. Calvinist Christianity teaches that human beings are “utterly depraved” and can be redeemed only by accepting the crucifixion of Jesus as a personally-transforming gift. Believers learn to mistrust others, who by definition lack any basis for morality.

But this one-way mentality doesn’t seem as righteous to many as it once did. Today, when faith is compelled through holy war and purges—as under the Taliban or ISIS–most people are morally appalled, and people increasingly see religious tolerance as a virtue rather than the vice our ancestors believed it to be.

– – – – –

Some people believe that the moral rules handed down by our ancestors came from a supernatural deity and should not be questioned or changed. The gods know best, and even if their rules may not entirely make sense, ours is not to question why. In the Evangelical community where I grew up, people sometimes tried to find practical explanations for biblical rules. But when that failed, “because the Bible says so” was reason enough.

By contrast, secular ethics teach that the timeless part of morality is not the rules themselves, nor the authority of the rule-giver, but rather an underlying principle. Morality, in this view, seeks to promote the wellbeing of sentient beings, especially human beings but also other animals. Actions that reduce suffering and harm or increase wellbeing are moral. To maximize wellbeing, rules have to change, because what promotes thriving in one situation may cause harm in another...”

https://valerietarico.com/2018/07/22/when-religious-teachings-become-immoral/

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington.

[deludeddragon-blog]

I’m gay.

I guess I’m a little behind on this self discovery.

I grew up without having an identity or even knowing that identities exist. What was I supposed to do? I had a severe case of Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD). I hated myself, my hair, my clothes, my body, my voice, my anxiety attacks, my personality. I hated everything about myself. I think other people did too, at least, that’s how it felt being teased and bullied by my school mates.

It took marrying an abusive man at the age of 22 for me to finally find myself. I nearly killed myself, and it wasn’t fun, but I finally began to understand that I had an identity somewhere buried deep within me, and all I needed to do was dig it up. We were married for one and a half years. It was pure misery. I caved, I crumbled, and then I ran.

I ended up living in my car and from couch to couch for a while. It was kind of fun, like being a gypsy or something (a really, really hopeless gypsy). That time in my life gave me the courage and space that I needed to figure out who I am as a person.

I’m going to share what I discovered..

1. I’m antisocial.

Oh, so antisocial. It’s rather embarrassing exactly how antisocial I am. Talking to people... it’s so difficult. Smiling? But not actually feeling it? That’s what you’re supposed to do all day? Let’s not make ourselves miserable.

But, on the same token, I really feel lonely sometimes. I have my closest, dearest friend, and a couple of not-quite-as-close-as-him-but-still-past-my-outer-shell friends. They all live hours away from me, so we really only talk over technology, which is okay, I guess.

I’ve learned that I’m just not really into being a perfect butterfly that smiles and greets and hugs and smothers, and that’s okay. I’m perfectly okay with me.

2. I’m androgynous.

This is really the most major discovery that I’ve had. I was raised in a modest, strict household that taught religion as a way to force you to dress a certain way. The gender role game was strong. So strong that I had anxiety if I was seen talking to a guy at all (JUDGMENT EVERYWHERE). However, I always liked and felt so much more comfortable hanging around guys. I got super nervous around other girls and I would absolutely freak out (I did try to hide this). I think I partly just hated drama, but I really felt so at home with the bros.

I love dressing androgynously. I love beanies, men’s clothes, and feeling comfortable for once in what I’m wearing. I know it may sound stupid, but my confidence goes down the drain when I’m trapped in some ugly, girly outfit that I struggled to put together. I hate skirts, I hate dresses, I hate having no pockets, and I hate having long, stringy hair that I don’t want to fix because PIXIE CUT. Boyish charm all the way!

3. I’m rebellious.

It took forever for me to admit this, but after taking the DISC personality test and scoring 42 points in Dominant (almost half the pie!), I finally accepted that I hate sharing, I hate teamwork, and I hate when I can’t express myself without having to ask permission. I’m all about being kind to people, but I am so over being a doormat that everyone else can walk on just so I can come across as meek and gentle. I’m a freaking strong-ass stallion spirit. There’s nothing wrong with me.

It was one experience in particular that I had that made me HATE gender roles. My ex-husband had me with him at a store one day, and we ran into a fellow believer (in the strict lifestyle religious thing I mentioned). The guy literally did not look at me at all while he greeted my ex. My ex and he just stood and had this conversation as though I was invisible. Finally, my ex decided to acknowledge my existence. At this time, I was highly annoyed and insulted that the fact that I had no dick between my legs meant it was somehow inappropriate for the other guy to even introduce himself. I was literally an accessory on my ex’s arm, and no, I’m NOT okay with that.

I’m also not okay with being met with disrespect and demand from another man just because he thinks he is superior to me. I’ve had this happen a lot, and although I totally respect a person’s authority role when it is necessary, no one is going to come up to me and chew me out for having my own brain.

4. I’m gray-ace and bi-romantic, or perhaps just bisexual.

My failed marriage partly consisted of a lot of discomfort to doing “the deed.” I felt like a rape victim the majority of the time. It took a lot for me to finally realize that I’m just... not normal.

I was raised not to even look at a guy in a sexual manner, as our beliefs were that sex is for (traditional) marriage, and if you even secretly lust after someone, you’re sinning (wanting someone is equivalent to getting in bed with them). Basically, dating was a courtship (a highly controlled courtship that everyone had a say in regarding if it was the right fit for you). If I couldn’t even look at a guy, you can believe I was DEFINITELY not going to be looking at a girl. I didn’t even know how sex worked until I was married (at 22 years old). And yes, I was a virgin until marriage.

I guess you can say, I highly admire women. I really like men for companionship and friendship, but I really think women are very attractive not only physically, but in a lot of other ways. I find myself attracted to both men and women sometimes.

I actually have a boyfriend now, someone who I grew up with who shares my background and experiences. We are BFF’s from childhood and are inseparable. I am happy, he is happy. I hope we stay this way forever. I’m just glad to know my gender identity.

5. I am not good at commitment.

Don’t be scared, I don’t mean that I’m some sort of cheating type. I’m not against open relationships when consensual, but no, I’m not into the whole douche-bag mentality where you’re just freaking unfaithful. I’m actually quite noble when it comes to relationships. I believe that when you love someone, you don’t betray them. That’s why you shouldn’t be with someone you don’t love.

However, I’ve always been super freaking scared of commitment. The fact that I’ve been married once is actually shocking to me looking back on it. I’m a lot like Polly Prince from Along Came Polly, I’ll just say. Maybe not that bad, but you get the idea.

So, if I commit to you somehow, you better know you’re super important to me. I’m not going to just give a chunk of my heart to anyone, and I will protect you and care for you with all of my ability.

For me, I don’t see this quality as a bad thing any more, like I’m broken. I just see that I don’t play around. And that’s okay.

6. I’m agnostic-atheist-bordering-Buddhist.

No, I’m definitely not a Christian, although I was heftily raised to be one. At least, in their eyes. The rest of Christians actually consider my people to be heretics. (Long story.)

Do I believe in the Biblical, Christian God? No. Why? Because the Bible contradicts itself and I have concluded that it is invalid. Some of the teachings in it are morally okay, and I don’t have a problem with other Christians (as long as they mind their business and show love), but overall, I just can’t take it seriously any more.

At the same time, I don’t know if there’s some sort of higher power out there. I’ll probably never know. Why? Because it can’t be proven or disproved. I just choose to spend my mental energy admiring science and doing other things besides trying to call fire down from heaven.

I love Buddhism and its teachings. I even think the concept of reincarnation sounds perfectly reasonable. I like to read and follow a lot of the teachings, and I find comfort in the possibility that every person gets tons of chances to live their best life and grow by reincarnating into someone new.

Hey, I don’t have to know everything, and I’m finally at peace with that.

7. My interests consist of fantasy MMORPG’s, anime binge watching, androgynous fashion, nature, and healthy living.

I’m not a fanatic in anything, really, but I do have strong interests in these areas.

I was always afraid to have a hobby before because I was raised to be consumed by religion and religious activities instead of “wasting my life” doing things I actually enjoy. It feels really good to have control over what I spend my time doing.

I guess that sums things up. I know it looks like I’m pretty much bashing my past religion, but I remain friends with many of them to this day, and I do respect their decision to live the way they want to. My Tumblr is a way for me to get this off my chest without repercussions. It’s hard when everyone you love is holding on to the lifestyle you left. No one really understands how you feel or why you have changed things about the way you live.

