Comments (3)

By JohnnyOCoileain, April 13, 2010 10:50 am

Written by Johnny O’Coileain

Once upon a time there was this religious idiot. He was not quite a crackpot (yet), but he did possess a dire misconception about the difference between mythology and theology. He graciously assumed that one was a subtopic in literature, while the other was an actual academic field. While this may be the case in universities, I’ll boldly proclaim their idiocy as well. This alleged “contrast” between mythology and theology, I contend, is a myth in and of itself, and so I shall argue. I’ll briefly mention a Dawkin’s argument that inspired my commentary.

For readers of Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion, you’ll notice in chapter three (The God Hypothesis, page 78) that he argues against theism having access to some empirically unattainable knowledge-base allowing it to embellish itself as the architect of reality. Dawkins asks, “But if science cannot answer some ultimate question, what makes anybody think that religion can?” This is helpful in that many theistic claims are inherently scientific ones: cosmological origins, 900 year old humans, corpse reanimation, humanoids with bird-wings, historical events, genealogies, talking animals (and one plant), changing the physical-chemical structure of water into flavored alcohol (to name a few).

I would add onto Dawkin’s argument, that if we can properly classify theology in its rightful category, we wouldn’t find the need to concern ourselves with its bullshit propositions at all. Mythology is commonly defined as traditions, beliefs, or stories that correlate to people or historical events. Similarly, theology concerns itself with traditions, beliefs, and stories in being a study of the three, yet is ballsy enough to take it one step further in claiming, with realistic certainty, that its propositions are true.

If religious faith is required, then words akin to “certainty” and “true” need not apply. Theology attempts to be a kind of “science” applied to mythology. Because real science is out of the question, how does this area of study even apply? By interpretations, metaphors, similes, figurative comparisons, allusions, analogies, allegories, parables, personification; do you know what these things are, reader? Fucking literary devices! The types of concepts reserved for literature, of which mythology is a part of.

So theology is the practical study of mythology using literary devices? So fart-sniffology is the practical study of what gasses are produced by what foods? My conclusion is this: what is the difference between mythology and theology? Stupid people; the end; they are the exact same thing, except one carries the unnecessary baggage of being saturated by dogmatic delusion-sufferers, while the other is rightfully classified where the other needs to be: as literature. Theology isn’t even a real field of study, or if it is, then Unicornology, Mother-Gooseism, Ghostbusterology, and Trollogy are all fair game as fields of study. Ralph Waldo Emerson was deadly accurate upon saying, “The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next.”

George Orwell once professed in his essay, Through the Glass, Rosily, “And yet genuine progress can only happen through increasing enlightenment, which means the continuous destruction of myths.” As a Realist, I despise propositions that lay claim to reality, yet I’m forced to interpret it. I’ve never had to interpret the fact that life is carbon-based, or that the earth revolves around the sun. If it claims to be “real” yet requires the kind of interpretation reserved for poetry and fiction, then I say “pull the fairies out of your ass,” but because fairies only exist in the mind, guess where their heads are usually?

Comments (31)

By JohnnyOCoileain, March 20, 2010 1:25 pm

Written by Johnny O’Coileain

Certain industries should not be classified as “industry” in the first place, and by this I’m speaking of healthcare. By this I DON’T mean healthcare in terms of medical products and innovations, but simply the “care” portion of the word. This is one area that certainly needs to be socialized.

Consider the nature of the free market: rising prices are the norm, competition is brutal, and is mostly driven by a systematic form of greed (see Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations). I do believe capitalism is the best way of harnessing the motivation of human greed for the benefit of all. It is also intimately linked to precious human liberties, but in certain areas, most notably those of moral consideration, the capitalism beast is quite an indifferent place.

In other words, the capitalistic plane of existence is descriptively akin to that of Charles Darwin’s revolutionary ideas on how life functions in general. In the free market there is always a contrast in products: for every expensive coat, there will be its cheap counterpart; for every BMW, there will be its glued-together KIA option. Options are amazing for material items, especially when variations of the same items are offered in an array of prices, and lower income individuals can gain some access to them.

