What would the world be like if there is no God?

A common argument from those who are religious is that the world is exactly how they would expect it to be if their God exists. This argument is commonly used in all religions but they obviously have different world views because their beliefs are different. Since 100’s or even 1,000’s of different beliefs all make this claim, it actually demonstrates how religion can adapt its beliefs to explain how they see the world.

So what would the world be like if there is no God?

To keep this short, I won't discuss the fact that bad things happen to good people, or that people die from lack of food and water or how children are often born with life threatening defects etc. Instead the focus will be on religion so we have to skip to the point in time when humans started to developed language.

Once humans developed to ability to communicate they would have obviously had many questions, and one of those would have been, “how did we get here?” With their limited knowledge, they would have come up with the concept of a creator/god who put them there. The sky would have been very mysterious to them; water, lightning and thunder would seem to come from nowhere, and objects such as the sun and stars would most likely be worshiped in the early years.

As human societies develop throughout the world, they would continue to create new religions to help explain the world around them, but since a god doesn't exist, all societies would come up with something a little different. (This is exactly what we would expect if men created god. If God had created man, they would all have the same story.)  Some societies would hear about other religions and adopt some ideas and reject others.

Now, let’s fast forward to the period in time when these civilizations started to engage with each other. These many religions over the years have been passed down for generations and each society would believe their relationship with their gods or god is a life or death situation. They would believe this because if they make their deity angry, their god might not send them rain or may send them a disaster of some kind which could kill them. Because they believe it is life or death, they will be willing to fight other societies who don’t worship their god. By fighting for their god, they may even believe they will be rewarded for it.

Many of these ancient religions would have died off for various reasons. For example, one of these reasons would be due to societies conquering each other and forcing them to worship their god. The most powerful societies would have had a greater chance of spreading their religion. However, people in the future will most likely say their religion survived because it is true (even though 100’s may still exist).

Humans may develop a system that observes the world in a way that is unbiased; if they do, many will give up their religion due to it not matching up with what this way of thinking discovers. (Luckily, we did develop a system like this which we call science)

If humans still haven’t given up their ancient beliefs after many centuries of science existing, they would still be killing each other over their religious views. However, as a society becomes more educated they will also become less religious and less violent.

So this is what the world would look like if no god or gods exist, and this is exactly what has happen. Humans like to have answers and when we don’t know, we often make one up to satisfy our curiosity. Religious people often say, “If a god doesn't exist, then how did we get here?” But if a god doesn't exist, how would we be expected to know? There wouldn't be a deity to tell us. If a god exists, he wouldn't make himself undetectable by science yet visible to ancient men with little to no understanding of the world. It is completely reasonable for us to say we don’t currently know but that we hope to discover the answer eventually.

Prediction: If humans never give up their religion, religious violence will continue to exist. Even if one religion did conquer the world, there will always be individuals who end up questioning it and this will continue to cause more violence. However, because we are not perfect, even if religion does get set aside there will still be violence but it will be dramatically reduced.

2 Christians an atheist and a Facebook Page

This is a conversation that I found pretty remarkable on the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) Facebook page. I wasn't surprised by the comments of the Christians as I have had my share of these discussions, but for a rational Christian I think this might be eye-opening.

To conceal the identity of those in the discussion, I will refer to the Christians as Pastor (since he is a Pastor) and Why?Outreach (since that is the name of the FB page) and to the atheist as just atheist. There is one other person who makes a small contribution later in the discussion that I will refer to as “other” (because I was a big fan of LOST) which has nothing to do with this at all!

(Warning: There are a few spelling errors that were not corrected due to irony)

The conversation starts with this post by the Pastor.

The atheist's argument against God is that "IF" there is a God, He is not a good God due to all the murdering of innocent people. Innocent? Really? IF, one reads the accounts of cities of peoples who God "murdered", one can easily see that these people were anything but innocent. Remember what your father told you as a child when you blatantly disrespected and disobeyed, "I brought you into this world, I'll take you out". So it is for God. He created us, only He, can take us out. And just as your father, it will not be unjustifiably.

WHY?Outreach) If the premise of an argument is flawed (ie humans are innocent) then of course the conclusion will be erroneous.

Atheist) But I thought you believe God gives us free will? By him killing them he is sending them to "hell" and he is taking away their chance of repenting and becoming "saved". You would think a moral god would try and give them as much time as possible to avoid the hell he created for the children he loves so much.

WHY?Outreach)  An omniscient God would also know ahead of time whether or not they would repent or not- this is very simple when you think about it...and it is noted that you evaded directly addressing the points Pastor raised.

Atheist) So then I take it you don't pray? Because an omniscient God would already know what you would be praying for and he would already know what is going to happen so praying wouldn't make any sense, right?

What points did I evade addressing? I'll be more than happy to address them if you let me know what you’re talking about. Thanks.

Pastor) atheist, this is another case of you not knowing the Bible! What did God do when Moses asked Him not to send him to face Pharaoh? Oh and Why?Outreach, atheist has no choice but to evade my questions.

Atheist) Pastor, this is not a case of me not knowing the Bible. This is you all getting stuck when cornered on your beliefs. Instead of using this argument "I don't know the Bible", why don't you address my point about prayer? If Outreach is going to say God already knows what is going to happen and has a plan, than why is it necessary to pray?