That part of my life sculpted my identity almost by itself, so I acknowledge it, just like I acknowledge the people who have come and gone in my life. It’s a part of who I am, and once again, I’m okay with that.

[aion-rsa]

How Star Trek: Next Generation’s “The Chase” Changed Canon Forever

https://ift.tt/3eRzqpi

What do space heists and archaeology have in common? The answer is one of the most important and bizarrely under-appreciated episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation: Season 6 banger, “The Chase.” Written by future Battlestar Galactica showrunner Ronald D. Moore and Joe Menosky, and directed by Jonathan Frakes, “The Chase” is a perfect example of a late-era TNG episode insofar as the characters all feel super-cozy, and the story has a subtle intensity without resorting to a ton of explosions or violence. At the same time, “The Chase” also offered a Watsonian answer to a question with a seemingly very obvious Doyle-ist answer: Why do Star Trek aliens look the way they do? In “The Chase,” we learn all about the rules of Trek aliens, and along the way, the TNG lore is expanded in other big ways, too.

“The Chase” aired on April 26, 1993, and as such, exists in the interesting time when TNG and DS9 were airing new episodes simultaneously. DS9 had already expanded the canon of Trek by permanently parking itself in the histories of both the Bajorians and the Cardassians, but in doing so, DS9 had also brought another Star Trek plot element back into vogue in a big way: The ancient space mystery! These kinds of stories usually focus on a long-dead alien species that had a profound impact on history and influenced everyone’s basic perception of why things are the way they are. In a sense, the entire first season of Star Trek: Picard falls into this story phylum. In the 1993 DS9 pilot, “The Emissary” — which aired just six months before “The Chase” —  we learn the ancient gods of Bajor, the Prophets, are really timeless aliens from another plane of existence. This kind of idea is nearly as old as science fiction itself, but prior to DS9, Star Trek did this all the time. The notion of ancient and influentially alien races pops up in TOS a lot, including references to “the Old Ones,” in “What Are Little Girls Made Of?” and “Catspaw.” There’s also Sargon’s race of energy beings from “Return to Tomorrow,” who low-key take credit for the existence of humanoids. This idea also pops up with “the Preservers” in the episode “The Paradise Syndrome.” Before “The Chase,” TNG had a few episodes like this, too, including “The Last Outpost,” and pivotally, the Season 2 episode “Contagion,” the first time we learn that Picard had previously considered a career in archeology before staying on the career path that led to starship captain.

The notion that Picard has an Indiana Jones-esque tendency embedded in his personality is one of the smarter layers in his character. I love Kirk, but, other than horseback riding and mountain climbing, his hobbies are comparatively kind of generic throughout TOS and the films. (Sulu has more unique hobbies!) One of the reasons the character of Picard is so easy for people to embrace is his multifaceted love of all sorts of stuff that doesn’t have much to do with exploring space. In “The Chase,” we get a character-development metaphor that illustrates this is the ancient artifact called the Kurlan naiskos, a statue with little statues inside of it, representing as Picard says, “the many voices inside the one.” The storytelling lesson? Cool characters work better when there’s contradictory stuff inside of them.

It’s also helpful when those “many voices” can create cool stories. In High Fidelity, John Cusak’s Rob Gordon explains character development like this: “What really matters is what you like, not what you are like… Books, records, films �� these things matter!” With Picard, the vastly different interests that feel divergent from his Starfleet persona — hard-boiled noir novels, archaeology — help round him out in a way that you can imagine him as a real person, existing beyond the confines of the TV show. But, prior to “The Chase,” the archaeology thing hadn’t really been explored in any real way. It’s almost like in the final two seasons of TNG, the writers remembered Picard has a cool intellectual superpower called “archaeology.”

After “The Chase,” we get a Season 7 two-parter called “Gambit,” in which Picard goes undercover using his former archeology professor’s name, Galen, to track down—you guessed it—ancient pieces of an alien artifact that could have untold power! The interstellar adventures of Galen Jones never really took off as a TNG spin-off, but again, if you squint, aspects of Star Trek: Picard don’t feel that far off from “The Chase” or “Gambit.” (As post-” Unification” stories, these episodes also double-down on the idea that Picard is personally invested in the history of Romulus and also making peace with the Romulans in general. Thanks, Spock!)

But. The reason why “The Chase” is so important to Star Trek canon isn’t just connected to the ongoing character development of Jean-Luc Picard. Picard’s personal stakes in unlocking an ancient archeology mystery help make the episode move, but the larger revelation of what is going on is slightly cooler. There’s a scene where Picard is describing the four billion-year-old genetic mystery and the camera slowly zooms in on him, really letting you know that this shit is about to get real. It goes like this:

“It’s four billion years old. A computer program from a highly advanced civilization, and it’s hidden in the very fabric of life itself. [SLOW JONATHAN FRAKES ZOOM LENS BEGINS, OMINIOUSLY.] Whatever information this program contains could be the most profound discovery of our time. Or the most dangerous.”

The culmination of “The Chase” is all about various governments trying to unlock the secrets of the genetic computer program to figure out its secrets. This is the Raiders of the Lost Ark stuff. The Klingons think it’s a giant weapon. The Cardassians think it’s an unlimited power supply. Belloq thinks it’s a radio for talking to God, even though nobody invited him. Even the Romulans are in on it, wanting to obtain this four billion-year-old puzzle for themselves. In the end, the big revelation is that all the “humanoid” bipedal species we’ve seen throughout Star Trek were created intentionally by an even more ancient set of humanoids. This tap-dance with real science doesn’t contradict evolution per se, but in the ancient message the ancient humanoid woman says: “Our scientists seeded the primordial oceans of many worlds, where life was in its infancy. The seed codes directed your evolution toward a physical form resembling ours.”

Read more

TV

Star Trek Villains Who Actually Had a Point

By Ryan Britt

TV

Why Star Trek Needs More Characters Like Captain Lorca

By Lacy Baugher

So, the TLDR is that in the Trek universe, we evolved naturally, but only because we were given a push. This is as close the Trek canon will come to the notion of panspermia, the real-life theory that organic life could have been intentionally seeded on Earth. But, Trek alum Ronald D. Moore would revisit this idea in a big way in his famous reboot of Battlestar Galactica. This has all happened before and it will all happen again… sometimes, in a different franchise.

So what’s the big deal with the revelation that all the humanoid alien species share a common ancestor? Well, the knee-jerk answer is that this episode provided bandaid on the slightly unrealistic notion that most aliens in Star Trek just like humans with different foreheads or wrinkled noses or funny ears. And that’s true, “The Chase” does provide a Watsonian answer for why the Star Trek universe looks the way it does, at least when it comes to extraterrestrials. Haters might say this was a bad idea because it called attention to something that doesn’t need explaining, sort of like the Trek version of the midichlorians. But, that negative take misses a slightly larger truth, which debunks an important myth about the foundation of Trek.

The reason why The Original Series mostly tackled aliens who looked like humans in bad make-up is only partially an economic one. Yes, it’s widely impractical to do Hortas and Gorns every week, but in creating the writers’ bible for TOS, Roddenberry also made it clear that humanoid aliens were part of a dramatic choice, not just an economic one. In early pitch documents, Roddenberry describes “the parallel worlds” concept like this: “It means simply that our stories will plant and animals life, plus people, quite similar to that on Earth.”

Roddenberry wasn’t just doing this to save money. The “parallel worlds” concept was clearly something he wanted so the stories would connect with a casual viewer and not just hardcore science fiction fans. Prior to Star Trek, the general perception of filmed science fiction was that it was genre dominated by “Bug-Eyed Monsters.” By introducing the “Parallel worlds” concept, Roddenberry was creating a buffer against the series becoming too much like monster-of-the-week science fiction. Yes, this decision conveniently saved a little bit of money, but it’s very clear that wasn’t the only factor. Even at the beginning, Star Trek wanted to do humanoid aliens not because it was easy, but because telling those stories would be more interesting. 

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

What Moore and Menosky did with “The Chase,” was to come right out and make that dramatic choice into a thoughtful and exciting episode. The physics and biological science of the Star Trek universe might not exactly line up with our own, but the way in which the various shows prioritize people over technology is a relative constant. In “The Chase,” TNG reminded everyone that Star Trek was always about telling stories about people, even if those people were literally aliens. In this way, “The Chase” didn’t so much as change canon, but rather, clarified it. The reason why the Romulans, Humans, Cardassians look the way they do has an answer. But the real answer to that question requires even more introspection than the episode has time for. Which, in a nutshell, is what a lot of good Trek is supposed to do. “The Chase” is both an overt metaphor and a hardcore in-universe story at the same time. Many voices, inside the one.

