Alright, I will admit I use the stumbleupon application a lot. And I have a good number of topics which I am very interested in. Religion is one of these many topics. However, it seems that of these religion sites I get, the most common ones are of atheism.
Now I believe atheism is too misunderstood to have so much attention, and it always has. No one has ever understood the reasoning for or the belief of atheism. I hope that this post will enlighten a few people about some belief systems and their implications, at least as far as I know them.
Now some people have this belief that there is either science or religion. Science, things like evolution and physics and archaeology, are concepts which are based off of what we call scientific data and analysis. Tests have been performed over and over to find out the amount of truth value for these theories. This is the basis of science as we know it. Religion is no based on these values. Religion is based on faith and tradition. Religion is just another way for people to explain things.
Now anyone who has read some of my past blogs should be aware that I believe strongly in science. I am not a person big in faith for anything other than science. However, I do not believe that religion is wrong. I believe that science is my faith system. I do not have much of a religion system though.
Atheists and non-atheists of the internet both have the same idea of atheism. They will not admit this but they all believe exactly the same thing. Atheists of the internet are the same as theists of the internet. They openly discredit and denounce other religious beliefs and they attack those who aren't "enlightened" as they are.
I will just say that I don't believe that atheists are necessarily wrong in their ideas, but they are certainly wrong in these attacks. That isn't to say that theists are not wrong as well for the attacks they deal. No one is right for attacking another person when they have no idea themselves as to what the correct answer actually is.
Overall the concept of atheism is not only used to denounce other religions but it is also used simply because only the basic ideas are understood. Most who have atheist websites and other webpages use the ideas of atheism incorrectly. This, to me, seems to an incorrect way to believe in something. These people should stop wasting their time posting incorrect ideas and start researching what real atheism is.
Atheism is not the belief in science. It is not the belief of anti-Christian/Jewish/Islamic/etc. ideas. Atheism is the system of beliefs that there is no god. It is not a group of religion haters. It is a group of people who do not belief in a deity. There are both theists and self-proclaimed atheists who think that atheists believe in science and "know" based on science that there is no god.
Again this is simply a misunderstood and misused belief system. It is used by outsiders as a scapegoat for religious wrongs. It is used by radical believers as a way to rationalize their being "right" and everyone else being wrong.
Overall, atheism is overused and abused by those who misunderstand. I hope that people realize these things and I can stop reading about how wrong everyone else is who believes is anything. There is no reason religions and belief systems need to attack one another. No one really knows what's going to happen thus there is no true answer. Why can't people just see that?
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Friday, April 15, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Pacific Religions (New Idea Post 1)
Well it's been quite some time since my last post. I have learned quite a bit since my last posts. Both about myself and about all kinds of other topics. I have also come up with a new idea of blogs to post. I recently picked up a book on the religions throughout the world. My plan is to find whatever time I can and read sections of this book and write about the religions I learn about. This will both give me and my readers some knowledge that hopefully they never knew.
Well on to the first post: Religions of the Pacific
Alright well I wanted to start off in a more simple way, by reading the shortest chapter. This way I could see how well this all worked out. I didn't feel like reading the 100+ page section on Christianity just to end up getting bored with it and not wanted to post anything on it. Anyway, so this section was split into 4 different regions of people. Indonesia, Australia, Melanesia, and Polynesia. The group each seemed quite different considering their close proximity.
These groups were each originally written about by foreigners, who tended not to be worried about being objective. Thus, the stories from the past can hardly be very trustworthy. And the groups themselves had no way of writing their ideas and beliefs considering they had no written language. So the few ideas which are in this book came from more recent researchers and writers who tried to get ideas down from the older generations before they are gone forever.
Each of these groups has a very different idea of the world around them. The Indonesians believe in a Mother Earth and a Father Sky. These beings are married and eventually separate. This marriage though, results in the major crop of the area, rice. They also believe that the earth is inhabited by both humans and spirits. They believe in a cosmic order which must remain in balance, and in order for this to happen all humans, spirits and animals must behave correctly. All groups in Indonesian culture believe in an afterlife.
Australian groups themselves believe different ideas. South-eastern Australian believe that a male supreme being lives in the sky, while northern Australians believe in a Mother Earth figure. There is also a Rainbow Snake, which can be either male or female, associated with rain and water. The Rainbow Snake is believed to be the first creator. The Australians are very bound to nature, their religion is a for of Totemism. They are a non-materialistic people. They believe that the spirit exists before birth and survives after death. However, contrary to several Western religions, they do not believe in heaven or hell, the spirit just remains on the land.
Melanesian people believe in ancestor-spirits who can affect the lives of their living descendants. The people of Melanesia also believe in magic and even practice sorcery. Sometimes premature deaths and suicides cause suspicion of sorcery. If the person is not paid-back the spirit will not be able to journey on to its final destination.
Polynesian people belief in a god creator who made the cosmos from an original void (parallel to Big Bang Theory?). Then the Earth and Sky (similar to Indonesian belief) created lesser gods who in turn created humans and now preside over human concerns, like warfare and forests (much like other ancient belief systems). There are also lesser spirits and ghosts and demons on this earth. The living Polynesians trace their family line back to the land of Hawaiki where the spirits of the dead return to rest. The chief has direct access to the spiritual power of god.