And like I said, if you tell me what question I evaded I'll be happy to answer it.

Pastor) And yet another one asking a theological question with little to no biblcial education. You can't know how to build a model car if you don't first read the directions. STUDY! LEARN!

Pastor) What ever makes you fell good atheist. The fact is that you have repeatedly misuded scripture to prove a point and yet you have no idea how you did it.

Tell me atheist, what was the significance of the blood on the door posts in the passover story? You have 1 minute to reply or I will know that you googled it. IF you know, you will need no more time than that.

Pastor) Time is up atheist. And please don't give the old tired excuse, I was away from my computer crap. You saw what I posted. You just couldn't answer it.

Pastor) Notice how atheist claims to know the Bible but runs away to another thread when asked a simple bible question. LOL!

Atheist) Pastor, I'm sorry I didn't see your trivia question. I was responding to a comment you had made earlier on a different thread. I don't get alerts saying you have responded I have to go back to a thread to see if you have responded.

Quick Bible question, What must a man do if he is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged? You have one minute, or I will know you googled it :)

Pastor) Hahahahahahahahahahahaha You were NOT! hahahahah I was here and saw everywhere you commented. LOL!!!!!!!!!!

I told you that you would use some lame excuse. LOL!!!!!!!!!!

You are a very funny man atheist. You do everything you can to get out of answering a question then you expect me to answer yours. LOL!!!!!!

atheist, go read the Bible. And stop googling questions in hopes of finding one that I can't answer. HAahahahahah ! Pitiful!

Atheist) Pastor, I'm not lying, anyone can scroll down and see that a responded to a couple other threads, or you or someone else blocked my comment I don't know. I have read the Bible from front to back 2 times. This is not including all the bible studies I did when growing up.

BTW, the answer is he must pay her father 50 pieces of silver, and then marry her. Lucky her right! She has to live with the guy who raped her for the rest of her life and he is not allowed to divorce her. Got to love biblical morals!

Have a good day Pastor!

Pastor) Oh atheist, no one blocked anything and I knew the answer atheist. I am a pastor. I am quite "familiar" with the Bible. I will even venture to guess that I understand it better than you. Not because I am a pastor, but because of the way you have used the scriptures and how you have misunderstood the entire concept of context.

Also, your last comment >> Got to love biblical morals!<<

Only proves my point. You do not have the slightest inclination of what this verse is talking about or the ones before or after it.

Got to love ignorance.

Have a great day atheist!

Atheist) Well please, enlighten us with what the verse really means then. BTW, it is Deuteronomy 22:28-29 for anyone who wants to go read the whole chapter to make sure it is in context.

Pastor) Good grief atheist. You really are that slow! We're not talking about any particular verse. We're talking about using scripture in context. My GOSH ATHEIST. You are mind numbing!!!

Atheist) Well, since you said I don't know what the verse is talking about it must mean you do. So I'd love to know what you think it is talking about. But I understand if you want to dodge the question.

Pastor) atheist, you have completely exhausted my patience. I can only imagine what your teachers had to endure. I pity them.

Atheist) Actually, I didn't ask many questions in school, I believed my teachers knew what they were talking about and since I was indoctrinated at such an early age to believe in God and the Bible I never really questioned in much.

But I'm sorry my question has you stumped. Maybe it was not god who came up with the law saying a rapist must marry the girl he raped. The logical explanation is that it was ancient men claiming to speak for a god they made up and that is why it is so immoral.

Pastor) atheist, I'm sorry, but you're just a moron. I mean come on. I have debated with atheists who actually were quite intellegent and provided a challenging fight, but you, well, you're just, well. Ignorant. Sorry, but I just don't know what else to say. It's like the lights are on, but no one is home.

Other) Ad Hominem

Pastor) No other, don't cry for your boyfriend yet. If someone shows no intelligence what so ever, then the we must look to the dictionary. And moron is what we find.

Atheist) other, you are exactly right. When they have no response to an argument people usually just resort to name calling. It is ironic that Pastor wants to quiz me on the Bible but when he is asks a question he refuses to answer. If he had a good response he would be quick to make it rather than look foolish and just call me a moron.

WHY?Outreach) atheist, there is a huge distinction between applying a label which is accurate- if unflattering- and name calling/mockery as a substitute for addressing the evidence ..which is demonstrably the most common modus operandi of the 'atheist'.

Pastor) They're either lovers or the same person. They appear and disappear at the same time.

WHY?Outreach) It's too early to draw conclusions, but something is suspicious there.

Atheist) Haha, I can assure you we are not the same person haha. It's funny that because someone agrees with an atheist on this page you think they must be the same person :)

Atheist) But WHY?Outreach, if Pastor doesn't want to answer the question I asked will you? The question is, will you explain what Deuteronomy 22:28-29 really means? Since Pastor thinks I am misunderstanding it. Thanks.

Pastor) atheist, I never said you misunderstood it. This is just another case of your ignorance. You have no clue about anything. Your just plain stupid! I have tried to explain things to you over and over and over but it just won't sink in. Outreach, if you get sucked into this guys/girls vortex, you may never get out. Run while you can.