Editor’s note: Norman Lloyd, the actor who played Professor Galen in “The Chase” (and inhabited many, many other roles in his long career) passed away earlier this week. You can learn more about his life and career here.

The post How Star Trek: Next Generation’s “The Chase” Changed Canon Forever appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3uNsHnc

[mensagens-reveladas]

DIVORCE: A BIBLICAL REFLECTION ABOUT THE DRAMA

Do not jump to conclusions without reading the entire text! Thank you for your attention and may God bless you!

 DIVORCE: A FACT OF EXISTENCE

One of the most common struggles or difficulties for all believers in Jesus is divorce! When the union comes from the Lord, it does not come with a “contractual termination clause”, because it is not a “question of civil law”: if it is from God, He does not unite to separate (Gen. 2:24; Mt 19: 6; Mark 10:9). In fact, the Bible does not work in the logic of civil law, family law, or sociology: it is not difficult to see, therefore, THAT THERE IS NO BLESSING IN DIVORCE, in separation: it is not desirable! But it is unquestionable that since man is in this world, separation is a fact, even among the Lord's people at the time of Moses (Deut 24:1). If we think that the book of Deuteronomy was written around 1410 BC, it is almost 3,500 years since, whether we like it or not, there is separation. However, the Lord Jesus Himself ratified that THIS WAS NOT THE WISH OF THE LORD (Matt 19:8). However, if the existence of divorce/separation is as old as it is today, but it is not the Lord's original desire, how could we understand this situation a little better? Let it be clear that this reflection is not intended, by any means, to "exhaust the subject": it is only a reflection for those interested in humbly reflecting this situation without resorting to "decontextualized condemnation buzzwords", and without also using an “irresponsible license”.

 PREMISES

Before entering a little further, it is important to say what are the fundamental premises of reflection (from where it starts):

a) the Bible does not contradict itself: no passage from the OT contradicts that of the NT and vice versa (do not confuse what has been changed in the NT as contradicting the OT: example, the end of circumcision). To admit the possibility of contradiction would imply to admit that the Word is not perfect, and therefore, it is not of God, in view of the attribute of perfection of God;

b) the Bible is able to answer to all situations of human life, good and bad; IT IS ABLE TO GIVE ANSWERS TO EVERYTHING (2Tim 3:16), including divorce. Admitting that it cannot provide an effective response to something would imply admitting that a “complementary response” from man, from man's science/experience is necessary, which goes against the first logical premise;

c) THE STARTING POINT OF THIS REFLECTION IS THE WORD OF GOD, and not psychology, law, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, even though some issues related to divorce go through one or more of these disciplines of the relevant knowledge of man, a very necessary knowledge (for example, to treat depression, anxiety etc ...);

d) THE WORD OF GOD MUST BE READ AS AN ALL COHESIVE AND COHERENT THAT IS, without contradictions, reason why it is dangerous to take isolated verses to judge something or someone, because even an isolated verse must be in line with the whole of the Word, because, as has been said, the Bible does not contradict itself: isolated verses are not apt to generate understanding that contradicts the whole;

e) it is not intended, as said elsewhere, to "exhaust" the subject, but to briefly reflect the condition of those who are in a situation of divorce or separation (Note: the distinction between divorce and separation is relevant in civil law and in the precedents of the courts, but biblically they mean the same thing: split up of a marriage, or family - divorce and separation are the same).

 MERCY, GRACE AND FORGIVENESS

In Matt 19:9 the Word records what many consider to be the only possibility of splitting a sinless marital relationship: the existence of prostitution (or fornication, according the translation) by one of the spouses. The word in the biblical original for "prostitution" is πορνεία (porneia - G4202 in Strong concordance), and means "illicit sexual intercourse, fornication" and is derived from προνεύω (porneuō - G4203 in Strong concordance), and means "to prostitute one's own body" for another's lust ”(or own). Based on philological questions about the expression πορνεία there is a certain famous preacher in Brazil, whose name is omitted, there are those, some who do not even find an “absolution” in Matt 19:9. However, we must remember that the Lord Jesus Himself said that whoever looks at others with “greed” has already adulterated (Matt 5:28 - note the term “greed” in the original is ἐπιθυμέω (epithymeō - G1937 in Strong concordance), and means "To revolve around something", to wish, willingly, well disposed, that is, it is the desire directed to something, that is gravitating around it). In other words, truth be told, the fundamental betrayal of a relationship takes place BEFORE the consummation of the act, which is a mere consequence: in times of social networks and the internet, προνεύω (porneuō) and πορνεία (epithymeō) are enormously enhanced, requiring proportional caution of male and female servants, boyfriends, grooms or married: it is our acquaintance DO NOT BREAK!

In this reflection it is understood that the conditions of Matt 19:9 make divorce possible only and exclusively in the hypothesis provided in the text! However, whether Matt 19:9 makes divorce possible, it is not a blessing (in the strict sense). However, there in 2Sam 11:3-4 the Word records David's adultery with Bathsheba, Uriah's wife. Later, David engineered the murder of Uriah (2Sam 11:14-15): two very serious sins. It is interesting to note, however, that reprimanded by the prophet Nathan HE READY, WITHOUT TITUBEARING, RECOGNIZED HIS SIN and received forgiveness (2Sam 12:13). However, he had to endure a moment of great distress due to the situation (2Sam 12:14). Who will to bear or not the consequence of sin is an act of God's sovereignty (Isa 55: 8-9)! It is observed, therefore, that recognized without blinking his difficulty, he received forgiveness. In another passage the Word records that the contrite and humiliated heart, that is, that recognizes its fragility and difficulty, THE LORD DOES NOT REJECT (Ps 51:17). It also records the Word that Saul consented to Stephen's death (Acts 8: 1), but he was later called by God, “chosen vessel” (Acts 9:15): that is, in all these passages, from the OT and NT the Word records God's forgiveness and mercy, through a sovereign act of the Lord! Elsewhere the Word records that whoever is merciful attains mercy (Matt. 5:7), as well as who is not merciful will not get mercy (Matt 18:33; James 2:13), but it also says that mercy triumphs over judgment (Jas 2:13), the mercy of God being very rich (Eph 2: 4). Finally, the Word records that whoever recognizes his own sin, repents and sincerely seeks Jesus is the advocate (1John 2:1-2), and “the blood of Jesus cleanses us from ALL” sin (1John 1:7)! The only sin that the Word records cannot be forgiven is sin against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29): it is, therefore, reckless to treat divorcees with excessive rigor or with very quick acceptance, in any case whoever is seeking sincerely to God, seeking communion in the body of Christ (the Church), life in sanctification, those who are seeking repair with the Lord. And, the “criterion for that” is well defined in Gal 5:17-24, especially verse 22.

 THE PATH OF THOSE WHO PASS THROUGH THE SITUATION OF DIVORCE

The “escape from man” to divorce, if one can speak like that, are not, therefore, social conventions, civil law, laws made by men, the evolution of society etc. etc., the “new family configurations in the light of the Federal Constitution”, modern culture, none of that ... in that sense, the condition of man to go through the situation of divorce and recover a life with God is in the sweetness, in the very rich mercy of the Lord (Eph 2:4, and so many other texts), in asking sincere forgiveness, for God has power, mercy, grace and forgiveness! But there are situations in which there is no fornication/prostitution (Matt 19: 9), whether consummated in the act or that which takes place inside the heart of the man, but there is divorce/separation, such as, for example, when the violent husband is left; or a spouse drinks excessively; child abuse (and how this horrible evil has grown today ...); it wipes out assets and destroys the family with drugs; when he leaves his wife or husband for similar situations. God has the power to restore, to do everything again (Luke 1:37). But, man and woman made in the image and likeness of God, today we see, unfortunately, that it is a frightening reality that violence against women, against children, against the elderly ... SOMETHING REALLY DIABOLIC, which attacks the image of the Lord in the other: if we are the image and likeness of the Trinity (Gen 1:26-27) and if our bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit (1Cor 6:19), we must necessarily submit this to the sin of the other (violence, subjugation) physical and moral, drugs, threats etc)?