Unfortunately many of these beliefs have been either replaced or at least tainted with other Western religions, like Christianity, Hinduism, and others. So there is very little pure Nativism left in the Pacific.
I think about these religions, well at least as much is presented by the editor and I see similarities between Catholicism and even the science that I follow. It is pretty intriguing, at least to me, just how similar people are. I mean the people who live on islands in the Pacific with relatively little outside contact, and people in the center Europe thousands of years ago, and the people who have been industrializing for hundreds of years; all these groups have ideas that all, minus a few details, sound really similar. I can't wait until I get to the more in-depth sections of Christianity and Islam and Judaism just to see what minute details I can find which are different from one another.
Well I suppose, to avoid internet plagiarism I should probably post the book information and give them their due credit.
"The Penguin Handbook of the World's Living Religions", edited by John R. Hinnells, Penguin Books, 2010
Well on to the first post: Religions of the Pacific
Alright well I wanted to start off in a more simple way, by reading the shortest chapter. This way I could see how well this all worked out. I didn't feel like reading the 100+ page section on Christianity just to end up getting bored with it and not wanted to post anything on it. Anyway, so this section was split into 4 different regions of people. Indonesia, Australia, Melanesia, and Polynesia. The group each seemed quite different considering their close proximity.
These groups were each originally written about by foreigners, who tended not to be worried about being objective. Thus, the stories from the past can hardly be very trustworthy. And the groups themselves had no way of writing their ideas and beliefs considering they had no written language. So the few ideas which are in this book came from more recent researchers and writers who tried to get ideas down from the older generations before they are gone forever.
Each of these groups has a very different idea of the world around them. The Indonesians believe in a Mother Earth and a Father Sky. These beings are married and eventually separate. This marriage though, results in the major crop of the area, rice. They also believe that the earth is inhabited by both humans and spirits. They believe in a cosmic order which must remain in balance, and in order for this to happen all humans, spirits and animals must behave correctly. All groups in Indonesian culture believe in an afterlife.
Australian groups themselves believe different ideas. South-eastern Australian believe that a male supreme being lives in the sky, while northern Australians believe in a Mother Earth figure. There is also a Rainbow Snake, which can be either male or female, associated with rain and water. The Rainbow Snake is believed to be the first creator. The Australians are very bound to nature, their religion is a for of Totemism. They are a non-materialistic people. They believe that the spirit exists before birth and survives after death. However, contrary to several Western religions, they do not believe in heaven or hell, the spirit just remains on the land.
Melanesian people believe in ancestor-spirits who can affect the lives of their living descendants. The people of Melanesia also believe in magic and even practice sorcery. Sometimes premature deaths and suicides cause suspicion of sorcery. If the person is not paid-back the spirit will not be able to journey on to its final destination.
Polynesian people belief in a god creator who made the cosmos from an original void (parallel to Big Bang Theory?). Then the Earth and Sky (similar to Indonesian belief) created lesser gods who in turn created humans and now preside over human concerns, like warfare and forests (much like other ancient belief systems). There are also lesser spirits and ghosts and demons on this earth. The living Polynesians trace their family line back to the land of Hawaiki where the spirits of the dead return to rest. The chief has direct access to the spiritual power of god.
Unfortunately many of these beliefs have been either replaced or at least tainted with other Western religions, like Christianity, Hinduism, and others. So there is very little pure Nativism left in the Pacific.
I think about these religions, well at least as much is presented by the editor and I see similarities between Catholicism and even the science that I follow. It is pretty intriguing, at least to me, just how similar people are. I mean the people who live on islands in the Pacific with relatively little outside contact, and people in the center Europe thousands of years ago, and the people who have been industrializing for hundreds of years; all these groups have ideas that all, minus a few details, sound really similar. I can't wait until I get to the more in-depth sections of Christianity and Islam and Judaism just to see what minute details I can find which are different from one another.
Well I suppose, to avoid internet plagiarism I should probably post the book information and give them their due credit.
"The Penguin Handbook of the World's Living Religions", edited by John R. Hinnells, Penguin Books, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Atheism vs religiousness vs science
I feel as though lately, there has been a crossroad in my life that I have seen many times. I also feel as though some people have an idea that may be wrong both about me and some groups of people in general. This crossroad is that of atheism, science, and religiousness. What do I belief is true and why?
Well from past posts and from knowing me in person, like many of you do, you would probably guess that I am an atheist who doesn't think there is a god and doesn't believe in anything but science. I will respond by saying, somewhat.
First off, I want to start by saying atheism is a very strong and decisive word that describes a small group of people. It is the belief in nothing or the lack of beliefs at all. This is a very strong and honestly, to me, meaningless (dis)belief system. It makes life so much more monotonous and pointless. I understand skepticism and debatable ideas, but I can't say that I believe in nothing. I simply don't know anything. In my mind, belief and knowledge are two separate things.
