christopher hitchens on the morally disgusting religious practice called circumcision

christopher hitchens on circumcision:

there are things no morally normal person would THINK of doing, if it wasnt for that they believed in religion or divine instruction. take a transcendent experience that i'm sure a lot of you have had, i've had it 3 times: take a newborn baby in your hands...so here's this bundle, you look at the little indentations in the ear lobes, etc, and THEN you should be getting on with parenting, but NO, first let's find a sharp stone or knife and start hacking away at the genitalia! because it turns out that the design isnt that great and in a crucial feature too! it needs to be sawed away, a lot of it .... no morally person would do such a thing if it wasnt for superstition...

why cant ex-mormons just "leave the church alone"? =)

from "larry" lawrence pratt:

During much of the 20th century, hundreds of thousands of individuals
escaped from living under totalitarian regimes such as Communism and Nazism
to seek lives elsewhere. Although free from oppression, these people
continued to seek justice for those still under the influence of dictatorial
and personally destructive systems.

when asked this question, i like to respond with the question "why cant the mormon cult leave the *world* alone?" =)

see also: http://latterdaymainstreet.com/2011/08/19/ex-mormons-angry-and-questions-part/

evidence that joseph smith knew about engraved plates during his time--apologists panic =)

Mike Reed Drops Bomb on Metal Plates

a good definition of "religion"

from the wikipedia religion page:

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect. Most religions have organized behaviors, including clerical hierarchies, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, congregations of laity, regular meetings or services for the purposes of veneration of a deity or for prayer, holy places (either natural or architectural), and/or scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include sermons, commemoration of the activities of a god or gods, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture.

rational thinking vs religion

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2324005980922&id=1272787049

main post by ED:
Is god all powerful, in that he can do anything he wanted to? If so, then he can create a plan where all his children could return to live with him WITHOUT having to murder one of his children to make it possible. Christianity FAIL. Reason wins.

Nick Humphrey: and what kind of "loving father" lets his kids rape and murder each other? i dont know of any. i usually step in and stop my kids' from fighting when it gets violent. i am really forgiving too and certainly wouldnt ban them from ever being in my presence again if they were to deny the existence of an invisible spirit. =)

TB: So E, let's say "Christianity fails, reason wins". Now what?

Nick Humphrey: ‎TB "Now what?"
* tell your friends =)
* lobby for teaching of rational thinking, skepticism and logic starting in the public elementary education level
* study to build your own repertoire of rational arguments to use in debate with theists
?

TB: What makes you think that reason alone, or empirically justifiable beliefs alone, can ever serve as a substitute for religion, Nick? Haven't you met any of your fellow humans? They don't operate that way. Your war is a war against humanity itself, because humanity is innately religious.
Besides, there is no historical basis for assuming that cold, hard reason cannot itself be made into an idol and worshipped, with its worshippers acting as wickedly as any religious believers. The French Revolution is only one example.
The bloodletting there was orgiastic, and was done entirely in the name of reason and atheism.
If I could have told my friends in France 220 years ago anything, it would have been to continue on as believing Catholics, because they were much better as believing Catholics than as atheists.


Nick Humphrey: ‎TB "What makes you think that reason alone, or empirically justifiable beliefs alone, can ever serve as a substitute for religion, Nick?"
you incorrectly assume at least 2 things:
1) that humanity needs to replace religion with something, instead of just doing away with it.

maybe *you* personally need to "establish contact with a perceived higher power". i dont.

2) that religionists are completely DEVOID of rationality.

they at least put it aside when it concerns their views of the existence of supernatural entities and interpretation of sensory perceptions and coincidences.

your argument is a straw man.

"They don't operate that way. Your war is a war against humanity itself, because humanity is innately religious."

this is known as the "naturalistic fallacy", but what IS does not imply what OUGHT to be. if homo sapiens are inclined towards religion, it doesnt mean we *should* be religious.