Atheist) Pastor, I said that the Bible says, if a man rapes a virgin who is not married, he has to pay the father and he must marry her and he cannot divorce her.

I said this because Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says, "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Then you said, "I am a pastor. I am quite "familiar" with the Bible. I will even venture to guess that I understand it better than you. Not because I am a pastor, but because of the way you have used the scriptures and how you have MISUNDERSTOOD the entire concept of context."

So you understand it better than me but you won't tell me what the verse is really saying?

Pastor) And I won't atheist. I won't cast pearls before swine.

I felt the need to copy and post this discussion because I find it extremely interesting how someone who believes their religion to be true can continue to say someone is taking their scripture out of context, while at the same time refusing to put it into context so that is can be properly understood.

Of course, I believe the atheist was being perfectly rational quoting a Bible verse and thinking it means what is says. If it meant something else it would have said something else right? It is interesting that the only verses Christians say are taken out of context are the ones that appear immoral and all the others are allowed to be taken at face value.

I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this, so if you have a comment please leave one!

Does the religious right care more about politics than they do their own religion?

Just weeks before the 2012 Presidential election, Billy Graham says Mormonism is no longer considered a cult. This came just a week after Billy Graham met with Mitt Romney, and it made me ask the question, “does the religious right care more about politics than they do their own religion?”

I find it amusing that Billy Graham no longer thinks Mormonism is considered a cult when there is a Mormon Republican candidate running for president. It is pretty clear Billy Graham is using religion to get voters to support Romney, and it demonstrates that religion has become a tool by the religious right to persuade votes. Otherwise, Billy Graham and others should have said that Mormonism isn't a cult in the Republican primaries; instead they were claiming Mormonism was a cult and that Mormons are not Christian.

It is respectable to support a candidate because you believe they are the best choice for President despite their religious views, but to compromise ones religious beliefs and contradict what was said months earlier in order to persuade voters is disgraceful and shows a lack of conviction and character. It’s funny how they suddenly changed their mind about Mormonism. And because they did, I can only come to one conclusion – the religious right cares more about politics than they do their own religion, and they use their religion as a political tool. 

Are Rational Republicans Struggling with the Tribal Effect?

In this 2012 Presidential Election there are two candidates which views are nearly polar opposite of each other. This has made the job of voters who vote based on issues very easy. But strangely for some this has made it oddly difficult. This is due to the tribal effect in politics. (For more on this topic check out The Tribal Effect in Politics)

When we hear about the undecided voters, it's hard to believe that they are independent voters, because with the two clear opposite choices we have, anyone who cares would have been able to make up their mind long ago. I find it more likely that the undecided voters that are talked about in the media are actually rational Republicans struggling with the tribal effect, they want to vote Republican but don't like the stance Republicans are taking on issues. Republican voters not struggling with this issue are either voting solely on the tribal effect so they can see the party they have always identified with win or they are part of the 1% and want a system that is rigged in their favor despite being unfair to the rest of America.

Republicans seem to think a different way than Democrats. Democrats tend to think for themselves about issues and come to their own conclusion and then choose who to vote for. Republicans seem to trust authority more and if they trust that authority the will simply agree or buy into what they are saying since they assume they know more about the issues than they do. While it may be true that authorities know more about issues than others, it doesn't mean they are correct or that they are right about what is the best for the country.

This way of thinking is similar to how religion works, followers of any religion tend to trust their Priest, Pastor, Imam, Rabbi, etc. simply because they are considered an authority on the subject. This is intellectually lazy. And it's no coincidence that the Religious right is strongly tied to the Republican Party. Both want to tell us how to think, and don't encourage critical thinking. The Texas GOP has even come right out and said, "We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills, critical thinking skills and similar programs…"

The good news is that there are rational Republicans thinking for themselves, and they care more about the issues rather than just staying loyal to their party. The Facebook page Republicans for Obama is good evidence of this, which has over 22,600 likes.

Labels can be helpful, they give us an idea about what an individual or group stands for, but labels should be the beginning of our inquiry not the end of it. No matter what party you identify with, if you can't explain the position of your opposition you should question whether you fully understand your own. After all, it's hard to disagree with something you don't understand.

Why It's Hard for People to Question Their Own Religion

We all question things in life, some more than others, but people seem to have a difficult time question their own religion. They may say they do, but the fact is that most people will follow the same religion they were brought up in. If they really questioned it, we wouldn't see religions dominating certain populations around the world. Since religions shape the way people see the world, it is extremely important for people to question their ideas and beliefs. Ideas in life affect people in three ways, negatively, neutrally, and positively. So let's look into how these three affects change the way things are perceived.

When an idea appears to affect us negatively, we have no problem questioning it. We want what is best for us, which is why we will question something that affects us negatively, because if we can prove there is another way, it benefits us. For example when politicians discuss raising taxes, if we can prove the state/country can still operate and accomplish everything they need to without raising taxes, citizens can keep more of their hard earned money. So when something appears negative we question it and we will usually attempt to prove it wrong.

When an idea appears neutral and doesn't really affect our lives, we rarely give it much thought. However, some do in attempts to make a product or a situation even better. Sometimes those changes are improvements, but if the changes turn out to have a negative effect, guess what? We question it. We will argue for changing it back the way it was, or attempt to improve on it again. But for the most part, most of us don't even question ideas that affect us neutrally because we don't think about it.