This brings me to science. Yes I am a strongly scientific person. I am a post-Scientific Revolution and post-Enlightenment thinker. I belief in reason and understanding the world around us. That is who I have decided to me. This does not mean however that I don't believe or I don't leave room for belief in other things. There very well be a god or anything other being out there controlling our actions and making me write this post right now. Who can ever really know?
This leads into the concept of religion. I don't really have a set religion and I am happy about that. I am not being forced to close my mind to things that may or may not be true. I am thinking on my own and not worrying about the problems that some most likely, but still possibly, existent god may have with it. This gives me a better chance of seeing things for what they are and not what someone tells me that someone else said that god said. I do understand that religion is a safe haven for some people. It does help them understand their life and explain some things for them. I completely understand that, and I understand that because that is exactly what science is for me. Science is in part my religion. It is pretty much my belief system. I say "in part" and "pretty much" because there are some people who take this too strongly just as some religion fanatics take religion too strongly.
There are people in this world that are too close minded and myopic. They can't see something that is right in front of their faces. They are blindly faithful to things that are obviously not possible or true to others. This goes for people of religion and people of science and people of neither. This goes for me and you and everyone you and I know. Everyone on this earth is myopic to their own degree. Now the only resolution for this is looking at someone else and attempting to understand what they believe and why they believe it. As I mentioned before though, there are people who are too close minded. These are the people who don't believe anything unless it is purely _________________ (fill in the blank with whatever belief system you wish). There are people that believe everything in the book (quran, bible, torah, brief history of time) is true no matter what. And to be honest, none of them are completely 100% true. They are all beliefs. They are all some stuff people wrote down at some point and people are fallible as we all know.
So without going too much further, moral of the story: don't believe everything you see, try to understand other people's beliefs, don't be close minded, and figure out what you really want to believe. I won't even answer the original questions because they were intended for the reader, not me. Despite my biased writing, what do you believe? And why? Hope these at least get you thinking. That is all I ask.
Well from past posts and from knowing me in person, like many of you do, you would probably guess that I am an atheist who doesn't think there is a god and doesn't believe in anything but science. I will respond by saying, somewhat.
First off, I want to start by saying atheism is a very strong and decisive word that describes a small group of people. It is the belief in nothing or the lack of beliefs at all. This is a very strong and honestly, to me, meaningless (dis)belief system. It makes life so much more monotonous and pointless. I understand skepticism and debatable ideas, but I can't say that I believe in nothing. I simply don't know anything. In my mind, belief and knowledge are two separate things.
This brings me to science. Yes I am a strongly scientific person. I am a post-Scientific Revolution and post-Enlightenment thinker. I belief in reason and understanding the world around us. That is who I have decided to me. This does not mean however that I don't believe or I don't leave room for belief in other things. There very well be a god or anything other being out there controlling our actions and making me write this post right now. Who can ever really know?
This leads into the concept of religion. I don't really have a set religion and I am happy about that. I am not being forced to close my mind to things that may or may not be true. I am thinking on my own and not worrying about the problems that some most likely, but still possibly, existent god may have with it. This gives me a better chance of seeing things for what they are and not what someone tells me that someone else said that god said. I do understand that religion is a safe haven for some people. It does help them understand their life and explain some things for them. I completely understand that, and I understand that because that is exactly what science is for me. Science is in part my religion. It is pretty much my belief system. I say "in part" and "pretty much" because there are some people who take this too strongly just as some religion fanatics take religion too strongly.
There are people in this world that are too close minded and myopic. They can't see something that is right in front of their faces. They are blindly faithful to things that are obviously not possible or true to others. This goes for people of religion and people of science and people of neither. This goes for me and you and everyone you and I know. Everyone on this earth is myopic to their own degree. Now the only resolution for this is looking at someone else and attempting to understand what they believe and why they believe it. As I mentioned before though, there are people who are too close minded. These are the people who don't believe anything unless it is purely _________________ (fill in the blank with whatever belief system you wish). There are people that believe everything in the book (quran, bible, torah, brief history of time) is true no matter what. And to be honest, none of them are completely 100% true. They are all beliefs. They are all some stuff people wrote down at some point and people are fallible as we all know.
So without going too much further, moral of the story: don't believe everything you see, try to understand other people's beliefs, don't be close minded, and figure out what you really want to believe. I won't even answer the original questions because they were intended for the reader, not me. Despite my biased writing, what do you believe? And why? Hope these at least get you thinking. That is all I ask.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Religulous
I just watched the movie Religulous, a documentary by Bill Maher on religion. Here is a link to the movie:
I enjoyed the movie. It was Maher's thoughts on religions across the world. He is an non-religious man. He used to be a Jewish-Christian. I have views similar to him. Some of the references he made are ones that I have written about in the past. It is a very interesting movie. I am sure there was removal of some material to increase the bias of the movie. I also feel that there were things that were not discussed.
My view on the movie, is that it was a pretty good documentary. I had laughs and didn't mind watching it. However, I feel that Bill Maher is too adamant in his beliefs. He is as bad as any other religious person. He has strong views that are on the verge of radical. I feel that he doesn't even realize it or maybe he does.