"there is no historical basis for assuming that cold, hard reason cannot itself be made into an idol and worshipped with its worshippers acting as wickedly as any religious believers."

this behavior IS *religious* just without an extra-terrestrial deity. assuming that rational thinking alone leads to such behavior is simply fallacious.

falsifiability of the mormon lds church cult "truth claims"

an interesting thread:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/43632-which-lds-truth-claims-are-falsifiable/

possible candidates to falsifiability of "truth claims" (one person stated the importance of the definition of that term):
book of abraham fascimilies
native american dna
plan of happiness <-- lol! =)

"Mormons practice polygamy". myth? technically, no.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-mormonism/2011/08/03/gIQAyIhTwI_story.html
this is technically not a myth. ask mormons if they believe in eternal plural marriage? i.e. can a mormon man today be eternally married to more than one woman? (answer: yes. if a man's wife dies, he may be married for "time and all eternity" to a new woman, *in addition to his dead wife*). "eternal" polygamy is still practiced. joseph smith is btw sealed/married to more than 200 women. one of them women is 169 years older than him and another was born 15 years after he died! (source 1: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickleus/4960128084/ ) (source 2: new.familysearch.org)

ansvar vs årsak og forsvare vs forklare

when talking about the ABB case in norway, arne tumyr said:

«det politisk korrekte Norge må ta sin del av skylden for den rystende terror-tragedien»

some good points were made about the difference between responsibility and cause, and defending vs explaining.

‎"No cure for pedophilia has been developed."

‎"No cure for pedophilia has been developed."

i remember before when people thought that homosexuality could be "cured" =) it's interesting that homophilia used to be classified as a mental/psychiatric disorder (paraphilia), as pedophilia still is today. today, homophilia is no longer classified as a paraphilia.

self defense in norway

Inne på et arrangement på Facebook som kaller seg "Ingen rasister i våre gater" planlegges det demonstrasjoner mot SIAN's arrangementer. I den anledning vil jeg minne SIAN om at man med hjemmel i norsk straffelov §48 helt lovlig kan forsvare seg dersom man føler seg truet av slike "antirasister". Oppfører folk seg truende kan man hevde nødvergerett og man kan til og med foreta sivil pågripelse med hjemmel i straffeprosessloven §171-176.

norway's done doing a good job killing people in libya

"Det norske bidraget har høstet meget gode tilbakemeldinger for den jobben som vi har gjort..."
...ved å drepe andre mennesker =)

"Ingen skal få bombe Norge til taushet"

nei, det er norges oppgave.

"vi står sammen mot terror"

no shit!

"Heldigvis har reaksjonene etterpå vist at det norske demokratiet og den norske rettsstaten er sterkere enn noe våpen"

med unntak av krigen i libya.

"For hatet, ekstremismen og intoleransen er uvanlige organismer...Den beste måten å stanse dem er gjennom en åpen debatt og med argumenter."

og f-16 jagerfly og bomber.

"mer åpenhet, mer demokrati"

og mer avanserte jagerfly til 800 millioner per stk.

heia jens stoltenberg. stem arbeiderpartiet og deres hyklersk, politisk "talking out of both sides of your mouth".

hippocrates, 400+ years before "jesus" casts out the "demons", understands that epilepsy is an illness

thanks to Rob Hogue for this quote:

"Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. We will one day understand what causes it, and then cease to call it divine. And so it is with everything in the universe." - Hippocrates 400 BC

now look at the next quote, ca. 400 later on in history:

In the Gospel According to Mark (9:14-29), Jesus Christ casts out a devil from a young man with epilepsy: "Teacher, I brought you my son, who is possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech. Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth, and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive the spirit out, but they could not." (NIV) 70 AD

=)

god of the gaps

a christian on talk.origins said that "god of the gaps" was offensive =) i liked this reply by "r norman":