When an idea appears positive and seems to improve our lives we rarely question it, and in fact hope it’s true. Why ruin a bad thing, right? Well that is why people rarely question their religion. It promises them great things, and in most cases promises a negative result if not followed. We like the thought of going to a "heaven" and not going to a "hell", being able to see our loved ones again who have passed, feeling like there is an ultimate plan for our lives, or a "God/the creator of everything" helping us in tough times. These ideas all seem to be positive and wonderful things. Plus not having these beliefs might seem scary to some. This is why it's extremely tough for people to question ideas that appear positive.

People fall for schemes every day for this same reason. It may appear to be the chance of a lifetime and they don't want to pass up a good thing. Not many want to volunteer for the "let me shoot this apple off your head" trick. Most realize this could end negatively, but when something appears to be positive they don't question it and don't realize that it could have a negative effect if not true. It is obvious that an investment that sounds positive but turns out to be a scam is negative. The same goes for believing something that isn't true when it appears positive.

Pascal's Wager which argues, "you should believe in God even if there's a strong chance that he might not be real, because the penalty for not believing, mainly going to hell, is so undesirable that it is more prudent to take our chances with belief." Pascal's Wager may seem like a good idea because it is basically an investment that cost nothing and we have everything to gain. However there is a hidden cost, when following a religion we are putting our intelligence and reality at risk. That may sound harsh, but believing something which is false will absolutely affect one's ability to make smart and rational decisions. This is hard to see for one's self, because it turns their reality into a false one. The easiest way to see this is by looking at those who have a different religion/belief than their own.

Those who invest in something and later fear that it could be a scam seem to be afraid to do the research afterward for fear of discovering that they have been duped. Their money is already invested so they just hope for the best. However, people who do their research first before investing and discover it would have been a scam are relieved they didn't invest. They realize that although it might have seemed like a great opportunity, the opportunity was really never there and was just an illusion promising great things. The same goes for religion. Believers once invested in a religion; have a hard time questioning it for fear that they may have been misled. They have invested their time every Sunday and have most likely developed many friendships within their religion and their social circle would be completely disrupted. They would not only be losing their hope of an afterlife but also losing what they know of their current life on earth.

People of all religions will say it is about discovering the truth. This could not be further from the truth whether they realize it or not. If the goal was to discover truth, they would not only study their own religion, but other religions as well. They couldn't possibly be so arrogant to think that the first religion they were taught was the correct one. At the least they would be knowledgeable about the top 5 to 10 religions and compare which ones make the most sense and are the most consistent. Many times the way a belief makes someone feel is their evidence for it being true, but they don't realize or want to acknowledge that people of different religions have those same feelings about their own religion. So the only thing proven is that people can become emotionally attached to their belief, which gives them the feeling that it is true.

The truth is religion is about making people feel comfortable and giving them hope, although it may be false hope, it is still hope. It is hard for people to come to grips with the harshness of reality, but facing reality makes us better and stronger people. We can make better decisions in our life when based on reality, because like Voltaire once said, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." If this is the only life we get, let's hope people choose reality over fantasy.

If God Was Real

When Christians are confronted with verses about slavery or women being forced to marry their rapist, the overwhelming response given for these verses is of course “you are taking it out of context.” But when pressed to put it into context the common response is, “we have to understand the culture”.

Let’s forget the fact that a moral god would not be needed if the morals he is giving are based on the cultures already present morality, as this is only evidence that man created god in his image not a god creating man in his.

Let’s focus on the part where Christians say, “God lays out rules specific to the culture.” (see post Short Conversation with Dr. JamesMerritt author of “God, I’ve Got A Question” to see this argument being used)

If God was real and sympathetic to our culture, He would know we currently live in an information/scientific age, and that people who are scientifically literate would not believe the claims of the Bible. God would be aware that there are thousands of God claims and all of them require people to use faith as justification for belief. So in order to avoid punishing those who require evidence before believing things, since God cares about culture He would update the world weekly on His YouTube channel on topics such as gay marriage, who we should elect as president, why He is allowing African children to die of hunger, and the reason He sent a hurricane where He did that week. These weekly updates would be aired on both the BBC World News and ABC’s World News with Diane Sawyer. It would be crystal clear which God is the real God no matter what country we are born in.

But we don’t see this today for either two reasons: 1) The God who Christians worship does not care about culture - and slavery, stoning misbehaving children, and forcing virgins to marry their rapist, etc. are moral and should still be followed today. OR 2) God does not exists and was created in order to explain things man didn’t understand and was a useful tool in controlling ancient societies. 

Small T-shirt Company Wants to Make Intelligence Cool

Could t-shirts make the U.S. smarter? My new t-shirt company called Smart Apparel hopes so. Did you know American students are falling behind in subjects such as math and science? In an assessment by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 15-year-old students in the U.S. placed 25th out of 30 compared to other countries in math, and 21st in science. Smart Apparel wants to help change that by Celebrating the Human Intellect. 