My own beliefs are for me and me alone. I don't make everyone else try to believe what I believe. This is where I feel Maher is incorrect. He is trying, with this movie, to provoke others to become atheist. He is too strong in his belief that everyone has to do the same as him. I feel that religions just need to tolerate each other. I don't care if someone else believes that Jesus is going to save them or if Mohamed is the prophet. As long as they can tolerate that I don't believe it, I'm fine with it.
I understand where he comes from when he mentions how religions cause war. Radical believers in any religion are the problem. They are the ones that I am firmly against. And that is the reason that I have a problem with Maher. He is too far from religion itself. I believe that there is potential for anything. I have adapted a view similar to Stephen Hawking. After the Big Bang everything has happened due to randomness. There was no god or outer source of anything that influence the creation of us in anyway. However, before the Big Bang there is a potential for a god. We could never have any idea. It, at least at this point, is impossible, both in theory and in practice, to see outside the CMB which is the beginning of the universe. There is infinite potential of anything before the Big Bang. Of course, being that I am more of an agnostic, I still don't want to say there is exactly 0% chance of there being a god even after the Big Bang. I just don't believe that there is a very high chance of there being a god.
I know I have said most of this before, but I felt I should both support and refute Bill Maher. I think that will do for now.
I enjoyed the movie. It was Maher's thoughts on religions across the world. He is an non-religious man. He used to be a Jewish-Christian. I have views similar to him. Some of the references he made are ones that I have written about in the past. It is a very interesting movie. I am sure there was removal of some material to increase the bias of the movie. I also feel that there were things that were not discussed.
My view on the movie, is that it was a pretty good documentary. I had laughs and didn't mind watching it. However, I feel that Bill Maher is too adamant in his beliefs. He is as bad as any other religious person. He has strong views that are on the verge of radical. I feel that he doesn't even realize it or maybe he does.
My own beliefs are for me and me alone. I don't make everyone else try to believe what I believe. This is where I feel Maher is incorrect. He is trying, with this movie, to provoke others to become atheist. He is too strong in his belief that everyone has to do the same as him. I feel that religions just need to tolerate each other. I don't care if someone else believes that Jesus is going to save them or if Mohamed is the prophet. As long as they can tolerate that I don't believe it, I'm fine with it.
I understand where he comes from when he mentions how religions cause war. Radical believers in any religion are the problem. They are the ones that I am firmly against. And that is the reason that I have a problem with Maher. He is too far from religion itself. I believe that there is potential for anything. I have adapted a view similar to Stephen Hawking. After the Big Bang everything has happened due to randomness. There was no god or outer source of anything that influence the creation of us in anyway. However, before the Big Bang there is a potential for a god. We could never have any idea. It, at least at this point, is impossible, both in theory and in practice, to see outside the CMB which is the beginning of the universe. There is infinite potential of anything before the Big Bang. Of course, being that I am more of an agnostic, I still don't want to say there is exactly 0% chance of there being a god even after the Big Bang. I just don't believe that there is a very high chance of there being a god.
I know I have said most of this before, but I felt I should both support and refute Bill Maher. I think that will do for now.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Anthropocentrism
Anthropocentrism is something that is really rampant in the world. Humans are the center of everything. Oh, but of course. Because we are the center of the solar system. And the center of the Milky Way. And the center of the universe. For any reader that believes any of those last three sentence fragments, they are all wrong. We are not the center of anything but the ideas of our own minds. We are not all that special and we really don't do anything but think of ourselves. This is one of the ideas that leads people to a world of disappearing intellectuals, reference previous post on politics and intellectuals.
So, many of the readers right now are probably asking, "Well what are we supposed to think about? We are the greatest species alive." Well I will respond to that statement by simply saying "NO". No, we are not the greatest species alive. We are just a species that is in charge for a little bit. And if you really think about it we aren't really in charge. After all, how many houses get infested with insects, spiders, bats, birds, rats? We can't even control "simple" creatures like that. We are being killed millions at a time by diseases and viruses. And most importantly how can a species be considered dominant if it can't even keep its own population from killing one another?
People need to learn to think about things other than themselves. I have so many examples of people not doing it. I will be talking about people I know and who will read this, so I won't mention names in case of offense. I will start off with the most recent one I can think of. Today, three of us were watching birds as we ate lunch. One of my friends mentioned how he wanted to be a bird. He said he would fly around just to flaunt the fact that he could. I laughed at this because it was something completely random. I also realized how anthropocentric it was. People care more about flaunting their skills than anything. The birds were scavenging for food so they could survive. They used their flying skills for something that was useful. And people, not just this friend, would rather fly just to say they can.
There are always the insect haters. No one likes bugs. They are so yucky. Well that's what these people say at least. I personally enjoy looking at insects and other smaller arthropods. I won't kill insects unless they are really invading my space or bothering me more than I care to deal with them. I live in a dorm that has some sort of infestation. I have had ants on my desk, cockroaches in my bed, centipedes and millipedes in the bathroom. I have only killed the cockroaches in the bed. I just felt that was too personal. I don't kill insects just because I can, I feel that this is just as wrong as murder. Taking a life, no matter the life form, is murder. Those are my feelings.