In a capitalist system it is expected that not all people will have financial access to a BMW, so they may be limited to purchasing a KIA. But for a healthcare system invisibly guided by these exact foundations, it is morally indefensible that some people can access BMW-care, while others must settle for the lesser KIA-care (or no care at all). These are human lives, stupid! The capitalist system is much like Darwinian naturalism, or as Brown University biologist Ken Miller observes on Darwin:

From economics he gained one of the key insights of his theory: namely, that allowing individuals to struggle for personal gain helps to weed out inefficiencies and produces a balanced system that ultimately benefits society as a whole. In a certain sense Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is unadulterated Adam Smith translated into the language of biology. (Only a Theory/pg. 204)

Ask yourself this question, and in an honest tone: is it moral to submerge the health and well-being of our fellow citizens into a system that is essentially based on a “survival of the fittest” attitude? Higher areas of contemplation, like morality, is one of the things that ultimately separates humans from the rest of the natural fray, and yet the American healthcare system, with its capitalist/Darwinian nature, is hijacking us from our moral reason. Why can’t a hybrid system be in place, where private and public options exist? Many European nations that certainly out rank us in terms of health care, according to the U.N.’s World Health Organization, have implemented successfully this concept.

Human life plus a price tag equals severely atrocious results; this very much represents American social conservative attitudes, and is not very Christ-like in my humble estimation. Nature, like capitalism, is an amoral entity, only concerned with a handful of instinctive impulses, and by default, neither can ponder on ideas regarding moral philosophy. Why should precious human life, in an age of reason, be thrown back into the indifferent and amoral origins of our beginnings? As John Stuart Mill said, “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.” In the title “American Healthcare,” why is “care” even written? It fails in living up to the definition of the word. “Care” coupled with “indifference” and “amorality”? If you support this notion, then you certainly belong to the infancy of our species, or at least an uncivilized society.

Comments (3)

By JohnnyOCoileain, March 18, 2010 9:41 am

Written by Johnny O’Coileain

One fact that cannot be denied in spite of one’s beliefs, desires, ambitions, or wants, is the law of conservation of mass: matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Basically, the same material that exists today has always existed in some form or another. Forms change from one substance to another, but nothing is ever destroyed (in that it vanishes from existence).

The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, Empedocles (490–430 BCE), said it in a most direct way, mentioning, “For it is impossible for anything to come to be from what is not, and it cannot be brought about or heard of that what is should be utterly destroyed”. For matter to “exist” as we understand the word as it correlates to the nature of reality, it has to have always existed in some form; something cannot manifest from nothingness.

Yet, theists would like to have us believe otherwise, especially in their proposal that the opening line of Genesis 1:1 represents reality; it states, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Aside from the obvious complication of: first, God must be verified before we can begin to posit him creating anything, I’d like to turn my attention to another complication (if it isn’t obvious by now). I contend that belief in creationism amounts to nothing more than a belief in magic. If the material that exists today always was, then how could it have been brought from nothingness in the first place? After all, the conservation of matter law is a simple fact of reality; one cannot exactly deny it to the same degree usually associated with evolution.  Matter simply doesn’t “poof” into existence, and this is what creation is, whereas titling this being a “designer” is a bit more doable. Christians will certainly agree that matter didn’t exist until God created it; before this event, matter was nonexistent in the realistic sense. They often site the following passage to validate this view:

John 1:1
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. He was with God in the beginning.
3. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

A designer, in this sense, would take preexisting material and rearrange it to form new combinations. As a prerequisite, this being would have to possess its own mass in order to interact with the mass it is rearranging; consequently, the being, possessing mass, is subjected to the same physical laws we are. This would not meet the theistic definition of a God whose omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent dwelling “outside of time and space.” A “creator” in this situation, would bring matter into existence from non-existence, but this is contrary to everything we understand about physics and reality.

If matter cannot be created (or destroyed), then what does this reveal about a claim that says “the heavens and the earth” was “created”? The only time I’ve ever witnessed anything semi-related to how things are created in Genesis, is from Walt Disney’s Fantasia, when Mickey Mouse dawns the wizard hat and goes ape-shit crazy with the creation spells. After all, this does fit well under the definition of magic. As a rule: something comes from something; something cannot be brought about from nothing.

Matter changes form, it changes substance, but it cannot begin to exist: it must already exist. In short, the law of conservation of matter is a fact; any proposition that claims to have “created” matter from non-existence is, well… bullshit. It appears that any biblical idea on reality can be trashed from the opening line. According to real reality, this baseless waste of trees loses the race before the pistol smokes. Theists are double-thinking yet again, because we all accept as fact this scientific law, yet a large portion of us takes literally the opening Genesis line. This is certainly holding two contradictory views, and believing both to be equally true. The least intelligent people I know are those who know it all.