The t-shirts promote topics such as science, philosophy, critical thinking and even politics. Many of the shirts have quotes from people such as Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, Charles Darwin and there is even a collection of NASA T-Shirts inspired by NASA mission patches. 

So many stats show that American students' scores are in decline especially in science and math and that's concerning. I hope these shirts will inspire more people to value intelligence—because being intelligent cool!

Not sure what to get your child for their 13th birthday—an aluminum element t-shirt is a perfect gift as its atomic number is 13! If you're a parent who wants to see your child interested in science and math, these shirts are a great start!

Want to help promote science and reason, check out Smart Apparel and "like" it on Facebook.

The Untold Story of Stalin and the Soviet Union That Will Shock You

In 1947, Stalin and the Soviet Union had a disagreement with a city regarding a murder, this started a civil war and the city was demolished killing 50,000 men and all the women and children. But there were 600 men that escaped and hid for 4 months. These men now had nowhere to go and were no longer part of the Soviet Union. They soon realized the best thing to do is to make amends with Stalin and the Soviet Union so they could once again be part of the Country.

The men apologized for the war their city had started and Stalin and the men came to an agreement that they could once again be part of the Soviet Union. The men were obviously saddened that their families had been killed and Stalin agreed to help them find women to replace their wives.

 Stalin noticed a city that was not completely on board with communism and because of this sent 12,000 men to kill everyone in the city, including women and children. Stalin said, "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." His men found 400 hundred young virgins and brought them back.

Stalin then gave the virgins to the men as wives, but there were not enough women for all of them.  The Soviet Union felt for the men who did not receive a virgin as a wife. So Stalin asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain?” There must be heirs so each man can continue his family’s blood lineage.

Then they realized there is an annual festival where women go to dance. They told the men who still needed wives "Go and hide in the vineyards.  When the women come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! So the men did as they were told.  They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and then returned to their own homes with the women. Now all 600 men had a wife again so they could start a new family.

It is clear and everyone would agree what Stalin did was extremely evil. To kill a woman’s family and children and then be held hostage and raped for the rest of their life is not a story with a happy ending like Stalin likes to make it seem. It is sad that this story is not being taught in our history classes because if we don’t study history we are doomed to repeat it.

But what is even more disturbing, is that this is not an untold story about Stalin and the Soviet Union at all. It is a story found in Judges Chapter 20 and 21 about the Israelites also known as “God’s chosen people” who claim to get their morals from God, and is the same God Christians today claim to get their morals from. This story was not taken out of context and for anyone who thinks it was, be sure to read it for yourself.

Christians always claim to be morally superior to those who don’t believe in their God, and even claim people who do not believe in God can’t have morals! I don’t believe many Christians would condone this behavior or claim this story to be moral. This is evidence that Christians don’t get their morality from God, but that they are actually more moral than the deity they claim to worship. As the late Christopher Hitchens once said, "Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."

  

Republicans Living in an Impermeable Bubble

The joke recently is that republicans live in an impermeable bubble where facts aren’t able to penetrate it. Bill Maher has been doing a weekly bit on his show Real Time with Bill Maher called “Dispatches from the Bubble”. This may be a joke to explain their cognitive dissonance in politics, and there is a lot of truth to it but Republican citizens aren’t necessarily to blame for this bubble.

Watch "Dispatches from the Bubble" 

http://www.hbo.com/video/video.html/?vid=1242055

When reading a blog post, Facebook page or even watching a video on YouTube, it is important to pay attention to whether it allows comments that challenge the view being presented, and if it doesn’t it should be a sign of its credibility (of course there are exceptions but this is something to pay attention to). Sites that allow comments but block anything that questions or challenges its view also help create this bubble. This is dangerous because those who agree don’t get to see comments challenging it and from their perspective by not seeing these comments it looks like everyone agrees with it. It is one thing to block comments that are disrespectful, but to block comments simply because one doesn’t have a good rebuttal is extremely dishonest and a perfect example of how bubbles can be created.

Churches are another reason for this bubble; those going to church on Sunday trust their pastor more than politicians. If a pastor talks about who they believe should lead our country, their opinion is likely to persuade how the church members vote. There are many different religious beliefs and Christianity which is the most popular doesn’t even agree on everything and they can’t all be right. If religious leaders success rate on picking which God to follow is so low, what makes them think they are in a position to choose who should lead the country?

Let’s face it, even if one religion was right, that is still an alarming amount of people who have a false sense of reality. This false reality causes many to embrace their religious view over anything else which creates the impermeable bubble that doesn’t allow facts to enter.

If Republicans are not being shown an honest rebuttal of their own beliefs and ideas than what other conclusion can they come too? Silencing ideas that challenge a particular view is a problem and if our ideas and beliefs are constructed biased on facts, than we should welcome counter arguments to see if they hold up. If we are afraid to ask or entertain questions - than we are insecure about the truth.

Everyone needs to realize, it’s alright to switch teams in politics, and there is no shame in looking at both sides of an argument and coming to a different conclusion. By doing this, it shows others we value the truth over our own ego. For too long, admitting we are wrong has been seen as a weakness. It is time we associate admitting being wrong with strength, because those who can do this only become stronger while those who can’t continue to stay weak with an inflated ego and false sense of knowledge.

Will a Republican Candidate do the Right Thing?