I also have a bit of a problem with zoos too. I do enjoy seeing animals, don't get me wrong. But imprisonment of these animals in cages barely bigger than the animal itself, is highly discouraging. I enjoy studying animals and seeing them and figuring out things about them. I do not, however, like to see them in the conditions they are in within zoos. Aquariums are the same way. I feel that it is taking away potential from the species to continue on. Endangered animals are a bit different. I still don't believe they should live in captivity, but they should have reserved areas that are full-size simulations of their real native environment. This again gets into overpopulation and need for a major disaster, see previous post if you haven't already. The last time I was at the zoo actually proved this to me. I was in the gorilla exhibit and I looked into the eyes of the gorilla and I knew that it was sad. It was a depressing experience. I hadn't felt that bad for quite a long time as I did when I looked into that gorilla's eyes.
People are to fixed upon humans. We see humans in everything. We personify animals all the time. Look at any cartoon for kids. Most of the characters are animals. We see faces in everything. The moon, potato chips, trees, everything.
Religion is the same too. Religions are based on the assumption that humans are the most important creatures next to god. We are also the only intelligent life in the universe. Religion is the belief that god made us special.
People are too caught up in believing that we are everything. We couldn't survive without other organisms. Why can't we live like it? Why can't we let other things thrive just as we try ourselves? Well that will be all for this rant, I suppose.
So, many of the readers right now are probably asking, "Well what are we supposed to think about? We are the greatest species alive." Well I will respond to that statement by simply saying "NO". No, we are not the greatest species alive. We are just a species that is in charge for a little bit. And if you really think about it we aren't really in charge. After all, how many houses get infested with insects, spiders, bats, birds, rats? We can't even control "simple" creatures like that. We are being killed millions at a time by diseases and viruses. And most importantly how can a species be considered dominant if it can't even keep its own population from killing one another?
People need to learn to think about things other than themselves. I have so many examples of people not doing it. I will be talking about people I know and who will read this, so I won't mention names in case of offense. I will start off with the most recent one I can think of. Today, three of us were watching birds as we ate lunch. One of my friends mentioned how he wanted to be a bird. He said he would fly around just to flaunt the fact that he could. I laughed at this because it was something completely random. I also realized how anthropocentric it was. People care more about flaunting their skills than anything. The birds were scavenging for food so they could survive. They used their flying skills for something that was useful. And people, not just this friend, would rather fly just to say they can.
There are always the insect haters. No one likes bugs. They are so yucky. Well that's what these people say at least. I personally enjoy looking at insects and other smaller arthropods. I won't kill insects unless they are really invading my space or bothering me more than I care to deal with them. I live in a dorm that has some sort of infestation. I have had ants on my desk, cockroaches in my bed, centipedes and millipedes in the bathroom. I have only killed the cockroaches in the bed. I just felt that was too personal. I don't kill insects just because I can, I feel that this is just as wrong as murder. Taking a life, no matter the life form, is murder. Those are my feelings.
I also have a bit of a problem with zoos too. I do enjoy seeing animals, don't get me wrong. But imprisonment of these animals in cages barely bigger than the animal itself, is highly discouraging. I enjoy studying animals and seeing them and figuring out things about them. I do not, however, like to see them in the conditions they are in within zoos. Aquariums are the same way. I feel that it is taking away potential from the species to continue on. Endangered animals are a bit different. I still don't believe they should live in captivity, but they should have reserved areas that are full-size simulations of their real native environment. This again gets into overpopulation and need for a major disaster, see previous post if you haven't already. The last time I was at the zoo actually proved this to me. I was in the gorilla exhibit and I looked into the eyes of the gorilla and I knew that it was sad. It was a depressing experience. I hadn't felt that bad for quite a long time as I did when I looked into that gorilla's eyes.
People are to fixed upon humans. We see humans in everything. We personify animals all the time. Look at any cartoon for kids. Most of the characters are animals. We see faces in everything. The moon, potato chips, trees, everything.
Religion is the same too. Religions are based on the assumption that humans are the most important creatures next to god. We are also the only intelligent life in the universe. Religion is the belief that god made us special.
People are too caught up in believing that we are everything. We couldn't survive without other organisms. Why can't we live like it? Why can't we let other things thrive just as we try ourselves? Well that will be all for this rant, I suppose.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Me, religion and some fun
Well I am going to go back to my religion rant. I am not sure what else to write about. I may actually in the future start researching religions. That may make this even more accurate. As of this time I have only the knowledge of the Catholic religion, which I was Baptized and Confirmed into.
I was raised by a family that went to church every once in awhile. I went to CCD, catholic class, weekly from 2nd through 7th grade. I received many of the sacraments that Catholics receive in their lives. My grandparents are people who go to church and confession every weekend regardless of where they are (this even includes during vacations out of country). They are almost to the point of radical. No offense mom-mom and pop-pop.
Anyway, throughout my years in CCD I learned a fair amount of things. I went through phases of fearing death and hell and god himself. I was a very fearful follower and would do anything to save my soul.