In all of these situations what one should do is to pray to God, seek legal assistance and move on, because violence, subjugation of women and or physical/sexual violence, child abuse etc., sin... are not endorsed by the Word of God, that is, the other does not have to submit (Col 3:19)! In that sense, why, according to the most current understanding, would Matt 19:9 allow the spouse betrayed in fornication to go on with new life? BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO COMPACT WITH OTHERS 'SIN (2Cor 6:14), deceiving those who think that one spouse must submit to the other's sin as he/she cannot divorce (as stated above, it is necessary to reading the Bible as a whole, and not in isolated verses only, which besides being very dangerous, justifies everything, even what is not in the Bible), because in Amos 3:3 the Word records that two do not go together without agreement : THERE IS NO AGREEMENT WITH SIN TO MAINTAIN A SITUATION (2Cor 6:14 => Amos 3:3)! Therefore, it is curious to see that sometimes there are people and religious institutions that try to literally force a betrayed spouse to forgive, abandoning the injured sheep in favor of those who often have not really repented! In this sense, the role of those who have spiritual direction, such as pastor, anointed, deacon, Catholic and evangelical bishops, etc. it is to welcome, guide, fetch the lost sheep (Matt 18: 19-13), treat wounds (Lk 10:34), gradually leading the person to understand his own condition. Thus, it is clear that THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL DISTINCTION between that who divorced for vanity of the flesh, for sin, for lust, because simply "love is over", because "fell in love with another" etc. etc. and the one who got divorced for other reasons, which should be treated with meekness, so it is essential to be careful, and it is valid for leaders of any churches and for members, not to judge (Matt 7: 1): who thinks that the investiture in a “position” gives him the right to judge he acts, in fact, with the measure that will be applied to him by the Lord.

Repeating what has been said elsewhere, in the sense that THERE IS NO BLESSING IN DIVORCE, THAT IS NOT the Lord's purpose, the drama of each one must be seen with meekness, wisdom and prudence. Was divorce facing the solution found in the first marriage crisis? Was it the only option? Was there a spiritual (or even psychological) work of searching, rescuing? Who did you listen to in the course of any problems? Did someone left his wife/husband and then immediately have another one? Does the person have a history in his surroundings? There must be an intense and arduous battle for the preservation of the home, in the way of prayer, spiritual guidance by experienced people and filled with the Spirit of God, in psychological support (if necessary, and often it is: church leaders are mistaken who think that can replace specialized professional knowledge, if necessary: ​​they may be giving guidance that will bring even more wounds and pain...), and if in the end there is no way, the comfort is in God's mercy, and not, as has been said, for other reasons of a historical, social, philosophical nature, etc.

  CONCLUSION

The Lord's mercy, which is the cause of not being consumed by our sins, fears and anguish (Lam 3:22ff), is, therefore, the direction, the possibility and to start a new sincere and just life, without the accursed intention of our days that many use to trivialize the separation ("it didn't work, separate" ... In times of social networks and the internet, as has been said elsewhere, licentiousness, the deification of the body, lust, the normalization of behaviors contrary to word in sexual matters, the ease with which you have access to everything ends up being a great vector for “it didn't work, separate”, because it makes it easy not to have to fight for your marriage, your home, your children, it's like a “affective amen noodles” ...). It is before God that there is the possibility of having a new family (read 1 John 1:7; 1 Pet 5: 6), of being happy, because He is the one who takes care of us (1Pet 5: 7). God has mercy, grace and power, blessing, for all those who are sincerely drawn to Him! Exactly for this reason, whoever thinks that civil law, laws in general, the “modernization of the concept of family”, court decisions, the culture of our time, anthropology etc... will guarantee you some peace, happiness, a future is very, very mistaken, because they can even bring satisfaction to this life, they can solve a moral problem, but the way to God is not guided by the dictates emanating from the knowledge of the world of men: the way to God, to an eternity with Him, the path of true communion with the body of Christ (the Faithful Church)  passes, exclusively, through the action of convincing justice, sin and judgment operated in the heart, in the mind of the one who got divorced! And, precisely for that reason, it is not up to anyone to "throw stones" at those who are divorced, because, in addition to being forbidden to judge (Matt 7: 1), ONLY GOD KNOWS WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE HEART OF THOSE WHO ARE IN THIS CONDITION (1Sam 16:7), being in His grace the opportunity to start a life SINCERELY, HUMBLE, MORE MATURED, seeking that same union that God had in eternity for man and woman!

[automatismoateo]

Sometimes my sweet, kind family members who are also fundamentalist christians really scare me via /r/atheism

Submitted November 05, 2020 at 11:28AM by Colour_riot (Via reddit https://ift.tt/3jY9Nnd) Sometimes my sweet, kind family members who are also fundamentalist christians really scare me

My sister [27F] and I [28F], both not Americans, were discussing the elections. We are quite close and hang out very often.

We both dislike trump intensely but she dropped the bombshell that "if [she] was an American, [she] would find it really hard to vote as trump is awful but [she] supports the religious values of his party".

I guess I never realised that she feel so strongly motivated by religion. She's generally a liberal and socialist but all that is secondary to the need to prevent homosexual marriage, I guess.

We then got into an hours long argument which left her in tears and me feeling very frustrated.

Sample of my arguments to her:

Religion needs to have its claims examined just as vigorously as any other type of belief

Religion's domain ends where one's beliefs and actions have an effect on someone else's life. Tangentially, if someone's actions doesn't affect you (like homosexual marriage), bugger off.

It is intellectual laziness to hold an opinion but be unable / unwilling to have it critiqued rationally, and so "my religion tells me this is wrong", doesn't cut it. It is really bad if this is the reason you are electing to interfere in someone's life (ie. protesting against homosexual marriage)

(I'm not trained or particularly gifted in logical reasoning so my arguments might be erroneous. Additionally, these are just my views - so unlike religiously held ones, their merits and logic can be debated further)

Sample of her responses and our ensuing arguments:

Her: "just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it isn't real to other people"

Me: "there are objective facts and then there are beliefs"

Her: "what are facts anyway? History is all about facts right? And it can be wrong."

Me: "History concerns different viewpoints of the same events and is open to objective dissection. Facts can be verified to some degree of accuracy, otoh the bible has quite conclusively been proven to be a collection of stories written way after the supposed events happened, edited on the order of a roman emperor"

Her: "Not everything in this universe can be explained or proven, the very meaning of faith is to believe without proof"

Me: "That still just means it's just a belief that you can't prove. Quite alot in this universe can be explained by science. And science - theories with repeatable results open to change when its predictions are wrong - has already proven alot of the claims in the bible false"

Her: "Homosexual marriage has a harmful effect on my life because it's strongly against my beliefs. Where do you draw the line at emotional harm?"

Me: "Neither of us knows anything about jurisprudence or whatever legal discipline this is relevant to, but there is some precedence regarding harm - including emotional harm - in tort law"

Obviously neither of us are potential philosophers or orators but she felt personally attacked and that she was somehow losing the argument because she wasn't "as equipped or well-read as [I] was to have this sort of debate, and she never wanted to be anyway."

Not true, I've only read one book on atheist arguments (The God Delusion), and she has the bible, supposedly superior to anything a human could have written.

She summed up her feelings right before bursting into tears by saying "You are aggressively attacking something that is very personal to me and which a lot of my life decisions are based on" (which is quite alot of honesty for a religious person)

This affected me because I just don't understand how someone otherwise intelligent can let so much of her life and self worth be dictated by a belief that cannot pass any logical reasoning tests. That someone who is intellectually curious and open to new experiences, wants to deliberately stop finding out more about arguments that contradicts her beliefs. I know why, but I cannot understand.

[skepticaloccultist]

The Vagaries of Occult Book Buyers

There are benefits to having made a pact with a spirit who procures books as its very nature. The sideways of having something appear that you never were looking for, but indeed wanted, is particularly helpful.

As it was I have been thinking about the role of the occult bookseller down through the ages. How, from Roman times until now one could purchase a manuscript, and later printed books, of occult lore from a professional seller. In times of suppression there were still those who dealt books of forbidden knowledge, keeping a copy under the counter for those who inquire directly. Booksellers in London have carried the works of Dee and Agrippa for centuries, no less in the 16th century than today.

What a wonderful book it would make, a history of those actual historic persons who sold occult books. A well written story of the occult publishers and bookshops that have existed from the middle ages until the late 19th century would be fantastic. Something very accurately written, well footnoted, and with an extensive bibliography.