In a recent Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll published on March 12, 2012, it found that in Alabama just 14% of voters think Obama's a Christian while 45% think he's a Muslim and 41% aren't sure of his religion. In Mississippi only 12% think Obama's a Christian while 52% think he's a Muslim and 36% are not sure. From the video it is obvious that race is a big factor for those in Mississippi and calling the President a Muslim could be their way of calling him something else. However interpreted, these are alarming stats, but what is even more alarming and disgusting is that no Republican candidate has spoken up and expressed that the President is actually a Christian.

This actually says a lot about their character and lack of leadership, by not commenting on this it should tell the public that their candidacy is dependent on the ignorance of voters and are not willing to stand up for what is right. Conservatives are always talking about their morals, yet by not saying anything and allowing people believe something false in order to win votes is far from moral.

A respectable candidate would publicly defend the President such as John McCain did in the 2008 election. Republican candidates should want to win with their ideas not by relying on the ignorance of voters. If any of the Republican candidates want a chance at winning in 2012, speaking up against this ignorance would be a good first step in regaining credibility and the trust of moderate voters. Let’s hope one of them can do the right thing.

The Tribal Effect in Politics

Understanding Why We Fight and How to Resolve It

The state of American politics has become alarming over the past few years. When I was in High School, if a student talked about another student the same way many politicians talk about each other, there is no doubt the student would have been given detention. Politicians are supposed to be mature adults and the leaders of our country, yet they have been behaving like the bully’s we all knew in high school. It shouldn’t be a mystery to anyone why things don’t get done in Washington D.C. when we see how Republicans and Democrats talk to one another other. So why have politicians become so nasty toward each other over the years?

One reason is money influencing politics but that is another topic; let’s focus only on the Democratic and Republican parties. These are obviously the two most popular political parties in the US, and because they are constantly at battle with each other over policies and ideas, it has created a tribal effect. This is similar to a rivalry between two sports teams, except in this case there seems to be a lot less respect between the two. In tribe’s and rivalries, if an individual were to switch to the other side they are labeled a traitor and despised for it. We are taught at an early age that no one likes a traitor, and this unfortunately carries over into politics.

Whichever political party one belongs too, most likely their family and closest friends share this same political view (of course there are exceptions). Constantly being around people who we agree with doesn’t challenge our views but only re confirms to us are view is correct, plus they like the people who share their view so it is hard to imagine people we like and admire could be wrong as well. But when we suddenly become engaged in a conversation that challenges our views and we find ourselves struggling to defend them, the tribal effect kicks in and no matter how sound the other argument is we tend to deny it so we can stay on the same team/tribe.

Many times the one who can’t defend their stance on an issue tends to be the one who ends the conversation and is done either on purpose or subconsciously in order to avoid getting to a point where they have to admit they are wrong. It’s sad people will continue to stick with a political party when they can’t defend their parties’ views when challenged. Many forget that whether Republican or Democrat we all are on the same team which is the United States.

When people don’t realize that both parties are on the same team, they can become willing to bring down everyone including their own party just so the other side doesn’t “win”. This is completely irrational, but this is what the tribal effect can do.

This doesn't mean each party shouldn’t fight for what they believe is best for the country. Fighting for what we believe in is a good thing, but it is how we approach fighting these disagreements that is important. It should be done with honest debate, facts, logic, and fairness. We should be asking ourselves, do we really want to win an argument if we have to do it dishonestly and by misrepresenting the other side? Winning like this isn’t a win for either party except for their ego. Winning with bad ideas and policies only hurts the country in the long run.

This is where the country is at now. In the past, too many bad ideas have won and people are starting to see that Republican ideas are losing the debate. Because republicans are losing the debate they have resorted to name calling, and distorting the truth. They are painting the other side as evil in hopes that the public will become afraid to vote Democrat. Just like in any argument, whenever one is losing and refuses to admit it they usually resort to name calling. Once one sides resorts to name calling and facts no longer matter, there is little to no chance they will ever admit the other side has a valid argument.

When one side can no longer debate their losing policies they are left with only attacking anything the other side does (even though many times ideas they use to support they now end up attacking). For examples, President Obama used Mitt Romney’s health care plan as a guide for creating his own and because a Democrat liked his plan, Romney was then against it. Another example, Republicans say government doesn’t create jobs but attacks President Obama for low job numbers, but when job numbers increase they go back to government doesn't create jobs. It doesn’t make much sense, but when we understand how the tribal affect works it suddenly makes a lot of sense! Understanding the underlying reason for our disagreements is the first step we can take to resolving them.

How I became an atheist

Growing up in a Christian family, I became a Christian at a young age. I attended church every Sunday and went to a private Christian school K-12^th and then attended a Christian College. Bible classes were mandatory throughout my 16 years of education and combine that with church every Sunday, I was very confident in my knowledge of the Bible. However, like most Christians, I still had questions about God, but I accepted I was not going to understand everything and that I needed to just put my faith in Him.

After a few years of being out of school, I found a church I really enjoyed going to. It was a young church and had an incredible worship band. It was like going to a Christian Coldplay concert every Sunday. The music was so powerful it gave me chills, and would reconfirm any doubts I had about God because of how it made me feel.