Comments (4)

By JohnnyOCoileain, March 17, 2010 10:23 am

The Bullshit Flag: Commentary I

With Magic anything is Possible

“We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.”

–Ayn Rand, Russian philosopher, author of The Fountainhead.

Written by Johnny O’Coileain

With the recent pedophile explosion of Catholic priest cradle-thefts surfacing in the media, the shit-storm of fantastical excuses, once again, has become a central broadcast theme for the Vatican. As expected, it’s time for our favorite pajama-sporting, money-gorging, infant-porking conjurers to whip out the invisible scapegoat: a talking snake who, in “reality,” is a naked red guy with goat horns wielding a pointed farm tool.

Father Gabriele “Ghostbuster” Amorth, the 85-year-old Vatican chief exorcist mentioned in a recent CNN article, “It’s not my opinion: I’m saying that if you believe in the Gospels, you believe in the existence of the devil, in the devil’s power to possess people.” If Mr. Amorth wasn’t a reality denier, the statement would sound like, “It’s not my opinion: I’m saying that if you believe in reality, you believe that superstitiously self-imposed sexual repression that runs contrary to human nature builds up tension over time, and somebody is bound to get fondled by the divine trouser-snake. So what can I say? The alter-boy is usually the nearest object with a hole.” Come on “Father,” go behind the church dumpster and toss your dick in the Jesus crackers; pin the tail on the little Jimmy isn’t a healthy birthday game.

If alter-boys were allowed to carry guns, there would be no Catholic church. The U.S. government has a program called “No Child Left Behind”; I suppose the Vatican equivalent is No Child’s Behind Left. This organization of sinister fairy tales has presided over an expansive history of sweeping child-rape under the rug: when one priest goes “Kingdom cum, I drilled your son,” the holy rump-ranger, historically, is gently relocated to another district, and isn’t disciplined until the ethics and laws of real civilization catches up to him.

Father Ghostbuster claims a resume of over 70,000 exorcisms. In other words, he has single-handedly destroyed the Marshmallow man and every Scooby Doo villain at least 500-times each. Pope Benedick-Ratfucker has consistently affirmed celibacy amongst the priesthood, which is about as valid as Richard Simmons affirming vagina in the name of gay-hood. Celibacy isn’t to blame; it’s the devil, and never mind the fact that modern psychology is well versed in the effects of sexual repression; never mind that if you deny your load, you’re bound to explode; it seems we have a good idea as to how all those bibles ended up in hotel rooms.

In conclusion, invoking magical explanations (such as “the devil did it”) to cover up the fact that you’re a sexually repressed, tooth-fairy fearing moron, tells us one thing: the human condition has a long way to go. Mr. Priest, you’re a mammal; another animal in an imperfect species that is still evolving. We have instinctual impulses thoroughly documented by modern biology, some of which are sexual. With scientific progress so close you could molest it, dedicating your life to an unsubstantiated myth based on pre-science, primitive morals, and magic, is like being an STD expert who’s infatuated with having crabs. In both cases, a brain naturally geared to align with reality chose study at Hogwarts rather than Harvard.

Blaming reality with magic does not make one blameless; aren’t morals based on personal responsibility? If reality proclaims that we are mammals with biological impulses, isn’t it true that this reality will persist in spite of what we believe? David Hume was certainly on to something when he said, “Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.” These so called moral leaders persistently repress one of mankind’s basic biological facts in favor of a heavily mythologized storybook character who performs magic tricks and recites watered-down philosophy in a poorly edited first century roll of toilet paper.

Source article from CNN

Comments (1)

By JohnnyOCoileain, February 28, 2010 12:23 pm

Written by Johnny O’Coileain

Thanks to the brilliant mind of George Orwell and his dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-four (a window into life under totalitarian rule), the term doublethink has become integrated into our modern vernacular. From the author’s own mind Orwell explains that “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

To understand the proper application of the term, knowing partially the basic rules of philosophic logic is a prerequisite, especially the meaning of a contradiction. In short, a contradiction occurs when two or more propositions are made, and the conclusion results in logical incompatibility. The tenets of logic are applied to most of our day to day or progressive thoughts and activities, from the casual routine, to discovering the next big scientific theories. We may not label these common sense applications under the terms used by philosophers, but in the end they must correlate to reality, and they must make sense and lack contradiction.