So I mused for several days on this day dreamed book until, after having ordered a volume of the first edition of "Folk-Lore volume 5" 1887, I received something altogether different. Instead of a book of folklore, I received a copy of "Book-Lore, vol 5 1887". In it I found plenty of stories of booksellers, occult and otherwise, but even more so stumbled onto this absolutely fantastic portrayal of occult book collectors. Its such a perfect and spot on assessment of those who would be occultists, yet find the collecting part much more enjoyable than the actual practicalities of magic. As true today as it was 130 years ago when it was written.

I reproduce the full short piece below. I am still waiting for a concise history of occult booksellers to appear, but in the meantime this laugh will do.

  +++

  "The Vagaries of (Occult) Book Buyers - III " from Book-Lore, a Magazine Devoted to Old Time Literature - 1887

Lord Lytton, in that curious and mysterious novel, Zanoni, mentions an old bookseller who, after years of toil, had succeeded in forming an almost perfect library of works on occult philosophy. Poor in everything but a genuine love for the mute companions of his old age, he was compelled to keep open his shop, and trade, as it were, in his own flesh. Let a customer enter and his countenance fell; let him depart empty-handed and he would smile gaily, oblivious for a time of bare cupboard and inward cravings. A purchaser was indeed a deadly enemy to the old man, for every proffered coin was scorching hot, a miserable and inadequate exchange for one drop of purple blood.

It is astonishing what a deep interest some people take in weird and obscurely written books. They will gloat over the mysteries of Hermes, and nervously finger the pages of Agrippa, - that foul magician whose judgment of himself and all his labours is so eloquently portrayed in his Vanitie of Arts and Sciences. No matter, says the devotee, Agrippa was mistaken; he was afraid of the Inquisition, and recanted. He could not have invented the sigils, triangles, and magic circles, without which congregated with horrid eyes the spirits of the Moon and Paymon, the King of the West Wind. Agrippa was afraid of the spectres he had raised; afraid of his own black dog, and of the hell to which it pointed.

The amateur occult philosopher is, however, not afraid - as yet - and every spare moment is occupied in ferreting out the names of ghostly men, who either suffered on the rack or at the stake, for leaguing themselves with the powers of the air, or else tumbled headlong into the talons of besieging hosts of devils, all screaming, as Paracelsus says they sometimes do, " Thy pentacles and thy circle are wrong, thy words are false; come thou with us."

The old bookseller was a type, and, as we think, a type only, of Lytton's own creation; perhaps a reflection of the soul of Lytton himself, ever groping through mists of tale and fable, and ever unsatisfied.

The purchaser of works on occult philosophy is usually exceedingly enthusiastic, so much so that he persists in his so-called studies, notwithstanding the fact that nine-tenths of his books are in Latin, a language of which he knows little or nothing. In a few words, he would become a disciple of Jannes and Jambres, and to this end sets about accumulating materials in the form of huge folios, conscientiously intending, no doubt, to read them when time and opportunity offer.

His course of reading so far has been confined to the Strange Story, which first riveted his attention on fiends and spectres, and to Barrett's Magus, which, being in English, and adorned with a number of weird plates, has proved an excellent stimulant to further exertions. The Bible is ransacked, and the "Witch of Endor and Simon Magus duly weighed in the balance, while such phrases as " Now the magicians of Egypt they also did in like manner with their enchantments," roll off the tongue with unctuous volubility. Presently the aspirant to " horrors fell and grim " stumbles across the treatises of Raphael and Sibly, and sighs to think that his ignorance effectually cuts him off from the delightful contemplations of those obscure authors upon whose diatribes their works are founded.

At this point the average student comes to a full stop, and turns probably to astrology as being a more tangible study, and apparently much easier. His little library swells with the treatises of Lilly, Raphael, Placidus de Titus, and the great Ptolemy, while he rejoices to think that Flamsted believed in the reality of the science, and that old Burton, the "Democritus Junior," hanged himself rather than admit that his own horoscope was out of gear.

The next step is the purchase of a planisphere, which conveniently dispenses with abstruse calculations in spherical trigonometry; and finally the student erects a horoscope all out of his own head, showing plainly enough that he was born when Mercury was retrograde, and at the square of the moon - a never-failing sign of idiocy, proved up to the hilt, be it said, when he is at last actually persuaded to go a-horse-racing with his slender capital, merely because the "quesited" - the famous "Flying Scud" - is in a trine aspect with Jupiter, Lord of the Seventh, and therefore cannot lose. The horse, however, breaks down, and is scratched four-and-twenty hours after the money is staked, and henceforth astrology is a Will-o'-the-wisp that will never again lure our bibliophile to his ruin.

Out of every twenty persons who take up the study of occult philosophy, nineteen are supremely ignorant of the most ordinary branches of knowledge, but the twentieth is a man of very different composition. He, too, began, perhaps, in the same way as his less gifted brethren, and has followed the same paths, and pored over the same books, and would like also to rival the deeds of Albertus Magnus, who had power over the elements; or of Peter of Abono, who raised terrible forms as easily as a market gardener raises cabbages.

He speedily discovers that Barrett's Magus is, in part, at least, a mere translation, and a very bad one, of Agrippa's fourth book, and that Raphael has mutilated the words of every author he quotes. There is no reliable work in English which can possibly be procured, and so he turns to the Latin, beginning with Iamblichus, and his famous book De Mysteriis, printed by Aldus in 1497. This rare and interesting specimen of typography loses, however, all its beauty in the absorbing nature of its contents; and the same observation is applicable to the author's Vita Pythagorae, published at Rome in 1556. These treatises are, it is true, mere introductions which every tyro who hopes hereafter to lift the veil of Isis must read if he wishes to fit himself to meet the petrifying gaze of the "Dweller on the Threshold" but they are also two most useful books, as from them can be gleaned a mass of information which, rightly understood, is declared by the initiated to point to the portals of the world beyond the grave.

With appetite whetted to a swallowing-point perfectly gluttonous in its magnitude, the student next turns to the treatise of the learned Jesuit, Martin Delrio, who, in his Disquisitionum Magicarum, examines the many different systems of magic practised by the professors of his day; to Bodin's De la Demonomanie des Sorciers; and in their turn to Boissardus, Jerome Cardan, Glanvil, Grillandus, Van Helmont, Wierus, and the Malleus Maleficanim of Sprenger and Institor.

All these works, comprehending as they do an assortment of wonders the like of which the world never saw, and perhaps never will see, support one another in a manner that would put a coterie of Old Bailey witnesses to the blush, so precise and seemingly accurate are the expressions used, so consequential the inferences. There is no mincing matters, no equivocation nor contradiction; everything is so orderly and precise that what is usually regarded, in this country at least, as a structure composed entirely of falsehood and fraud, becomes quite natural in appearance, so that, at last, the student finds himself accepting a statement, no matter how foolish, simply because Sprenger affirms it to be true, or Robert Fludd hints that it possibly may be.

All this time money is going out as fast as credulity, for works on occult philosophy are very expensive. The dealers are aware of their patron's feverish anxiety to obtain them when once bitten by the mania, and, as a matter of course, charge accordingly. Thus £3 is, as a rule, demanded for the Opera Omnia of Paracelsus, 1658, 2 vols., folio; seven or eight guineas for the collected works of Cardan, Lugd., 1663; and as much and more for those of Robert Fludd, Oppenheim, 1617-38. Respecting this last author, Isaac D'Israeh, in his Curiosities of Literature, states that in his time as much as £40 had to be given for a single volume, so great in those days appears to have been the anxiety to obtain copies of works of this and a similar class. We can imagine, therefore, how large must have been the value of the unique collection formed by the bookseller to whom Lytton so fondly refers, and we - or at least some of us - may almost participate in his disinclination to have such a splendid assortment broken in upon by the amateur peripatetic philosopher who in all probability cannot read one hundredth part of the treasures he longs to possess.

