I have never been a religious person. My family, while from a Christian background, never practiced. We never prayed, went to church, read the Bible, etc. Even though I'm now fairly educated about Christianity, when I was a kid I was exposed to the stories of Christianity to a limited degree.
Rewind to Christmas, 1984. I attended a normal, public high school here in the United States. My 9th grade (14 years old) English class was having a Christmas party. We were sitting around, casually talking about Christmas. My teacher, we find out, is also a Sunday School teacher. The class begins an informal discussion about Christmas from a Christian, religious standpoint. The Virgin Mary comes up.
Now, before I tell the next part, it needs to be known that I was an excellent student. This was a gifted class. I was not a troublemaker in any way. I asked what seemed an extremely logical question:
"If Mary was a virgin, how did she have a baby?"
I might as well have said, "Jesus is a whore." The reaction by my teacher was shocking. He said something like, "How dare you ask such a foul question?" The class piled on with comments like, "That's not funny!" I felt completely dumb and didn't know why... and I still didn't know how a virgin could have a baby.
Later that day, I told my best friend what had happened. He replied, "You're lucky you didn't get sent to the principal's office." He saw the look on my face and said, "You really don't know do you?" He explained a little, not really understanding my level of ignorance.
I said, "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It sounds like she got knocked up and made the greatest cover-up story ever told. What kind of God goes around knocking up women? Zeus used to do it all the time and nobody believes those stories."
He replied, "God didn't sleep with her. That's why she was still a virgin and it's called the Immaculate Conception."
I couldn't believe it. "People actually believe this?"
The story ends there, but it sticks with me today. I still can't believe that so many people believe it. How do these stories not seem like complete and utter hogwash? In what sort of bubble do people live to not realize that others might not believe it? How can an adult, with otherwise excellent logic, still believe these things?
I will probably never know. Nobody has ever been able to explain the suspension of logic and evidence to allow a leap of faith - a leap to something that makes little to no sense.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Evolution is not a threat to religion
Most Christians around the world can relax their worries about a conflict between evolution and their faith. There simply isn't one for most part. The only place where evolution conflicts with Christianity is in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Even then, if you stretch a few things (like the definition of days and nights), you can probably even wedge it in there.
I am certainly no expert on religion, but I do know that most of my Christian friends have interwoven the accepted science of the world into their faith. They've done it with intelligence and honesty. As an atheist, I don't accept what they do about religion. Yet somehow, within the confines of their belief system, their eyes are open enough to accept facts. Once you do that, a simple reconciliation of where those things meet allows your faith and intelligence to co-exist.
I've blogged about evolution before, but I'll make it even simpler. Evolution doesn't need much in terms of proof. It doesn't need Darwin's theories to explain HOW it happened. Evolution is evident in the fossil layer and in DNA as a fact that it DID happen. Life on Earth started simply, has evolved into complexity, and is interconnected. This has been tested ad nauseum in the scientific community and has NEVER been disproven. If it is disproven somehow, science will do a 180 and start over. That's the way science works.
I implore those that believe that evolution is "just a theory" to explore it for yourself. The following is an FAQ written that may provide some answers: God and Evolution
I am certainly no expert on religion, but I do know that most of my Christian friends have interwoven the accepted science of the world into their faith. They've done it with intelligence and honesty. As an atheist, I don't accept what they do about religion. Yet somehow, within the confines of their belief system, their eyes are open enough to accept facts. Once you do that, a simple reconciliation of where those things meet allows your faith and intelligence to co-exist.
I've blogged about evolution before, but I'll make it even simpler. Evolution doesn't need much in terms of proof. It doesn't need Darwin's theories to explain HOW it happened. Evolution is evident in the fossil layer and in DNA as a fact that it DID happen. Life on Earth started simply, has evolved into complexity, and is interconnected. This has been tested ad nauseum in the scientific community and has NEVER been disproven. If it is disproven somehow, science will do a 180 and start over. That's the way science works.
I implore those that believe that evolution is "just a theory" to explore it for yourself. The following is an FAQ written that may provide some answers: God and Evolution
Thursday, February 24, 2011
What are we doing to the teachers?
Contrary to right-wing radio opinion, most teachers are good at what they do. While there are bad ones that need to get weeded out (and not an insignificant number of them), that's not the real problem. The real problem is external to the classroom.
Bill Maher has a great "New Rule" about this from March of 2010 that really sums it up:
Is Hollywood going to make any new motivational movies about how awesome your child's teacher is? Probably not, but teachers are just normal people doing a job at a minimal salary. For the most part, they're doing their job as well as any other person doing a job.
Teachers should be treated as partners and professionals - not enemies. Give them the benefit of the doubt when conflicts arise. Have some sympathy for them while they deal with large classes, apathetic students, entitled parents, and spineless administrators.
... and, no, I'm not a teacher.