I suppose it is also offensive to claim that the cosmos and the earth
and humanity were not created in six 24 hour periods less than ten
thousand years ago. I suppose it is also offensive to claim that a
massive flood initiated by forty days and nights of rain did not
inundate the entire earth and kill all living things (animals, at
least) except for the few occupants of one wooden boat. I suppose it
is also offensive to claim that no individual human has ever lived for
900 years, begetting a child at almost 200 years of age. I suppose it
is also offensive to claim that human languages did not originate
during the construction of a single tall building.
Science makes claims about processes in the physical world. There are
gaps in the knowledge that science has so far developed. To claim
that any or all gaps in our knowledge must be due to failures in
science and hence can only be attributed to divine action is offensive
to science. So there.

book review: friedrich nietzsche, beyond good and evil

things i found interesting in friedrich nietzsche's book beyond good and evil:

page xv

In Beyond Good and Evil he maintains that original Christianity represents 'an ongoing suicide of reason' (p.44; 46), ascribing it to an Oriental slave revolt against Roman antiquity. Like Freud after him, Nietzsche considered religion a 'neurosis' (p. 45; 47); it involves an unnatural self-denial and sacrifice. In one of his most interesting observations, Nietzsche compares the history of 'religious cruelty' to a ladder with three important rungs: the first entails the sacrifice of one's loved ones to the deity; the second demands the sacrifice of one's own instincts or inner nature; and the final rung, which we are now coming to know, involves the sacrifice of God himself for the worship of 'stone, stupidity, heaviness, fate, nothingness' (p. 50; 55). Nietzsche here suggests that our modern penchant for science or nihilism, as atheistic as it appears at first glance, is merely a replacement for religious belief.

page xvi

Nietzsche is not unaware of the advantages that religion has brought to human society,
even as it has debased human nature. It has helped humankind to endure an otherwise intolerable existence and has assisted us in constructing a viable social order by demanding that we love each other. But religion also has other essential socializing functions. For a particular group of people Nietzsche mentions the Brahmans by name--religion provides a spirituality that permits them to remove themselves from the mundane and crude world surrounding them. For those who are destined to be rulers it is one means for overcoming resistance in their subjects, since it forms a common bond with ordinary people and pacifies them into obedience. It also serves as a pedagogical and disciplinary device for the ascending classes, teaching them a certain abnegation that ennobles their spirit and allows them to rise above the common rabble. Finally, for the vast masses, religion provides a solace for their suffering and the meaninglessness of their existence, 'something that justifies their everyday lives, all the baseness, all the semi-animal poverty of their souls' (p. 55;61). In general, however, Nietzsche's attitude towards religion is that it represents a stage of human development that must be overcome. Christianity, in particular, has led to a 'degeneration of the European race' (p. 56; 62), and the persistence of Christian belief is a sign that the human being has not developed into a creature that is strong enough to achieve the type of self-contained nobility of spirit Nietzsche envisions.

page xvii

The Jews, he asserts, 'brought about that tour de force of a reversal of values' (p. 83; 195); they negated a noble order in which richness, excess, cruelty, and sensuality were validated, and substituted for it a value system in which poverty, godliness, timidity, and spirituality hold sway. This 'slave revolt in morals' (p. 83; 195) disdains as evil the beast of prey and the man of prey, for Nietzsche the 'most healthy of all tropical plants and brutes' (pp. 834; 197), while affirming abstinence, pity, and a tolerance for suffering. The institution of the Judaeo-Christian 'herd' morality has made modern Europe possible even as it has meant an impoverishment of possibilities and human potential. Nietzsche reasons that there have always been rulers and subjects, and he recognizes that a morality preaching docile obedience is a necessity for the masses.

page xix

He [the free spirit] will rid himself of moralities that preach equality, democracy, the general welfare, and utilitarian values, and affirm instead the natural hierarchy Nietzsche captures repeatedly in the term Rangordnung.