Theistic religion is one of the few instances in life where the relationship between logic and reality is suspended, and tossed into a metaphorical dumpster where Harvard becomes Hogwarts. For this brief analysis, I want to explore the following areas, and ultimately attempt in proving that three areas associated with Abraham’s God is ultimately its undoing: creation, morality, and the invention of linear time; these will be explained in a three-part series; this one covers the first, morality. Figuratively speaking, the religious are attempting to fuse oil and water while deliberately turning from the fact that beliefs do not make reality.

God represents universality; morals are not universal. It was the 17^th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant, who proposed that there is a categorical imperative (universality) to morality, and those moral laws exist independently of human desires or motives. If this were true, it may be evidence in favor of a universal God, but logically morals vary from nation to nation, culture to culture, and even person to person. The ancient Aztecs found it completely moral and just to sacrifice living humans to their gods, while the Roman Empire would consider it appalling. The very same Romans may sacrifice criminals to starved lions in the coliseum, and without any moral dilemmas, refer to it as justice.

Morals don’t really exist as the religious would like to believe; they are completely relative concepts, and their manifestations occur in the form of modifying human behavior. God IS a universal concept, and represents a kind of categorical imperative. If this were true in reality, morals should not be relative, and would be as imposed and understood the same way gravity or thermodynamics are. Morals, in reality, are nothing more than socially accepted habits that vary from place to place.

So how are theists “doublethinking”? God, by definition, represents universality, and claims universality among morals, yet reality clearly shows how relative morals are; we can easily notice the lack of solidity and universality of morality. In other words, calling an opinion “universal” is like calling the existence of matter an opinion. The universal nature of God is claiming universality over a concept that is demonstrably relative. The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Democritus summed it well, saying “Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.”

Morality, I argue, is certainly evidence against a universal God that claims there is only one kind of morality, and that it’s written on the worn out pages of fairytale propositions. Morals also have a very much naturalistic explanation, so why resort to the supernatural to explain them?

1: Pleasure and pain are the result of biological occurrences.

2: Any instance of Right, Wrong, Good, or Evil stems from logical pathways founded in pleasure and pain.

3: Therefore, morals, ethics, and laws, all rules that seek to govern “2“, are higher cognitive responses to biological occurrences, and are not the products of a divine lawgiver.

4: Morals, ethics, and laws are relative, and without a categorical imperative; this innate lack of universal uniformity is evidence against a universal divine lawgiver.

Comments (3)

By JohnnyOCoileain, January 24, 2010 12:30 pm

Written by Johnny O’Coileain

Many free-thinkers mingled in the rationality vs. theism debate scene are probably familiar with some form of the phrase “non-believers say that religions have wild and irrational ideas about the nature of the universe, well what about the crazy theories of physicists? Alternate or overlapping dimensions, the big bang, string theory, and so on, is just as “out there” and unverifiable as religious ideas.” You’ll often hear that it takes some level of faith to accept such theories the same as it does for theology, and I certainly agree.

I find many scientific theories presently at the forefront of acceptance to be a bit outlandish, but is this faith-in-science factor, pointed out by the religious, any sort of argument at all? I’d say about as much as we’re entitled to our wormholes, as they are entitled to their talking snakes; there is no argument, but there is a methodical difference.

What physicists hypothesize are certainly things that require some level of faith if they are taken on some level of certainty. So what is truly the difference between science and religion if both are attempting the same concept of wild ideas? Science never claims theoretical perfection, to say that what it claims is beyond further improvement. Religion on the other hand, is supposedly unchangeable and divine, and is largely making identical claims as science.

A word of advice: for our casual street debaters who read this, if the “wild ideas of science need faith” argument arises, please point out that at least science is willing to change its theories, no matter how wildly sounding they are, in light of new evidence; most religions, by definition, is not capable of doing so. To ratify the “Word” of our cherished divine Menstrual Cycle is begging for a period at the end of their sentence.