Bill Maher has a great "New Rule" about this from March of 2010 that really sums it up:
Is Hollywood going to make any new motivational movies about how awesome your child's teacher is? Probably not, but teachers are just normal people doing a job at a minimal salary. For the most part, they're doing their job as well as any other person doing a job.
Teachers should be treated as partners and professionals - not enemies. Give them the benefit of the doubt when conflicts arise. Have some sympathy for them while they deal with large classes, apathetic students, entitled parents, and spineless administrators.
... and, no, I'm not a teacher.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
America promoting democracy in the Middle East
When are we going to stop lying to ourselves about how noble we are as a country? Sure, we've done some great things over the years. We've self-sacrificed many times for many different countries. Often we've asked for little or nothing in return. Often we've gotten exactly that in return (sometimes worse).
Our more recent foreign policy, particularly in the last 30-40 years, has been more about our own self-interests and not some alruistic things like democracy and freedom. The reality is that if it's good for us, the action/result is of less consequence.
This brings the focus of this rant to the Middle East. Yes, the Middle East has been in general turmoil for ... well, forever. However, the West's meddling in the 20th century and the United States' constant propping up of non-democratic dictators, in the late 20th century to the present, has sewn more anti-Americanism than anything. We talk about freedom and democracy from one side while we prop up the Shah, Saddam Hussein, Mubarak, Saudi princes, etc., etc. on the other.
We need to support that in which we believe and deal with the consequences of it. We'll be much better off in the long run and a lot more respected as a result.
Our more recent foreign policy, particularly in the last 30-40 years, has been more about our own self-interests and not some alruistic things like democracy and freedom. The reality is that if it's good for us, the action/result is of less consequence.
This brings the focus of this rant to the Middle East. Yes, the Middle East has been in general turmoil for ... well, forever. However, the West's meddling in the 20th century and the United States' constant propping up of non-democratic dictators, in the late 20th century to the present, has sewn more anti-Americanism than anything. We talk about freedom and democracy from one side while we prop up the Shah, Saddam Hussein, Mubarak, Saudi princes, etc., etc. on the other.
We need to support that in which we believe and deal with the consequences of it. We'll be much better off in the long run and a lot more respected as a result.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Defending people in news articles
I just posted my fourth article about journalistic integrity. All four of them have been in defense of conservatives. I don't particularly care to defend them, but I seem to get defensive about attacks on them in the press. I wonder why that is. I'll gladly attack them myself. I may have to chew on that one for a while.
Journalistic crap - yet again
I get riled up by articles that are presented as news, but are really just political attacks.
The current one in question is about a Southern Republican governor from Mississippi. I don't know Haley Barbour's reputation. Most likely, he claims to be an Evangelical Christian and a fiscal conservative. You can't seem to get elected as a Republican in the South without these credentials. I'm going to make that assumption and roll with it because it fits the agenda of this rant.
Those credentials don't mean that you're a racist, but there's no doubt that the power structure that historically ran the segregated South before the Civil Rights Movement will find its descendants in the Republican Party. That doesn't mean that if you're a Republican, you're a racist. It probably means that it's more likely, but the assumption is patently unfair.
Based on my experience in the South, I don't know anybody that believes segregation or racism is right. I do know a good number of prejudiced people. I also know a number of people that live in a bubble that have no idea what goes on outside their nice little community. There are people who pine for the 1950's, but not because of race issues. While I have met many racists in my life, I cannot recall having ever met a person who longs for segregation.
The article is entitled: Barbour doesn’t recall civil rights era being ‘that bad’.
The implication from the title alone implies that he's a racist segregationist. I don't know the guy or his reputation. Maybe he is a racist segregationist. From the title, we'll find out the proof, right?
If you actually read the article, he makes comments to the effect that he doesn't remember race relations being bad during that era. He's referring to violence and tension that history describes in many areas of Mississippi at that time. He doesn't remember his hometown having those kinds of problems. That's it. That's his recollection. He doesn't remember it being that bad. Of course, he's white, but that was his answer to a question. Maybe he could've qualified it to be clearer. Maybe he did and the author had an agenda?
The article is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill because this guy apparently has aspirations of running for president in 2012. Just smear him as a racist and it's a job well done. It's done by a news blogger, but it was on Yahoo's front page and is part of Yahoo News. Blog or not, if it's presented as news, there should be some journalistic ethics behind it. This is pure political drivel meant to smear and I don't like it.
This is not support for Barbour because I don't know his politics. This is merely a rant about partisan journalism.
The current one in question is about a Southern Republican governor from Mississippi. I don't know Haley Barbour's reputation. Most likely, he claims to be an Evangelical Christian and a fiscal conservative. You can't seem to get elected as a Republican in the South without these credentials. I'm going to make that assumption and roll with it because it fits the agenda of this rant.