This, as you can obviously see, has changed quite a bit. I don't know exactly what it was that changed so much, but it did. I became much less of a follower after CCD ended. I think what really annoyed me about it was the completely ridiculous stories within the bible. I will talk about these in a bit. I also think it had to do with my discovery of science as a reality that I enjoyed and understood, unlike the bible.
My first complaint with the bible is that it might not have even been written as a true story. I will quote a friend and say, "it's only a history book." It is bound to be flawed by human writing, no pun intended. But I also came up with an alternate theory about the origin of the bible. It was written as a really organized prank. People who called themselves "apostles" decided to pull a prank and talk about these things that they just made up off the cuff. Could you imagine if this was what actually happened? All these people were professing their belief in a false religion just to see if other people would follow. Little do they realize it would be one of the most believed religions in all of history. That would really be the greatest prank of all time.
I guess this is a pretty weak guess. I mean if they did want to come up with a better prank, they probably would have tried harder to come up with more believable stories. Some stories from the bible people just take as true. But if you look at these actual stories, you see that only an idiot or a drunk would actually believe them.
Let's start with the beginning. I don't know too much of the story of the beginning, but from what I do remember: God took 6 days to create the world and 1 day for rest. Wait, 7 days, since when is god restricted by time. Is god really only existent in the 4 dimensions we know? Well the bible just proved that M theory can't exist, with it's 11 dimensions and whatnot.
And then it has been dated and followed by bible experts and supposedly it says that the world was 4000 years old. Umm...ok. Then there was that famous court case and that was proven wrong. All those fossils and stuff that god just put in the ground to fool us. Ha, he's a funny little bugger isn't he.
Well the bible is looking fishy and we aren't even to the first human yet. Ok, shall we? Adam, created from dirt. Yes because dirt has DNA and other complex structures like that. Eve, the first clone ever. I mean that's got to be what she was. She was created from Adam's rib. I don't even think stem cell work like that. I'm pretty sure rib cells can only make ribs, or at most bones. That's it, Eve was a skeleton. No that doesn't work because there was Cain and Abel, who were by the way the first true rivals. They were Gary and Ash as blood relatives and really unhappy about it.
Ok, so god said don't eat the apple and satan said do eat the apple. Forbidden fruit for another discussion. So naturally they eat it. Duh... humans wouldn't be any fun without sin. God knew it all along. And why apples are apples always assumed? Where did it ever say apple? I'm pretty sure, even with my limited knowledge, it never said apple in the bible. I thought an apple a day kept the doctor away, I guess the devil wasn't a doctor.
Now on to Cain and Abel. First off, is the reproduction of man and his clone considered asexual reproduction? The first murderer was Cain. He was sadistic enough to kill his brother. Why was that anyway? Ah, jealousy. I guess that's a good reason. I mean who doesn't kill their brother when they receive less attention. It's only natural.
Now a bit further. Ok so Adam and Eve had these two and apparently Seth too. Ok. And they all lived for excess of 900 years, except Abel of course. Whoa, whoa... 900 years. Holy crap!!! What is this? Why are we getting cheated out of 800+ years? Why do we live for 100, if we are lucky? Who got the short end of the stick there? OK another question. If these three were born to Adam and Eve, who did they reproduce with. Three sons with no daughters. Ummm...I don't get it. OK well over looking that point, apparently they each did have a wife. So they had random wives that just appeared for convenience. I know a few people who would be more than happy to make some anti-feminist jokes about this, but I will not. And each of them have a wife and son. And it keeps happening like that, I guess. Umm... anyone else seriously considering the problems with this genotype? Only male offspring. What kind of genes did they have? Or were they just really unlucky? Ok so a bunch of other generations of 900 year old and gradually they start dying younger. And by the time of Moses humans were down to 100 year life spans.
Alright on to my favorite myth from the bible. Noah. How big of a boat can carry one of every species of animal ever known to man? Let alone 2 of them. And then there is the time needed to replenish the species to a non-endangered level of population. How long does it take for millions of species of all forms of animal to reproduce to this level? I am not even going to attempt to figure this out. Now on to the original question of how big a boat it needed. Ok well consider how many species of animal you know. Giraffe, elephant, pig, cow, horse, dog, wolf, cat, lion, zebra, cheetah, and there are more than I will ever be able to name here, so I won't even continue. And I bet those are only mammals that you considered. Now go to birds. Orioles, finches, crows, doves, sparrows, etc. Ok and now for the insects. Beetles, bees, ants. You get the idea. Not to mention that the birds and insects I mentioned weren't even species. Those were closer to family or genus. In fact, there are more species of beetle known then there are people in America. And there are more discovered all the time. So how big a boat can carry all of these animals? A boat known as the Earth is about the only boat that can be fathomed. Ok now another question. How can these animals survive for however long that flood was? Was there food? Other than the other animals? And how do you keep animals from eating one another on a boat this big? I mean even know with technology, prison guards can't keep prisoners from attacking each other. And these aren't even starving animals.