Progress has always been the offspring of uncertainty; usually those who were quite certain put an end to their quest for progress, and we know what happens when the explanations of the time are “perfect”. The Dark Ages didn’t find its nightlight until the Renaissance and Enlightenment, with a nice stack of bodies piling up in the mean time. It was my hero from the Late Roman Republic, Marcus Cicero, who said “By doubting we all come at truth.” Jesus expressed doubt on the cross, yet preached of total certainty in himself; aside from his many unoriginal quotes, this was the most honesty that Jesus expressed.

If progress is achieved by answering questions, and advances are made by questioning answers, what does it mean to have faith, and not question at all? It is stagnation in progress, totalitarianism, fascism, fear, un-enlightenment, and ultimately our regression into barbarism. Doubt and uncertainly kept us safe in our primordial years, and has propelled us to the moon in our digital years. Doubt truly is the start of wisdom, and absolute certainty is its demise.

Scientific theories can be as wild as they’d like, and require absolute faith to believe, but at least it can be changed; at least its journey never claims to be over. If religion has its way, snakes will always talk, we’ll always be doomed because an apple was eaten, and people will die because a first century mythological peasant was so certain of himself. The doubt of a philosopher is a virtue; the certainty of a martyr is a vice.

The contrast between doubt and certainty is the difference between faith healing and medical vaccines. I believe Voltaire said it best, when he mentioned “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Irrational human death is one atrocity, but it pales in comparison to the death of the human condition. In a world dominated by religious certainty, at least we have the power to change our minds, which is the power to evolve, the power of progress: the greatest power that we have.

Comments (1)

By JohnnyOCoileain, January 23, 2010 12:13 pm

Written by Johnny O’Coileain

What baffles me to the point of brain-sweating is the severe lack of intelligence applied to descriptive words, and wrongfully categorizing them as some brand of ideology. The word atheism is certainly one (possibly the greatest) of the many diction victims doing the survival dance on this battlefield, and thus it shall be covered first.

To teleport straight to the point: atheism, as it truly stands, is a description, not an ideology. Combative titles like “Atheism vs. Theism” may seem valid upon first glance, but a higher level of analysis needs to be applied. Theism, in whatever form, is a structure of beliefs, and atheism on the other hand, is simply a lack of belief in a theistic proposal. With theism, there is an entire list of things to be adhered to, followed, and believed, whereas with atheism, such a thing is nonexistent; how are they on equal grounds to oppose each other? It’s like saying “Communism vs. The Color Pink”. Which is the better system of sport, hockey or non-hockey? I’m sure the point is obvious.

One episode that highlights this false debate, is the “look at Joseph Stalin!” flag held by people like Dinesh D’souza, Ray Comfort, and the ever babbling Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, all of whom you may be familiar with, as they’ve debated our prominent atheist spokespeople (Hitchens, Harris, Dennet, to name a few). Essentially, the claim goes like this: atheists say religion is responsible for a cornucopia of human deaths throughout history. Well look at Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, and Pol Pot, who committed genocide in the name of atheism.

There is one strong defect in such a pathetic non-argument; “in the name of atheism” was said. Never mind these men were diehard supporters of a twisted brand of communism, which amounts to little more than a political religion. Never mind that they saw the religious establishment (and its ideology) as a direct competitor with their own ideologies. Never mind the fact that atheism is NOT an ideology, but a word, and a definition that amounts to “non-belief”.

What does common sense dictate? It tells us that the prime mover behind the majority of human actions IS OUR BELIEFS about the world; our beliefs govern our day to day actions throughout life. Stalin’s clinical psychotic “crazy-as-fuck” interpretation of Marxism, which IS an ideology, was the driving force behind his political actions. As stated, his communism amounted to nothing more than a POLITICAL RELIGION.

Stalin may have been a non-believer, but clearly his motive was to replace one dominant ideology with that of his brand of Marxism, and the result was the State itself became God to the people; after all, what role does the ideology of communism play? Well, in theory, all of those very same responsibilities that a religious God affords to people. God provides, God protects us from ourselves, God tells us how to live, God governs our morals, God has a list of what’s naughty and nice, God drastically reduces our liberties (like free speech); God is fucking Big Brother. In the name of common sense, could the competitive correlation to communism be so obvious? I contend that Stalin and Mao were closer to the biblical God than our Christian ranters give them credit for, even that fun genocidal quality.