The modern world has now been revolving for nearly 1,900 years, and during the whole of that time repeated attempts have been made to lift the curtain that shuts out the invisible world. Some few persons - as, for example, Rozencrantz, who founded the Society of the Rosy Cross, and Paracelsus, who is "now living in his tomb, whither he retired disgusted with the vices and follies of mankind " - are credited with having peeped for a few brief moments behind it; but with these and some other exceptions the progress that has been made is admitted by the most ardent devotee to have been nil. Rumour, as chorus, has taken the place of fact, and dreams that of reality, but still the modern occultist cannot be brought to see that he labours in vain. And so he goes on purchasing ponderous volumes, ugly to look at and absolutely useless for every purpose, theoretical as well as practical, until either he is forced by repeated failures to admit that his favourite authors are impostors, or that he himself has, in spite of all his application, failed to reach the road that leads from this world to that which is to come. He and others like him - and there are many even in this century - would outstrip themselves in a desperate race through the darkness of Erebus; they spend a lifetime in learning to walk, only to be afflicted with total paralysis at the last; and when they awake to find their labour has been in vain, they are amazed to think of the fallacy which engulphed years of toil in the futile attempt to discover what they will learn in five minutes after they are dead.

However, be this as it may, the sale of books on occult philosophy goes on apace, and purchasers are very eager to part with their cash, a phenomenon which is observed in very few instances save the one under discussion. Some of these days enterprise may detect money in new editions and translations of Artemidorus on dreams, and Raymond Lully and Artephius on the philosopher's stone; but at present the trade is confined exclusively to old and battered copies which have served generations of investigators, which are now being read, and which will be read, in all probability, until they are thumbed out of recognition.

It is said of the Emperor Nero, that among other studies he ardently followed that of magic. He employed immense sums, wrung from the sweat of Rome, in this pursuit; searched far and wide for professors, - penetrating the remote regions of India and Africa, - and even prowled among the ruined towers of Chaldsea. Rewards were offered, and threats of cruel torture not only lavished but carried into effect, and with what result? Absolutely none, for all the power of Rome could not raise up another Witch of Endor, nor prolong the Emperor's life for a single second. And yet there are in England at this moment thousands of busybodies who think they can, with their limited resources, accomplish what Nero, with all Rome at his back, failed to perform; and so they go on, blinking like owls over distressing paragraphs that no one either in heaven above, nor in the earth beneath, nor in the waters under the earth, can possibly construe into intelligible English. The only consolation is that these good people are out of harm's way, and may perhaps be laying up a store of patience which may serve their end when the fit is over. They are very good customers of the booksellers also, and rejoice exceedingly over one very small piece of silver which they persuade themselves they are on the eve of finding.

- M. A. G.

  Find the rest of this fantastic 19th century magazine of book collecting here:

"The Vagaries of (Occult) Book Buyers - III " from Book-Lore, a Magazine Devoted to Old Time Literature - 1887

[ashfaqqahmad]

Can religion be logical final

Religious scholars define everything as per their own convenience

Click here to read the previous part of this article

Have you seen the movie ‘Judai‘ where Johny Lever concludes Upasana Singh saying ‘abba dab a Jabba’ as a love acceptance in his own style? Nowadays religious scholars of this type are also found who deduce meanings of symbolic shlokas or verses in this style.

Most religious scholars are Johny Leavers explaining the meaning of ‘abba dabba jabba‘ in their own way. Suppose eighty things proved to be wrong out of a hundred things said, then they will ignore them and will glorify the rest twenty, proved right (by fluke).

Well, it’s an irony that to this day, Muslims consider Jews to be the most dangerous people that they are unpredictable. They will reject any of their writings outright, but in the past, they adopted the boasts, fabricated in the name of this Jewish religion with an open heart because it was in their own interest. The literature like Adam, Eve, Abraham, Lut, Moses, David, Suleiman, Jaboor, Taurat, etc. belonged to them. All these people were clan chiefs in their times, and kings in the future, who often used to make stories to prove themselves as an incarnation or messenger of God and propagate it to the people, so that their power would not be challenged or other interests can be fulfilled.

Most religious literature is only meant for the glorification

In India too, from Mauryan period to Shunga Empire (associated with religion) and from Khilji to Aurangzeb (associated with personal glorification and politics), the same spectacles were repeated. Otherwise, God cannot be so biased to not signify any lower class to send incarnations in India or in West Asia all the family members would have been Prophets. It means that in such large civilizations, populations, it was only Abraham‘s family that Prophets were born one after the other. Don’t you feel this is a strange coincidence? Does it not seem that like the Gandhi family, prophecy is also following a dynastic tradition that after the father, only son or brother after the brother will become Prophet. Almost all of them from Abraham to Muhammad are parts of the same dynastic vine. Does God seem like a man with limited intelligence?

How did humans start their journey on earth

In the initial phase, someone set a format of the divine incarnation or messenger and the next ones followed the same track. Since all was written around Jesus and before that it was alive only in the legends so the Jews adjusted it in their own way at the time of writing and to continue this series, they predicted the next Christ in which Jesus was caught.

From here, the twist came. Since all the written history was being prepared, then how would Jesus be recognized as the Messiah? As a result, the high-voltage drama was created and later when the followers of Jesus wrote their Bible (New Testament) then all the old content was verified. Why? Because it was necessary for their own verification. This was to prove their prophecy in Abraham‘s lineage. Whereas the formers (believers of the Old Testament) have been denying Jesus Christ to be Messiah till this day and have always declared them liars.

In the seventh century, Muhammad Sahab did the same. Either by himself or his followers did it, is buried in the past but it is clear that he carried forward the same sequence. They verified the content of the Jews, who have been hated by Muslims since then. Why? Because it was necessary for their own authenticity. But here too the same thing happened that those formers (Christians, Jews) refused to accept him as the sequel of their concept and held a liar who abducted their concept and the angels.

Suitable editing was done in this borrowed literature

A lot of editing has been done to this literature according to the need and time. I am giving two brief examples. The Jews clearly wrote that the Jehovah ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son, in a dream, so he took Isaac (in their conception son of Sarah, Isaac was the son of Abraham, while Ismail was son of maid Hajra), with the sacrificial goods, and when Isaac asked who will we sacrifice, he answered that the one who has given the order will make arrangements and reached to the sacrificial site and tied Isaac. While adopting the same story, the Muslims have replaced Isaac with Ismail and also modified that Abraham had told the truth and Ismail himself was ready. After all, Ismail had to be proved great.

In the same way, anal sex freak citizens of Prophet Lut’s city were buried by the rain of stones (which is now called the Dead Sea) because sodomy was a sin in the eyes of God. They took that much part but deducted the rest story because the basis of this story was morality, and in the next part, morality was torn apart, where both his daughters, who craved male intercourse, drank him, had intercourse with him and conceived his children. That is, it would not suit that a prophet is drinking wine and having sex with daughters, so they removed that part.

what possibilities are there in the universe outside our planet

However, the stories that are repeated for centuries are automatically accepted as true and then tens of proofs are made to prove them true and the translation like ‘abba dabba jabba‘ containing those stories is prepared according to own convenience. If you read the literature of any religion by being absolutely neutral, then you will see contradictions and holes in fifty places, which the engineers of that religion will try to show you by putting a patch on it.

Both Aryans and Semitic descended from the same stream, but in this case, I would call the Aryans more clever that they coined God in the larger philosophical way so that even after centuries they could justify it in every way, (not the present-day modern Hindu, Vedic religion/Aryasamaji). Whereas the Semitic people started to form God as Jehovah and made a cartoon in the first step instead of a superpower.

The Muslims improved the image due to being the last writers, but even after being described as formless, they made mistakes like long hands to hold the sky and throne, etc. which the engineers have to resort to the ‘abba dabba jabba’ method to cover up.

We can consider incarnations as Gurus

If you want to understand Jesus, then he has to be considered as guru just as the Sikhs do. If you perceive him charmed by the miracles and divine powers, you will probably never understand. He was a social reformer of his time, was a rebel, a revolutionary, but later the writers added many such things with him for his glorification, which made his credibility suspicious. The blame is on the writers and not on him. Similarly, while reading religious books, you have to pay attention to their motives and not on their stories.

If you acknowledge great men as Gurus, then you will be able to understand that they were also human beings, so obviously they can also have some weakness with a hundred characteristics. Or if you will focus on their weaknesses then you will understand their circumstantial reasons too. It can be understood by some examples. There is no solution to blind faith in the world. Everyone is ready to believe some unseen divine power with eyes closed. In such a situation, you pay attention to people around you and you find that they are wild, uncivilized, barbaric and are far away from every rule and regulation. Their life is uncertain and insecure because of their ways and you want to improve them.

If God is there then how can it be from the point of view of science

So much you will know that no such person will listen to you because you are the same person among them. What is different in you that they listen to you? In such a situation, you can attract people to you by claiming to be a divine incarnation. You can prove your authenticity by putting a seal of ‘verified’ on the stories prevalent already.

