Another One Bites the Dust

Another gay-hating Republican law-maker turns out to be gay!  Is anyone keeping a count?  I can't keep up.

And this is one of the guys who co-wrote the bill to put "In God We Trust" on Indiana license plates!

Not only is he gay, but he's also stupid.  He answered a craigslist ad and then told the male prostitute that he was a lawmaker.  d'uh!

It's amazing the gay-hating agenda still has any steam considering how many of its leaders turn out to be self-loathing gays who are projecting their self-hatred onto others.  I wonder how many are also closet atheists.

More Facebook Funnies

One of the stupidest c&p status posts ever:

When you carry a Bible, the Devil gets a headache. When you open it, he collapses. When he see's you reading it, he faints. When he see's you living it, he flees. And, just when you're about to re-post this, he will try and discourage you. I just defeated him.

How does he feel about having this drivel re-posted to an atheist blog for mocking?  Seriously, does the Devil read Facebook?  Wouldn't that be reason enough to stop using it?  Or does he read everyone's status updates because he OWNS Facebook?  Wouldn't he be pointing and laughing at the stupid post because that's just how mean he is?

And how the hell would the Devil get a headache?  He doesn't have a body, so he can't have blood veins in his head.   Wait.. he doesn't have head, either.  If he did, he'd probably get a headache from a facepalm.

 



OMG!!! Richard Dawkins Converted!!!

Enjoy!

Definition of "Marriage" vs. Definition of "Rights"

I think the argument from the Right that marriage can't be redefined because it's what it is by definition (a.k.a. "I believe marriage is between one man and one woman") is bogus.  Not only is it just plain stupid, but it doesn't take into account the question of whether marriage is a right.  Using your religious definition of something is pointless in defining civil law.  There's nothing that compels clergy or a religion to recognize a marriage if they don't want to.  My cousin had to convert to Catholicism to get married.  The Catholic Church (and his fiancee) did that, not the laws about marriage.

The Federal statutes http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes are very specific:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245

Federally Protected Activities
1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:

  a) A voter, or person qualifying to vote...;
  b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or
      activity administered by the United States;
  c) an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;
  d) a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and
  e) a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

You could possibly argue States' Rights, since this statute is about federal issues, but the Fourteenth Amendment would obviate that angle.

What they should be doing is making the case that marriage isn't a right but a privilege, like driving.  Civil unions take care of the issue of benefitting from government services, privileges etc.  Marriage would, too.  And officially calling two same-sex people "married" doesn't really change many other rights.  I'm all for same-sex marriage, but I don't think it should be that big of a deal.  If rights are clearly defined and marital status is one of the protected classes then what's the big deal?

TeH GayZ R dIsGuStiNg!!!!  Oh NOES!  It's about bigotry, plain and simple.  Straight people find sex with the same sex revolting which is what makes them straight people.  Then there are the people with homosexual urges who can't handle their own mental complexity.  Everything has to be black-or-white for these people.  If the law treats gays as equals then straights are less-than, because equality is impossible for some people.  If they're not dominant and oppressive, they're victims and oppressed.

The two religion clauses of the First Amendment pretty much guarantee that the idiotic Right will lose this battle in the Culture Wars.  The non-establishment clause guarantees that the government doesn't have to give a fuck what their sky-daddy thinks of teh gayz.  The free exercise clause guarantees that they can be bigoted if that really floats their boat, as long as they're not being bigots in subsidized programs.  That's the deal they make when they take money from the government.  They won't have to perform gay marriages.  They can deny marriages between man and man just as they deny marriage between Catholic and Protestant.  It's not like gays really want to belong to their narrow-minded churches, anyway.

They just have to grow up and accept that not everyone is a carbon copy of themselves and the world won't stop spinning (yes, it SPINS - the sun doesn't revolve around us, as it turns out) if gay people get married.

Original Sin and Original Christianity

From an old friend who is a former Catholic and now Eastern Orthodox.  I've known other Orthodox (the Original!) Christians but I never paid much attention to their theology, just their calendar.  She posted the following on Facebook, and I found it interesting but still just a fantasy.  Here's the original post and some of the (very short) thread:

For those of you who enjoy discussing Christian theology--are people born evil? Here's what I believe:

Original sin

In Eastern Orthodoxy, God created man perfect with free will and gave man a direction to follow. Man (Adam) and Woman (Eve) chose rather to disobey God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thus changing the "perfect" mode of existence of man to the "flawed" mode of existence of man. This flawed nature and all that has come from it is a result of that "original sin". All humanity shares in the sin of Adam because like him, they are human. The union of humanity with divinity in Jesus Christ restored, in the Person of Christ, the mode of existence of humanity, so that those who are incorporated in him may participate in this mode of existence, be saved from sin and death, and be united to God in deification. Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took form within her.