It seems in this case, that Gods in theory and in practice amount to the exact same thing: the irrational deaths of millions of people. When one person murders another for ideological reasons, it’s usually because of what this person believes, not because of their lack of belief. Without belief, where is the motive? Get it now? It is a pathetic argument when the religious use this as a counter to our pointing out historical religious barbarism. So, if any of you enters a debate and you hear “in the name of atheism,” raise the bullshit flag. In the name of anything usually refers to some ideological system, of which atheism is certainly not.

Comments (1)

By JohnnyOCoileain, January 16, 2010 1:34 pm

Written by Johnny O’Coileain

Fact: when we progressively add scientific knowledge to our ever evolving drove of facts, supernatural explanations that once “explained” the vast array of phenomenon observed, vanishes faster than scum in a shit pond once a little light is shone. Presently we are in the atomic age in physics, the molecular age in biology, and the age of reason in philosophy, yet God is still supposedly wedged in the scientific Gaps we’ve yet to explain.

One of the most notable modern attempts at plastering the divine veneer of God into areas that lack a scientific explanation is with Charles Darwin’s brilliant theory of Evolution. To highlight one of these gaps, we must turn to the very beginning for life, the origins of the “evolutionary mechanism”. The typical creationist will say “life is too complex to be a mere coincidence”, or “evolution is part of God’s design; He invented and jumpstarted evolution.” So, God is the driving force behind something science cannot explain just yet: the beginning of the evolutionary mechanics.

While I agree that life appears as a design, and human brains are pattern seeking devices, there is just one thing: God does not qualify as an explanation, especially if you drag the bastard by the collar, kicking and screaming out of His storybook, into the realm of science where He ultimately goes “poof!” As my hero, the biologist Kenneth Miller says:

“What happened over time is that the designer created a handful of little browsing species and then, as each one went extinct, he replaced it with a modified version. When those went extinct, he drafted another round of replacements, and then another, then another. Whatever one can say of this designer, he’s persistent. He’s also not very skillful, since just about everything he creates goes extinct relatively soon after its first appearance. Unless, of course, constant extinction is part of his master plan”

If you follow me for a moment, I shall dutifully explain how God does not qualify. To say that there are “gaps” in science is to practically imply that there is an even greater “fact-fabric” that has already been explained, and some patchwork is needed for completion. Most of our scientific fabric has passed the heated testing of the most important framework known to rational inquiry: the scientific method. Andrew Jones of the how-to website, About.com, sums it up simplistically as:

Ask a question – determine a natural phenomenon (or group of phenomena) that you are curious about and would like to explain or learn more about, then ask a specific question to focus your inquiry.

Research the topic – this step involves learning as much about the phenomenon as you can, including by studying the previous studies of others in the area.

Formulate a hypothesis – using the knowledge you have gained, formulate a hypothesis about a cause or effect of the phenomenon, or the relationship of the phenomenon to some other phenomenon.

Test the hypothesis – plan and carry out a procedure for testing the hypothesis (an experiment) by gathering data.

Analyze the data – use proper mathematical analysis to see if the results of the experiment support or refute the hypothesis.

The part where we must “formulate a hypothesis” is about as far as we can take the Judeo-Christian God, due to the fact that figments of the imagination will always remain hypothetical, and thus cannot be tested. Let’s not delude ourselves: if God is going to be filling any gaps in science, then whoever the claimant is MUST subject God to the rules of science, otherwise, why call it science? After all, these gaps are the property of science. Christopher Hitchens mentioned, “If it can be asserted without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence.” This is as honest as it gets.

Imagine a line drawn between the “form a hypothesis” stage, and the end result where something has been tested, repeated, and passed over into an actual scientific fact. As I’ve mentioned, most of our scientific fabric has already crossed this line, and is no longer a hypothesis. God has yet to go beyond the stage of a hypothesis; I contend that God is no more than a failed scientific hypothesis.

In other words, if someone is claiming that God is the mover behind unexplained areas in scientific understanding, then they are certainly implying that God has already crossed the “line” from hypothetical to actualization; so where the fuck is the experimental data that proves it? Where is the empirical evidence that shows God has been tested, and qualifies as“gap filler”? The ability to test a proposition is paramount in science, and is the only true way of verifying it; until we can test religious propositions, then these dogmatic feather brains should cease in making the claim that what they preach represents the reality of things.