You will have to struggle with this, but your personality will be different from them. Here your claims are not important, your motive is important which does not depend on any kind of selfishness, but on the well being of the people. However, it needs courage, because for this purpose you will have to sacrifice all your dreams, your future and your personal life.

And then to change those bad people suppose you show them the dream that those of you who drink here do not drink because it has a negative effect on not only you but also on your family. Control yourself here, you will get river of liquor in heaven. Or don’t do lascivious activities here, and believe that if you control your nature here and live a life of decency, then after death, there will be many hoors you will get. These claims may be false because no one has seen them but the reforms can be seen on the ground.

what are the possibilities for new writers

Later, it was the fault of the next generations that they forgot the motive and claimed and spread the same things for their selfishness (like terrorists, martyrdom for jihad, seventy-two hoors, the greed of Jannat (heaven)). Imagine that namaz meant that salat (connection) where humans could connect with God around him in the form of Brahma element for a moment through meditation, but people offering namaz as a formality, indulge in different thoughts of all over the world while looking at other people around, mosque fans and mats. The same situation is of Hindus who spend hours worshipping in temples, who despite having the art of meditation, are trapped in hypocrisy.

We can learn from religious books

All such books were meant to show the path according to the circumstances of that time, to decide the rules of governance but they never became effective. Why? Because instead of understanding their motives people just mugged up. When all religions give the message of love, peace and brotherhood, then why is there so much chaos in the world? When all religious books teach you best practices, then why are their believers in the world full of evils? Why are they full of hate? According to this, religions were designed to turn humans into deities, then how are devils with demonic tendencies coming out of them?

After all, why is there so much hatred, so much violence, so much bloodshed in the whole world? Because the religions that were expected to form the social system have failed. Rather the religions have not failed, people have failed to understand their purpose. And that is the reason that people are pretending to be religious, doing hypocrisy day and night but still, there is disturbance, hatred and backwardness in their lives. And those populations of the west who are called atheists, they have absorbed the core of religion and they are living a better life than us.

How to write a book in Microsoft word  

Religion is not what its stakeholders explain to you in the form of millions of words of fraud, but one that is hidden in your nature, but which you keep on pressing because it strikes your interest or selfishness. And if God exists, then he is not observing you from heaven like a magician or executioner, but he is around you, is inside you.

इस लेख को हिंदी में पढ़ने के लिये यहाँ क्लिक करें

[digging-holes-in-the-river]

Finished reading The Year of the Flood yesterday (the second book in Margaret Atwood’s MaddAddam trilogy). @pistachi0n wanted my opinion, so here it is! Spoilers ahead.

First of all, while I quite enjoyed this book, I didn’t like it as much as Oryx and Crake. They were both really good, but there were a few specific things about The Year of the Flood that bothered me. So if this review is full of complaints, it’s not because I disliked The Year of the Flood; it’s just because I already expressed a lot of my positive opinions in my review of Oryx and Crake.

My biggest complaint is that, for a lot of the book, it felt like the chronology was screwed up. In The Year of the Flood, Jimmy meets Crake in his sophomore or junior year of high school; in Oryx and Crake, I had thought they met in middle school. Jimmy and Crake played Extinctathon in high school; does that mean Zeb had already formed his faction group by then? It seems like he split off later. When did Crake blackmail the MaddAddam scientists into joining the Paradice Project? It seems like that happened just a year or two before the plague. How did they have time to develop all those features on the Crakers? If Crakers take 5-ish years to come to maturity (assuming I’m remembering correctly), how did so many Crakers come to adulthood in the time Crake was working on the Paradice Project? He and Jimmy were only 27 when the plague started. I mean, maybe Crake started working on them in college? But then, wouldn’t they be earlier models? But they all seemed like the same model of Craker. And at the end, it’s mentioned that some of the MaddAddam scientists helped design things like the blue penises, indicating that they must be very recent features.

Anyway, I’m not sure if there’s actually chronology errors, or if I just interpreted the first book as happening on a different timeline than it did. I went back and looked; in Oryx and Crake, Jimmy really did meet Crake in high school; I was just confused. Also, at the beginning of The Year of the Flood, I thought Crake was much older than Ren (because he was described as an “older boy” or something), and I thought Amanda was at least two years older than Ren (because when Ren was 12, she said Amanda had already grown boobs). But I guess their actual ages (Crake was two years older than Ren, Amanda was one year older than her) didn’t directly contradict the evidence. They just contradict the picture I’d built up in my head, based on the original descriptions that were given. Which is less a problem with the chronology, and more a problem with... trying to write a second book that ties back in to the story of the first one.

Like, I think I may have found one real chronology error: Bernice leaves the gardeners in year 12, but in year 14, Ren says this was the first year without Bernice; as far as I can tell, that’s straight-up wrong. But otherwise, I think the chronology was fine; I had just been misreading it, or forming the wrong picture in my head.

My point is not so much that Margaret Atwood actually screwed up the chronology; it’s more that the chronology was underspecified in a lot of places, leading me to build up an idea in my head that was later refuted (which forced me to go back restructure my understanding of the story so far). As an example, in Oryx and Crake, I thought the Happicuppa franchise had only been invented in Jimmy and Crake’s late teenage years, when the riots happened; so when the story mentioned Toby drinking Happicuppa in college, I assumed she was quite young; when it was revealed that she was older, I had to go back and revise my understanding (both of Toby’s life and of the Happicuppa franchise).

And I think this only happened because Margaret Atwood was writing a second book, that happened at the same time as the first book, and involved the same characters. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have had such a strong need to fit the events of this book in with the events of the previous one.

Anyway, all of this really interfered with my immersion in the books, especially for a big chunk in the middle; I had to keep going back to Oryx and Crake and looking things up there (or flipping back in The Year of the Flood to see where I’d misunderstood). After year 14 or so, I pretty much came to terms with the “new” chronology (that is, my revised understanding of the chronology, based on The Year of the Flood), and then I was able to immerse myself in the story again. But there was a while where I was frustrated.

I’m sure my chronology complaints were exacerbated by the fact that... I just didn’t like how much this story tied into the previous one. It seemed like an extremely bizarre coincidence that Ren, Bernice, and Amanda all grew up together, and Jimmy just happened to date two of them and end up roommates with the third. I remember being deeply annoyed when Ren moved to the HelthWyzer compound and immediately encountered Wakulla Price and Jimmy.

Like, all of these weird coincidences just made the world seem really small, which conflicts with the whole “overpopulated to the point of Malthusian hell” premise. I’m assuming HelthWyzer High had thousands of students; what’s the chance that Ren would just happen to end up with Jimmy’s crowd? And I’m assuming Martha Graham had a few thousand students too; what’s the chance that Jimmy would happen to date Amanda? Also, what’s the chance that all these people would end up at Martha Graham? This is a big city, right? I assume there’s lots of colleges.

In general, the world in The Year of the Flood just seemed a lot smaller than the world in Oryx and Crake. In Oryx and Crake, it seemed like there was something new around every corner; Atwood was constantly throwing in little details about companies / products / animals we hadn’t heard of yet. Whereas, in The Year of the Flood, it seemed like she was just repeating the same products and places over and over again. (I mean, it’s still an extremely complex, detailed, and well-built world. It just felt like she did a lot less of the worldbuilding in this book.)

Anyway, that said, there were a lot of things I really liked about the book. For one thing, I really liked the Gardener religion, and the detail with which it was fleshed out. @pistachi0n​, I can see why you wanted my opinion on it; aside from the connections to Christianity, and the whole pacifist vegetarian thing, it wasn’t too far from my own spirituality. If I lived in that world, there’s a decent chance that I’d join the Gardeners.

I liked their emphasis on the circle of life, and the idea that life feeds off other life, and that after we die, our atoms will rejoin this great cycle and become part of other living creatures. I liked the reverence for all living things, and for nature.

I liked the “primitive skills” aspects, where they were growing their own food, and learning about edible plants, and learning to live off the land. I appreciated both the practicality of that approach (it’s definitely a good idea if you’re expecting the bioengineered pandemic to show up and day now), and the aesthetic of returning to nature and refusing the excesses of our civilization.

I liked the way modern science was tied in to the Abrahamic aspects of their theology. I liked that their saints were scientists and environmentalists. I liked the idea that God really had dictated the Bible, but that not everything was true, since he was trying to convey his message in words that the ancient Israelites would understand. (Which is an argument that I’ve totally made before; if God was trying to convey his moral message to the Israelites, why not do it in cosmological terms that they can understand?)