A few months after discovering this church, I stumbled upon a debate between a Christian and an atheist on YouTube. I decided to watch it and remember thinking to myself, "this should be interesting; how is this atheist going to possibly debate God doesn't exist." I was excited to see how the Christian would tear apart the atheist arguments. However, this never happened, turned out the atheist made better arguments than the Christian. He mentioned verses in the Bible I had never heard of before and they clearly did not fit it with my knowledge of who God was. The verses were about God giving rules for slavery; I had never come across these verses in my many years of studying the Bible. These were damaging verses, if God was moral, how could he condone these actions?

(Here are just a few of those verses: Lev 25:44-46, Deut 20:10-15, 1 Cor 14:34, 1 Tim 2:9-15, Duet 22:23-24, Duet 22:28-29, Exodus 21:7-11)

I was really confused about what I had just witnessed, but thought to myself it must have been a fluke; maybe the Christian was not an experienced debater. I was torn, should I just mark it down as a fluke and forget about it, or should I continue watching more debates? If I continue to question this I may not like what I find, was I willing to accept the results even if it meant me discovering I was wrong? I realized I rather know the truth rather than believe what makes me feel good, and if Christianity is right than I will know more about God than I did before and it will only strengthen my relationship with Him going forward. So I decided to watch more debates along with researching the verses that atheist were bringing up.

During this process I discovered a cable access television show called the Atheist Experience, where anyone can call in to discuss or debate why they believe what they do whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc. Out of the hundreds of episodes I watched within a span of a few months, not once did I feel the theist caller won an argument. I had never thought about it before but I realized why there aren't Christian shows where viewers could call in to debate. If Christianity was correct, a show like that would help convert more to Christianity, but I realized it was because Christians didn't have valid reasons for their beliefs and when challenged they didn't have much to stand on. Christianity makes sense when the pastor can cherry pick the verses he preaches about and ignore those that are contradictory. It started to resemble more of a cult to me. Pastors I talked to seemed very interested in discussing these issues with me, however once we reached a certain point they were no longer available to continue the conversation. I realized I had to come to the conclusion that my beliefs were not valid.

Was I depressed after realizing that heaven was no longer in my future or that God was no longer going to be a part of my life? Yes, but only for a minute. Sixty seconds later, I realized I never had a chance to go to a place called heaven and God was never influencing my life in the first place. It was just an illusion. After realizing that, I was thankful I discovered this now so that I could live the rest of my life delusion free.

It was a hard but rewarding process of getting to the point where I knew my beliefs were false, but the hardest part was yet to come. I had many friends and family that were Christian and knowing what I did I didn't want them to continue living a delusion either, so I started telling them about the verses I had discovered and wanted to discuss the issues with them. I even wrote a 15 page paper on why I came to this conclusion to help get the conversations started. I thought they would be thankful I was exposing these issues and showing them that Christianity wasn't true. I was wrong! I didn't realized how emotionally attached people were to their beliefs; I was emotionally attached but I didn't let emotion overcome reason. I thought people followed their religion because they felt they had valid reasons for believing not because they were emotionally attached. I knew that not everyone I talked to about this would lose their faith, but I thought maybe a few would. Still to this day, no one has lost their faith due to me and that's fine. But I was amazed at how strong of a hold emotions have on people's beliefs, and realized this is how we can live in a world full of numerous religions yet everyone still claim theirs is correct. Discovering this was much harder for me than discovering that God didn't exist.

Losing my faith has made it awkward at times between friends and family, but I much rather live in reality than fantasy and this has made me a stronger person. I no longer pray for things to improve, I work to improve them myself. I see the world and life now for what it is and it is even more valuable to me now than before. I no longer see things as good and evil, but as rational and irrational. I wouldn't say I now follow atheism, as that makes it sound like atheism is its own religion; I actually don't like the word atheism because it means nothing and only describes what I'm not, not what I am. I am an atheist meaning I am not a theist and now free from religion and can make decisions for myself based on logic, reason, compassion etc. I am able to think for myself more now than I did before and for that I am very thankful.

Short Conversation with Dr. James Merritt author of “God, I’ve Got A Question”

This is a short conversation I had with Dr. James Merritt on his Facebook page for his book. He is the author of “God, I’ve Got A Question” subtitled, “Biblical truths for Our Deepest Concerns” The conversation started with me commenting on his post, which was…"Any claim from Jesus has validity only if He was who He said He was--the Son of God." --Dr. Merritt

Remember the Facebook page is named after his book, “God, I’ve Got A Question”, and I have some deep concerns.

Ted Musk) My question would be, why didn't Jesus at least write a book in the New Testament when he was here? Instead the New Testament wasn't written until 50-80 years after his death and we know how good people's memory can be just after a week...think how different the stories must have changed 50-80 years later.

--------------------

God, I've Got a Question) Archeologists have more than 5,600 original texts from which the Bible came, making it more accurate in terms of written history than any other document ever written. It was written by more than 40 men over a period of 1,500+ years. Christians believe the Bible itself, as God-inspired, is a living testament, and miraculous in its teachings and its origin.

--------------------

Ted Musk) How do they know those original 5,600 texts were accurate? Does that mean that verses such as Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is also accurate? It says, “If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.”