page xx

More problematically Nietzsche propagates a human being that will not feel compassion with the oppressed and the unfortunate in society, and that will not seek to do away with suffering, including his own suffering. Rather, the pity this future man feels will involve the disdain for the manner in which the human race has made itself small and petty, and he will nourish suffering as the aid to 'depth, mystery, mask, spirit, cleverness, greatness' (p. 117; 225). In a controversial aphorism Nietzsche even ventures a reconsideration of cruelty as an essential part of human nature. All higher culture, all great tragedy, everything sublime, all knowledge, he contends, are ultimately based on cruelty, either towards ourselves or towards others. ... The task Nietzsche assigns his free spirits is 'to return man to nature; to master the many conceited and gushing interpretations and secondary meanings that have heretofore been scribbled and painted over that eternal original text homo natura'(p. 123; 230). In terms of present values Nietzsche's free spirit will thus prove to be an 'immoralist' who affirms life and aspires to the heights of culture and creativity.

page 7

We do not object to a judgement just because it is false; ... The question is rather to what extent the judgement furthers life, preserves life, preserves the species, perhaps even cultivates the species; ... Admitting untruth as a condition of life ... and a philosophy that dares this has already placed itself beyond good and evil.

this review is ongoing (not finished)...

mormon missionaries will tell people that you only have to pay 10%

which, by itself, is a shock for most people, but what they DONT tell you is that once you get to the temple you have to agree to the law of consecration which requires you to give 100%, that you have to:

"covenant and promise before God, angels , and these witnesses at this alter, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenant, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and ***everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you***, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion."

"mormons only pay 10% (tithing) of their income" is a whopping lie =) the figure is missing a zero--100% (if the church requires it of you)

mormon apologetics - pseudo-science + ad hoc assumptions

by Holy the Ghost

An ad hoc assumption or adhoc hypothesis is a way of explaining away your wrongness.
After you discover that you are mistaken, you make an assumption that, if true, allows you to conclude that you were not really mistaken
If I run an experiment in which I predict some psychic phenomena, but the results contradict my hypothesis, I can argue that my psychic phenomena still exists, but the problem is that there were skeptics who were observing the experiment, and they sent off bad psi vibes (or some such thing).

We believe that Joseph Smith is a mouthpiece for God.
Observation: He was wrong about men on the moon.
Ad hoc assumption: he was speaking as a man.

We believe Joseph Smith was a translator:
Observation: Book of Abraham
Ad hoc assumption: he didn't literally translate it, it was simply a tool of inspiration

We believe we will be blessed for paying tithing.
Observation: You are a bankrupt
Ad hoc assumption: God is testing you

We believe we can be healed by blessings
Observation: non healing
Ad hoc assumption: the recipient lacks faith

We believe that the church takes tithing & offerings for purposes of charity
Observation: There is little evidence that this is true
Ad hoc assumption: the church doesn't want to brag about it's charitableness

We believe that black people are cursed, and were less valiant in the pre-existence
Observation: 1978 revelation
Ad hoc assumption: that was simply a policy, never a doctrine

by Fetal Deity

Apologists are pseudo-scientists. That is, they do their "science" in reverse. They start with a conclusion. In the case of Mopologists, that means, for instance, that they have concluded ("spiritually") that the BoM is the word of God. Then, they look for evidence that supports their conclusion; any evidence that contradicts their previously arrived-at conclusion is either ignored, distorted or completely redefined.

Bottom line: it is impossible to engage in a rational, objective argument with an apologist in the area he or she is defending ... IMPOSSIBLE ... as in: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!!!

stephen hawking on the probability of intelligent life

Stephen Hawking: Asking big questions about the universe
05:35 despite an extensive search by the SETI project we haven't heard any alien television quiz shows. this probably indicates that there are no alien civilizations at our stage of development within the radius of a few hundred light years. issuing an insurance policy for abduction by aliens seems a pretty safe bet.

movie review - IOUSA - documentary about the US deficit

17:49 the only issue that's more severe than this (the projected social security + medical deficit after 2017: -2 trillion within 3 decades) would be the idea that an islamic fundamentalist will his hands on (or her hands on) a nuclear weapon and use it against us. - senator judd gregg, NH

43:48 in 2007, china had the largest trade surplus in the world ($315,700,000,000) and who was dead last? the united states of america (-$816,000,000,000)

1:07:49 our country would need $53,000,000,000,000 invested today which is about $175,000 per person to deliver on the government's obligations and promises. how much of this 53 trillion dollars to we have? zip. by the time today's college graduates are going to retire 40 years from now, the only things our government will be able to pay for are interest on the federal debt and some social security, medicare and medicaid benefits. all other parts of the federal government will be closed and out of business.