Scientific “gaps” are holes in a vast collection of tested and explained facts that are no longer hypothetical; these facts have already “crossed the line” into something verifiable. If our friend of many faces, Mr. Theological Idiot, comes along and attempts to debate you with the God of the Gaps argument, your response should be swift and easy: these are gaps in SCIENCE, therefore filling those means running it through the SCIENTIFIC method, and at best, God only reaches stage three, a hypothesis. Sorry Theological Idiot, but in science, for something to cross the line and reach the gaps, it is vital, essential, paramount, that it is capable of moving past the level of a hypothesis. Show me where God has been tested and repeatedly verified through the scientific method, and I’ll graciously agree. Till then, read a fucking book written in this century.

Comments (4)

By JohnnyOCoileain, December 29, 2009 10:08 am

Written by Johnny O’Coileain

One of the most obvious characteristics of morality is the concept’s dependency on the idea of “personal responsibility”. No one can be moral for another person.  If one commits a crime, no one else can realistically take the blame for this individual, because personal accountability and responsibility are essential keystones in our understanding of how morals work. Matters of right or wrong as they relate to our actions are no different than the relationship of consciousness and the human body: what one represents in theory, the other represents in practice.

For the religious zealot, or even our part-time Christian majority who perpetually cackles the phrase, “while I don’t believe all of it, the Bible is a good source of moral standards,” Jesus Christ represents moral perfection. While I agree that many sentences attributed to Jesus by his decades-later, would-be biographers, are certainly useful, for rational observers of the bible, we genuinely must take stretches and leaps to find those truly moral fruits within its framework. One thing is certain: the contents are largely rubbish dealing with conquest, racism and “divine” ethnocentrism, xenophobia, genocide, rape, looting, plundering, infanticide, child stoning, anti-feminism, homophobia, slavery, hellfire, damnation, and other crackpot examples.

Let’s consider the role of Christ in this muddled scheme that supposedly represents “true morality”. The religious commonly adhere to the idea that without God, anything is permissible.  In other words, everything God has already demonstrated in the Old Testament would be permissible if God was not the torchbearer of real morals; I smell a contradiction coming on. This is practically saying: murder would be completely legal if it was not for the existence of a murderer; monkeys engaged in an all out shit flinging contest are arguably more rational than this line of thinking.

The role of Jesus and his assumed relationship to morality is simply another contradiction added onto the above assumption. The above idea, I believe, was made famous by a quote from the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky, when he wrote “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” Jesus, or God manifested in the flesh, assumes the role of vicarious redeemer in the New Testament fairy tales. Keep in mind, that “vicarious redemption” is another way of saying that anything classified as sin shall constantly be forgiven, as long as one prays to the Ghost with sincerity.

Dostoyevsky argues that without god, anything is permitted, and this is where I raise the bullshit flag; I contend that as long as anything can be forgiven simply by uttering words, then anything can be excused, and therefore permitted. So long as you ask for forgiveness each time you murder someone, under religious logic, those sins are completely washed away once the murderer incants a prayer of sincerity. The primary role of Jesus Christ is to be a vicarious redeemer, and how is this honestly moral? This definitely contradicts the majority of his words regarding personal responsibility as it relates to morals. Morality and ethics depend intimately on personality responsibility, and are we to believe in an ideology that dissolves this notion?

If sin can be constantly forgiven, only then is anything permissible. If we understand morality to be ever-evolving, and based on reasoning and logical understanding, we know that personal responsibility is a must. Jesus, as a third party outsider not only agrees to be the scapegoat for a crime he had no involvement in, but is also arrogant enough to assume the authority of judge, forgive you, and pretend it never happened in the first place. This, ladies and gentlemen, is vicarious redemption, the antithesis of personality responsibility, and therefore a form of antithesis for morality.

Dostoyevsky should have written his sentence as: without God, the human imagination is permitted, to which anything is capable of manifesting. Without God, real, constantly evolving morality, is permitted. The murdering, racist, thieving Yahweh being necessary for morality to exist, is like saying for anuses to exist, first we need feces. Saying that the role of Jesus as vicarious redeemer is a moral fundamental, only justifies the actions of Yahweh’s Old Testament atrocities, because one would truly require a vicarious redeemer to do things Hitler would detest, and still refer to Himself as the so called “holder of morality”.