--------------------

God, I've Got a Question) It's always dangerous to take verses in the Bible out of context. You must know not only language, but the culture of the time, the author and what God is trying to teach through the particular passage. Christians spend a lifetime studying the Bible and learn from it each and every day, more and more, over and over again. Christians believe the Bible is wholly accurate and without error. We place great trust in the Bible as God's Holy Word. But it is a difficult book that can rarely be taken at "face value". Your questions have to do with the origin and trustworthiness of the Bible. So, to explore how the Bible we have came to be, I'd recommend reading "The Word of God in English" by Leland Ryken or "How the Bible Came to Be" by John Barton. Both books are good primers that give perspective on how the Bible got from an oral history to an authoritative written word.

--------------------

Ted Musk) Are you saying I took that verse out of context? All I did was quote a verse just like we would quote John 3:16. If I took it out of context can you please clarify it for me? If God is never changing and is the same back then as he is now than should we still be living by that law? God doesn’t care about culture, and no matter what culture we live in his morals would not change.

--------------------

God, I've Got a Question) The context is that the five books of the law (Genesis through Deuteronomy) lay out rules specific to the ancient Hebrew culture. God does care about culture--He created all of them at Babel. I think it would really help to understand how the Bible came to be, as that would help you to understand why some verses seem odd or even cruel. The Old Testament is law, poetry, history, prophecy. The Bible says it will in itself seem foolish to those who do not believe it when they read it. Belief comes hand in hand with understanding what you are reading in Gods Word.

---------------------

Ted Musk) If God's goal is for everyone to follow him, why would he create the Bible to seem foolish to those who do not believe? Why not make it seem moral and wise so that people will want to believe... that seems like the smarter thing to do. And if God is the one who created culture, and it is our intolerance of others culture that creates many of the wars... does that mean God was the cause of those wars? Sorry for all the questions but your answers are causing me to have even more questions. But you make it seem like God created different morals for different cultures... and morals should be the same no matter what culture or time in history you live, especially if God is the one who determines these morals.

----------------------

Dr. James Merritt then deleted me from his page and deleted this conversation. I always try to keep an open-mind and am willing to discuss these topics with anyone, and am always being encouraged by my family to keep looking for answers for the many questions and concerns I have for a belief in God. But it is these types of conversations that confirm that my lack of belief in God is the correct one. I’m continually being let down by those who claim to be experts and knowledgeable about God.

After he deleted me from his page, I can’t help but wonder if he knows he is selling lies, but is continuing to sell them since they are lies people want to believe. Afterall, they are extremely easy to sell and become very profitable (it is no different then someone going to a psychic/medium and being told things they want to hear). Although I’ll assume he believes it to be true, but I still wonder if he comes away from the conversation asking himself "Could my beliefs about God really be true", or does he just try to forget the conversation ever happened? If you delete someone for asking a question shouldn't that be a sign that you don't know as much as you think you do? The reasonable and logical reaction is to at least question or have some doubt, right? It is easy to seem like an expert around people that listen and agree with everything you say.

I think the most disturbing part is that he is a pastor and deleted someone who was asking some serious questions about God. He didn't just stop the conversation by not responding back, but went even further by deleting me from the page - which could possibly mean (in his view) me going to hell. And for what, so he wouldn't look bad and could sell more books? If so, that doesn’t seem very moral to me. Dr. James Merritt is a pastor and his job is to lead unbelievers to God and I was giving him this opportunity. I guess his real job is to sell lies that make people feel good and in return collect 10% of his church members hard earned money each Sunday.  

I wouldn't normally call out a pastor for not being able to answer a question about God (that would make for way too many posts), but because of the way this pastor cowardly deleted me from his page when I was simply asking questions, I felt the need to post my experience. 

Exposing Psychics

Do you believe in Psychics? Have you ever wondered how Psychics can sound so believable? This is an intriguing Derren Brown interview by Richard Dawkins that exposes the techniques psychics use to get people to believe that they can really communicate with the dead.

If you have a friend or family member who believes in psychics, make sure to pass this on. Don’t let them continue to be fooled and waste their money on this non-sense.

Pastors Who Don’t Believe – Is Your Pastor a Closet atheist?

This was a thought provoking podcast by The Thinking Atheist on a topic we rarely hear about.  While listening I thought it would be exciting if there was a “national leave the ministry day” for clergy who are now atheist. If a fund could be started for those clergy that can’t afford to leave due to their financial situation this could make having a “national leave the ministry day” possible. Think of the news coverage this would get if hundreds of clergy left the ministry on the same day! It would get so many people to question their own religion and start a nationwide conversation!

Best atheist T-Shirts

Are you an atheist looking for a t-shirt that expresses how you feel about religion? Here are two of the best online atheist t-shirt shops.

Smart Apparel's shirts are designed to promote science and reason by Celebrating the Human Intellect. Many of the shirts are quotes from popular scientists, philosophers, and atheists, but “The Four Horsemen” shirt might be their most popular.

www.smartappareltees.com

Amorphia Apparel is a shop that has a few different lines of shirts. The Teach the Controversy line seems to be one of the most popular (although the Science! and I’m Voting Tea Party shirts are really good too).

controversy.amorphia-apparel.com