1:21:01 while you watched this film $85 million was added to the federal debt.

ragnar redbeard's real(istic) beatitudes

here are my "picks" from redbeard's beatitudes from might is right:

Blessed are the strong, for they shall possess the Earth.
Blessed are the powerful for they shall be reverenced among men.
Blessed are the bold for they shall be masters of the world.
Blessed are the iron-handed, the unfit shall flee before them.
Blessed are the destroyers of false hope, they are the true Messiahs.
Blessed are they who believe in nothing, never shall it terrorize their minds.

Cursed are the believers in good and evil for they are frightened by shadows.
Cursed are the God-adorers, they shall be shorn sheep.
Cursed are the haters of battle, subjugation is their portion.
Cursed are the humble, for they shall be trodden under hoofs.
Cursed are the weak, for they shall inherit the yoke.
Cursed are the feeble for they shall be blotted out.
Cursed are the poor in spirit, they shall be spat upon.

if you're looking for truth, redbeard's beatitudes are at least true. jesus' are wishful thinking, claimed to be true, when they dont represent reality, thus they are lies (or empty metaphorical promises, not intended to be fulfilled here in this life--how convenient), in my eyes =) there's a theory that jesus was invented by josephus flavius to keep the jews under rome's control. jesus' teachings would do just that, e.g. "turn the other cheek", "blessed are the humble", "if a man asks for your shirt give him your coat", etc.
historicity of jesus

caesar's messiah (this book is really interesting. i have it if you want to borrow it.)

jesus also fits the profile of a mythological hero. on Lord Raglan's scale of 1-22 of common traits for a mythological hero, jesus ranks around 19. it is said that no real, historical figure has ever scored above a 7 (alexander the great == not a mythological hero).
see also this lord raglan's hero page and jesus' hero explanation

see also:
jesus myth theory
jesus christ and comparative mythology

i originally posted all of this on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/notes/nick-humphrey/the-realistic-beatitudes/10150277538262292

why the mormons always list a new leader's accomplishments before he speaks for the first time

while growing up in the lds cult i was always bothered by the bragging about the new leader or "important" guest speaker being presented to the congregation, how the person introducing him would always read through a long list of accomplishments/bragging points about all the education and positions he's held, etc. i always knew of somebody in my ward who was most likely way more humble and "spiritually qualified" to help and teach others, but who hadnt accomplished a lot in the worldly sense when compared to this businessman in a nice suit. it bothered me that the church leaders put such an emphasis on worldly achievements of their leaders.

i remember saying to myself every single time this happened: "why do they do this? what does this have to do with anything about the gospel?"

today i was reading The Essential Guide to Rhetoric
and found the answer to my lifelong question =)

page 38

ETHOS
Argument is not the only dimension of persuasive proof. You might sometimes hear what sound like strong arguments, yet be inclined to doubt them. To accept someone’s argument is, in a sense, to trust that person, so audiences make judgments about the speaker. Audiences ask questions (such as “What kind of person is this?") to evaluate the speaker and decide if she is credible and whether to change their mind about the topic at hand. This is the same as asking, “What kind of ethos does this person have?” When audiences wonder about the speaker’s ethos, they are considering his credibility (believability) and trustworthiness.

By telling the people in church the "impressive" info about the new leader/guest speaker, they are establishing the credibility of that person, which increases the chances that the people will trust him and believe what he says. It's a simple, well-known, rhetoric tactic.

if what the speaker was going to say was really true, and the "holy ghost" really existed, then creating ethos to strengthen your message (argument) would just be a waste of time and effort.