Those credentials don't mean that you're a racist, but there's no doubt that the power structure that historically ran the segregated South before the Civil Rights Movement will find its descendants in the Republican Party. That doesn't mean that if you're a Republican, you're a racist. It probably means that it's more likely, but the assumption is patently unfair.
Based on my experience in the South, I don't know anybody that believes segregation or racism is right. I do know a good number of prejudiced people. I also know a number of people that live in a bubble that have no idea what goes on outside their nice little community. There are people who pine for the 1950's, but not because of race issues. While I have met many racists in my life, I cannot recall having ever met a person who longs for segregation.
The article is entitled: Barbour doesn’t recall civil rights era being ‘that bad’.
The implication from the title alone implies that he's a racist segregationist. I don't know the guy or his reputation. Maybe he is a racist segregationist. From the title, we'll find out the proof, right?
If you actually read the article, he makes comments to the effect that he doesn't remember race relations being bad during that era. He's referring to violence and tension that history describes in many areas of Mississippi at that time. He doesn't remember his hometown having those kinds of problems. That's it. That's his recollection. He doesn't remember it being that bad. Of course, he's white, but that was his answer to a question. Maybe he could've qualified it to be clearer. Maybe he did and the author had an agenda?
The article is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill because this guy apparently has aspirations of running for president in 2012. Just smear him as a racist and it's a job well done. It's done by a news blogger, but it was on Yahoo's front page and is part of Yahoo News. Blog or not, if it's presented as news, there should be some journalistic ethics behind it. This is pure political drivel meant to smear and I don't like it.
This is not support for Barbour because I don't know his politics. This is merely a rant about partisan journalism.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
300 Sextillion Stars, But We're Special!
I'm blown away. I can't even comprehend the number.
Number of Stars in the Universe
However, it does help put some perspective around human arrogance:
God put his special people on a puny planet that is third from a medium-sized star (of which there are approximately 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) in a medium-sized galaxy (of which there are anywhere from 100,000,000,000 to 1,000,000,000,000) ?
... and we're the only life in it?
Tea Party, Earmarks, and Journalism
What is this article saying?
Tea Party Caucus and Earmarks
It sounds like a cheap shot at the Tea Party. I've noted before about my feelings with regard to the Tea Party. However, this article is trying to make them look bad by showing all of the newly-formed caucus members extravagant earmarks to the tune of $1 billion. The Tea Party is patently against earmarks. It calls out many of the caucus members for their apparent hypocrisy.
However, at the end of the article, it seems to point out as an afterthought that when members joined the caucus, they stopped introducing earmarks and removed themselves from those attached to pending legislation. That seems consistent with the philosophy to me.
I certainly have no problem with watchdog groups looking for hypocrisy, but maybe there shouldn't be quite the attempt at the proverbial witch hunt?
Tea Party Caucus and Earmarks
It sounds like a cheap shot at the Tea Party. I've noted before about my feelings with regard to the Tea Party. However, this article is trying to make them look bad by showing all of the newly-formed caucus members extravagant earmarks to the tune of $1 billion. The Tea Party is patently against earmarks. It calls out many of the caucus members for their apparent hypocrisy.
However, at the end of the article, it seems to point out as an afterthought that when members joined the caucus, they stopped introducing earmarks and removed themselves from those attached to pending legislation. That seems consistent with the philosophy to me.
I certainly have no problem with watchdog groups looking for hypocrisy, but maybe there shouldn't be quite the attempt at the proverbial witch hunt?
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Where jobs come from
There is a major anti-business, anti-wealth sentiment in this country. Supply-side economics is a dirty phrase. Limited government is laughable.
However, the question I have for all of these naysayers is, "Where does your job come from?" Is it created by the union? Does everybody have the right to one? How does a job come to be?"
However, the question I have for all of these naysayers is, "Where does your job come from?" Is it created by the union? Does everybody have the right to one? How does a job come to be?"
Friday, September 3, 2010
Cutting cable update
Well, it is now September and we haven't had cable in at least 7 months (can't remember exactly when we cut it). College football season just started and, low and behold, ESPN3.com is broadcasting tons of live games. With PlayOn or just my PC/TV, I can watch non-broadcast college football games.
Netflix streaming and the Wii are really the key to our living room experience. Digital HD broadcast and it make everything worthwhile.
PlayOn allows Hulu and other Internet content to my TV, but is a little problematic with controls on my XBMC.
I'm not sure of the future of ESPN3.com's broadcast breadth and depth. It looks like it might be limited, but it's still pretty cool.
Netflix streaming and the Wii are really the key to our living room experience. Digital HD broadcast and it make everything worthwhile.
PlayOn allows Hulu and other Internet content to my TV, but is a little problematic with controls on my XBMC.
I'm not sure of the future of ESPN3.com's broadcast breadth and depth. It looks like it might be limited, but it's still pretty cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)