Obviously there was some contradictions in the Gardener teachings. As Ren points out, it’s kind of silly for Gardeners to revere the cycle of life, but then declare it evil for humans to eat meat. The animals are considered sacred and good and pure in a lot of ways, but human sinfulness is still blamed on animal nature, and the lizard brain, and earlier stages in the evolutionary tree. But these contradictions don’t frustrate me; they just make the religion seem more complex and realistic.

Reading this book, I definitely don’t get the sense that Margaret Atwood thinks religion is bad. I also don’t think she’s advocating for it.

In general, one of the things I’ve really liked about her writing is that it doesn’t convey any moral message. She’s just describing the world as it is; people are free to take whatever moral message from it that they like. Like, in my opinion, the Gardener religion is good; but I could easily imagine other people thinking it’s overly restrictive, or that its message is ridiculous. And in my opinion, Jimmy is a major asshole, but the book never explicitly says that; it just describes Jimmy as a person and leaves the reader to draw their own conclusion. I met someone in a bookstore the other day who disliked Oryx and Crake because Jimmy was such an asshole, but I could also imagine people reading the book and thinking that Jimmy was just an ordinary guy.

But anyway, that said, the book certainly didn’t present a negative view of the Gardener religion. The characters weren’t complaining about how restrictive it was, and even if they didn’t believe in the theology, they all seemed to appreciate the practices. Even Ren, who didn’t like the Gardeners at first, retains fond memories of her childhood there.

In general, the Gardeners seemed like a really impressively functional community. Obviously, there were conflicts, and romantic affairs, and people who disliked each other, but overall, it really seemed like people got along with each other and knew how to cooperate.

So maybe... the fact that she chose to focus on a really functional religion, and to tell her story through two characters who enjoyed being there, indicates that she appreciates religion. It certainly conveys that... she believes a functional religion is possible, since a writer’s worldbuilding certainly reveals something about how they think the world works.

But it really didn’t feel like she was moralizing either for or against religion. Although... it also didn’t feel like she was moralizing for or against environmentalism (since we never got to hear Margaret Atwood’s voice; we only got to hear the voices / perspectives of the characters), but Wikipedia informs me that she’s an environmental activist. And I could see this being classified as an environmentalist book, simply because it focuses on environmentalist issues, and contains a lot of environmentalist characters. But I definitely didn’t feel like she was conveying a moral message; she just telling a story about how things are, or could be.

(I have more comments but I’ll continue them in a separate post, because wow, this turned into a wall of text.)

[confrontingbabble-on]

I have full confidence that god(s) do not exist...as all god assertions...ever made...have been accompanied by...zero verifiable evidence...

“People do not worship abstractions. They worship a God with qualities they can comprehend. The most common example of a god model is a personal God who answers prayers. This god model has not been confirmed in numerous controlled experiments on the efficacy of prayer. It follows that a religious person is wasting her time praying for some favor of such a God.

If praying worked, the effects would be objectively observed. They are not. Let me then summarize the god models that are inconsistent with scientific observations.

Inconsistent Gods...

A personal God who has given humans immortal souls fails to agree with the empirical facts that human thoughts, memories, and personalities are governed by physical processes in the brain, which dissolves upon death. No nonphysical or extra-physical powers of “mind” can be found and no evidence exists for an afterlife.

A personal God whose interactions with humans include miraculous interventions such as those reported in scriptures is contradicted by the lack of independent evidence for the alleged miraculous events.

A cosmic God who fine-tuned the laws and constants of physics for life, in particular human life, fails to agree with the fact that the universe is not congenial to human life, being tremendously wasteful of time, space, and matter from the human perspective. It also fails to agree with the fact that the universe is mostly composed of particles in random motion, with complex structures such as galaxies forming less than four percent of the total mass of the universe.

A personal God who communicates directly with humans by means of revelation fails to agree with the fact that no scientifically verifiable new information has ever been transmitted while many wrong and harmful doctrines have been asserted by this means. No claimed revelation contains information that could not have been already in the head of the person making the claim. Furthermore, physical evidence now conclusively demonstrates that some of the most important biblical narratives, such as the Exodus, never took place.

A personal God who is the source of morality and human values does not exist since the evidence shows that humans define morals and values for themselves. This is not “relative morality.” Believers and nonbelievers alike agree on a common set of morals and values. Even the most devout decide for themselves what is good and what is bad and even judge much of what is approved in scriptures as immoral, such as genocide, slavery, and the oppression of women. Nonbelievers behave no less morally than believers.

A personal God who is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent does not exist because it is logically inconsistent with the existence of evil, in particular, gratuitous suffering (standard problem of evil).

The existence of the God worshiped by most Jews, Christians, and Muslims not only lacks supporting empirical evidence but is even contradicted by such evidence. However, it need not have turned out that way. Things might have been different, and this is important to understand as it justifies the use of science to address the God question and refutes the frequently heard statement that science can say nothing about God.

If scientific observations had confirmed at least one model god, those believers who make that statement would quickly change their tune. Even the most skeptical atheists would have to come around and admit that there might be some chance that God exists. This has not happened.

Consider the following hypothetical events that, had they occurred, would have favored the God hypothesis. Readers are invited to think of their own similar “might have been” scenarios. While not necessarily proving the existence of God, they would at least lend some credence to traditional beliefs that currently does not exist.

Hypothetical Observations...

(If) Evidence was found that falsified evolution. Fossils might have been discovered that were inexplicably out of sequence. Life forms might not have all been based on the same genetic scheme. Transitional species might not have been observed. As actually thought at the time of Darwin, the age of the sun could have proved too short for evolution. The discovery of nuclear energy changed that, showing that, fueled by nuclear fusion, the sun will last ten billion years—ample time for life to evolve.

Human memories and thoughts might have provided evidence that cannot be plausibly accounted for by known physical processes. Science might have confirmed exceptional powers of the mind that it could not be plausibly explained physically.

Science might have uncovered convincing evidence for an afterlife. For example, a person who had been declared dead by every means known to science might return to life with detailed stories of an afterlife that were later verified. For example, she might meet Jimmy Hoffa who tells her where to find his body.

Similarly, any claim of a revelation obtained during a mystical trance could contain scientifically verifiable information that the subject could not possibly have known.

Physical and historical evidence might have been found for the miraculous events and the important narratives of the scriptures. For example, Roman records might have been found for an earthquake in Judea at the time of a certain crucifixion ordered by Pontius Pilate. Noah’s Ark might have been discovered. The Shroud of Turin might have contained genetic material with no Y-chromosomes. Since the image is that of a man with a beard, this would confirm he was born of a virgin. Or, the genetic material might contain a novel form of coding molecule not found in any other living organism. This would have proven an alien (if not divine) origin of the enshrouded being.

The universe might have been found to be so congenial to human life that it must have been created with human life in mind. Humans might have been able to move from planet to planet, just as easily as they now move from continent to continent, and be able to survive on every planet - even in space - without life support.

Natural events might follow some moral law, rather than morally neutral mathematical laws. For example, lightning might strike only the wicked; people who behave badly might fall sick more often; nuns would always survive plane crashes.

Believers might have had a higher moral sense than nonbelievers and other measurably superior qualities. For example, the jails might be filled with atheists while all believers live happy, prosperous, contented lives surrounded by loving families and pets.

Miracles are observed. For example, prayers are answered; an arm or a leg is regenerated through faith healing.

But none of this has happened. Indeed, the opposite is true in some cases, such as an abnormally low number of atheists in jail. Every claim of a supernatural event has proved false. The hypothesis of God is not confirmed by the evidence. Indeed, that hypothesis is strongly contradicted by the observations of our senses and the instruments of science.” - Victor Stenger Physicist, PhD, author

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/testing-the-god-hypothesi_b_4226750.html

Simple Assignment:

1. Test the veracity of the bible for yourself...Ask for divine knowledge, and tell me which three objects I have in a (what color, what material, what size) container...

John 16:23   "I assure you: Anything you ask the Father in My name, He will give you.” - Jesus (bible god)

John 14:13-14 “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.”  - Jesus (bible god)

2. Test the veracity of a self-proclaiming bible believer for yourself (before you give them any money!!)...Ask them to move Mt Rushmore to Hawaii...

Matt 17:20  "I tell you the truth, if you had faith even as small as a mustard seed, you could say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it would move. Nothing would be impossible for you." - Jesus (bible god)