I think you can understand where I am coming from with these, or at least I hope so. These are the things that dissuaded me from the catholic religion. These aren't even half of the stories that don't make sense to me. I just can't bring myself to believe in it. Feel free to voice your opinion though. Maybe you can change my mind...
I was raised by a family that went to church every once in awhile. I went to CCD, catholic class, weekly from 2nd through 7th grade. I received many of the sacraments that Catholics receive in their lives. My grandparents are people who go to church and confession every weekend regardless of where they are (this even includes during vacations out of country). They are almost to the point of radical. No offense mom-mom and pop-pop.
Anyway, throughout my years in CCD I learned a fair amount of things. I went through phases of fearing death and hell and god himself. I was a very fearful follower and would do anything to save my soul.
This, as you can obviously see, has changed quite a bit. I don't know exactly what it was that changed so much, but it did. I became much less of a follower after CCD ended. I think what really annoyed me about it was the completely ridiculous stories within the bible. I will talk about these in a bit. I also think it had to do with my discovery of science as a reality that I enjoyed and understood, unlike the bible.
My first complaint with the bible is that it might not have even been written as a true story. I will quote a friend and say, "it's only a history book." It is bound to be flawed by human writing, no pun intended. But I also came up with an alternate theory about the origin of the bible. It was written as a really organized prank. People who called themselves "apostles" decided to pull a prank and talk about these things that they just made up off the cuff. Could you imagine if this was what actually happened? All these people were professing their belief in a false religion just to see if other people would follow. Little do they realize it would be one of the most believed religions in all of history. That would really be the greatest prank of all time.
I guess this is a pretty weak guess. I mean if they did want to come up with a better prank, they probably would have tried harder to come up with more believable stories. Some stories from the bible people just take as true. But if you look at these actual stories, you see that only an idiot or a drunk would actually believe them.
Let's start with the beginning. I don't know too much of the story of the beginning, but from what I do remember: God took 6 days to create the world and 1 day for rest. Wait, 7 days, since when is god restricted by time. Is god really only existent in the 4 dimensions we know? Well the bible just proved that M theory can't exist, with it's 11 dimensions and whatnot.
And then it has been dated and followed by bible experts and supposedly it says that the world was 4000 years old. Umm...ok. Then there was that famous court case and that was proven wrong. All those fossils and stuff that god just put in the ground to fool us. Ha, he's a funny little bugger isn't he.
Well the bible is looking fishy and we aren't even to the first human yet. Ok, shall we? Adam, created from dirt. Yes because dirt has DNA and other complex structures like that. Eve, the first clone ever. I mean that's got to be what she was. She was created from Adam's rib. I don't even think stem cell work like that. I'm pretty sure rib cells can only make ribs, or at most bones. That's it, Eve was a skeleton. No that doesn't work because there was Cain and Abel, who were by the way the first true rivals. They were Gary and Ash as blood relatives and really unhappy about it.
Ok, so god said don't eat the apple and satan said do eat the apple. Forbidden fruit for another discussion. So naturally they eat it. Duh... humans wouldn't be any fun without sin. God knew it all along. And why apples are apples always assumed? Where did it ever say apple? I'm pretty sure, even with my limited knowledge, it never said apple in the bible. I thought an apple a day kept the doctor away, I guess the devil wasn't a doctor.
Now on to Cain and Abel. First off, is the reproduction of man and his clone considered asexual reproduction? The first murderer was Cain. He was sadistic enough to kill his brother. Why was that anyway? Ah, jealousy. I guess that's a good reason. I mean who doesn't kill their brother when they receive less attention. It's only natural.
Now a bit further. Ok so Adam and Eve had these two and apparently Seth too. Ok. And they all lived for excess of 900 years, except Abel of course. Whoa, whoa... 900 years. Holy crap!!! What is this? Why are we getting cheated out of 800+ years? Why do we live for 100, if we are lucky? Who got the short end of the stick there? OK another question. If these three were born to Adam and Eve, who did they reproduce with. Three sons with no daughters. Ummm...I don't get it. OK well over looking that point, apparently they each did have a wife. So they had random wives that just appeared for convenience. I know a few people who would be more than happy to make some anti-feminist jokes about this, but I will not. And each of them have a wife and son. And it keeps happening like that, I guess. Umm... anyone else seriously considering the problems with this genotype? Only male offspring. What kind of genes did they have? Or were they just really unlucky? Ok so a bunch of other generations of 900 year old and gradually they start dying younger. And by the time of Moses humans were down to 100 year life spans.
Alright on to my favorite myth from the bible. Noah. How big of a boat can carry one of every species of animal ever known to man? Let alone 2 of them. And then there is the time needed to replenish the species to a non-endangered level of population. How long does it take for millions of species of all forms of animal to reproduce to this level? I am not even going to attempt to figure this out. Now on to the original question of how big a boat it needed. Ok well consider how many species of animal you know. Giraffe, elephant, pig, cow, horse, dog, wolf, cat, lion, zebra, cheetah, and there are more than I will ever be able to name here, so I won't even continue. And I bet those are only mammals that you considered. Now go to birds. Orioles, finches, crows, doves, sparrows, etc. Ok and now for the insects. Beetles, bees, ants. You get the idea. Not to mention that the birds and insects I mentioned weren't even species. Those were closer to family or genus. In fact, there are more species of beetle known then there are people in America. And there are more discovered all the time. So how big a boat can carry all of these animals? A boat known as the Earth is about the only boat that can be fathomed. Ok now another question. How can these animals survive for however long that flood was? Was there food? Other than the other animals? And how do you keep animals from eating one another on a boat this big? I mean even know with technology, prison guards can't keep prisoners from attacking each other. And these aren't even starving animals.
I think you can understand where I am coming from with these, or at least I hope so. These are the things that dissuaded me from the catholic religion. These aren't even half of the stories that don't make sense to me. I just can't bring myself to believe in it. Feel free to voice your opinion though. Maybe you can change my mind...
Saturday, July 3, 2010
First religion vs evolution rant
So I was just thinking for a bit and for one reason or another I happened to think, don't ask why: why did the male testes descend? What evolutionary mechanism would cause this? Aren't the testes more protected within the body?
I still have not looked up anything yet. I just thought I would present my own thoughts on things first. I will admit I am not in the least bit religious. I lost faith in religion quite a while ago. My family is non-practicing Catholic. My view of religion is "hope for the hopeless." I don't mean to offend anyone, this is a personal belief, I will not force anyone to believe it. I don't wish to sway people to my view but to inform everyone of my beliefs.
Anyway, on to my rant. I started with the descended testes and continued on to a point where I was simple criticizing Catholic teachings. Here is my rant:
So Catholic teaching says that God created man in his (I know I'm not capitalizing) image. Ok I'm fine so far. This naturally means that God must have had descended testes; it's only logical. Then God created woman. (This is not my view but) This must mean that woman is less than godlike because woman was created from an insignificant part of man (his thirteenth rib). Ok hope everyone can see where I am coming from. In math terms God > man > woman (again I don't believe this just making logical assumptions from teachings). Ok so this is the point at which I don't follow teaching anymore. Woman was created in order to procreate with man. God for one reason or another created man who is less than him and woman who is even lower than that. If God created man as image of God, why would he create woman, even lower than image of God, to have offspring with man? Wouldn't the offspring be only between godlike and less than godlike. Why couldn't God make man able to procreate, either with each other (homosexually) or by themselves (asexually)? It would make them as pure as possible and would therefore be closer to God. I can't begin to understand this religion.
So I still don't understand why the testes descended. I have yet to look up whether anyone has found out a reason for it. I may sometime. By the way, this is an actual conversation I had with myself. And I got it all from the original question: why did the testes descend?
**Update**
I have found a site that looks to have a good explanation.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=why-do-human-testicles-hang-like-th-2009-11-19
If you don't wish to read it I will spare you several minutes of your life. It basically says that sperm is extremely sensitive to heat and the scrotum provide a good deal of heat dissipation. Thus allowing sperm to remain cooler. I actually knew this but I never connected it. This is the reason that being cold causes the scrotum to contract. Silly me. Oh well it was still fun attempting to figure it out using the religious method.
I still have not looked up anything yet. I just thought I would present my own thoughts on things first. I will admit I am not in the least bit religious. I lost faith in religion quite a while ago. My family is non-practicing Catholic. My view of religion is "hope for the hopeless." I don't mean to offend anyone, this is a personal belief, I will not force anyone to believe it. I don't wish to sway people to my view but to inform everyone of my beliefs.
Anyway, on to my rant. I started with the descended testes and continued on to a point where I was simple criticizing Catholic teachings. Here is my rant:
So Catholic teaching says that God created man in his (I know I'm not capitalizing) image. Ok I'm fine so far. This naturally means that God must have had descended testes; it's only logical. Then God created woman. (This is not my view but) This must mean that woman is less than godlike because woman was created from an insignificant part of man (his thirteenth rib). Ok hope everyone can see where I am coming from. In math terms God > man > woman (again I don't believe this just making logical assumptions from teachings). Ok so this is the point at which I don't follow teaching anymore. Woman was created in order to procreate with man. God for one reason or another created man who is less than him and woman who is even lower than that. If God created man as image of God, why would he create woman, even lower than image of God, to have offspring with man? Wouldn't the offspring be only between godlike and less than godlike. Why couldn't God make man able to procreate, either with each other (homosexually) or by themselves (asexually)? It would make them as pure as possible and would therefore be closer to God. I can't begin to understand this religion.
So I still don't understand why the testes descended. I have yet to look up whether anyone has found out a reason for it. I may sometime. By the way, this is an actual conversation I had with myself. And I got it all from the original question: why did the testes descend?
**Update**
I have found a site that looks to have a good explanation.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=why-do-human-testicles-hang-like-th-2009-11-19
If you don't wish to read it I will spare you several minutes of your life. It basically says that sperm is extremely sensitive to heat and the scrotum provide a good deal of heat dissipation. Thus allowing sperm to remain cooler. I actually knew this but I never connected it. This is the reason that being cold causes the scrotum to contract. Silly me. Oh well it was still fun attempting to figure it out using the religious method.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)