This view differs from the Roman Catholic (Augustinian) doctrine of Original Sin in that man is not seen as inherently guilty of the sin of Adam.[6] According to the Orthodox, humanity inherited the consequences of that sin, not the guilt. The difference stems from Augustine's interpretation of a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 to mean that through Adam all men sinned, whereas the Orthodox reading in Greek interpret it as meaning that all of humanity sins as part of the inheritance of flawed nature from Adam. The Orthodox Church does not teach that all are born deserving to go to hell, and Protestant doctrines such as Predeterminism that derive from the Augustinian understanding of original sin are not a part of Orthodox belief.

Me:  If God is all-powerful, why couldn't he just erase all that original sin? If he's a benevolent deity, why wouldn't he just forgive everyone outright without all the drama of the crucifixion? If he's omniscient, why didn't he know that Adam & Eve would make that wrong choice? (hat tip Epicurus)  and Question: if humans have the stain of original sin until baptism, then wouldn't abortion be the killing of a sinner, not an innocent?

Another poster: Sin is something you can't erase. . . . you just forgive. That's the key to understanding original sin. Sin separates. . . .the cross bridges the chasm between God and man. The effects are never gone until we get to heaven. That, in a nutshell, is your answer you are seeking.

Me:  If God is all-powerful why can't he erase sin?

My friend:  It would be kind of like forcing someone to love you. God gives free will to the humans He created, and sometimes we choose anything but love. God doesn't want us to be slaves. Free will is a wonderful, horrible thing.  Beyond that, I'm not a good apologist for Christianity. I can't express myself the way others do....these beliefs are too deep in my heart and soul for words. All I know is God is good, and maybe the answers you want can come from someone other than me.

I sent her a link to my post, Feelings Aren't Facts and asked her if it was okay for me to post this "discussion."  I think she is a perfect example of my theory that believers will believe because it makes them feel good, not because of any thinking.  Even though she knows some of the theology of her branch of Christianity, she falls back on "beliefs are too deep in my heart and soul for words."  If reason and rationality played into belief, there would be words for it.  Instead, it's culture, indoctrination, and neurobiology that makes a believer a believer.

I could have gone on and on... like, if God doesn't want us to be slaves why does he "reward" us for our good behavior by forcing us to sing his praises in Heaven for eternity?   Sounds like slavery to me.  Remember, there's no money in Heaven.  No OSHA either. 


The "argument" above about original sin sounds lovely. Poetic, even.  Almost like... what are those called?  Those stories with a moral to them but no actual basis in fact?  It's on the tip of my tongue...

Oh yeah, FAIRY TALES!

.

Myers Briggs & Religion

Being "rational" is not considered a desirable trait by some people.  I know!  How could they think that way?  Or um... feel that way?

Different people are different, according to the Myers-Briggs typology.  I am an INTP or sometimes INTJ.    So are the majority of internet atheists, (2nd poll here, 3rd poll here)

The brief description of INTP seems like the total recipe for an atheistic skeptical online blogger:

Seek to develop logical explanations for everything that interests them. Theoretical and abstract, interested more in ideas than in social interaction. Quiet, contained, flexible, and adaptable. Have unusual ability to focus in depth to solve problems in their area of interest. Skeptical, sometimes critical, always analytical.

INTJ, the larger half of the INT- atheist world also has a skeptical mindset:

Have original minds and great drive for implementing their ideas and achieving their goals. Quickly see patterns in external events and develop long-range explanatory perspectives. When committed, organize a job and carry it through. Skeptical and independent, have high standards of competence and performance – for themselves and others.

My polar opposite, ESFJ, sounds like someone who would enjoy belonging to a church:

Warmhearted, conscientious, and cooperative. Want harmony in their environment, work with determination to establish it. Like to work with others to complete tasks accurately and on time. Loyal, follow through even in small matters. Notice what others need in their day-by-day lives and try to provide it. Want to be appreciated for who they are and for what they contribute.

According to the way I was trained in Myers-Briggs at work, people can learn to develop the opposite qualities in themselves.  I have scored almost 50-50 on all but "N" at various times since I first took the test ten years ago.  During one training session my coworkers were shocked that I came up as an "I" because I'm sociable, and I was a manager in a people-oriented job.  I learned to act "E" when I had to.

So... can Christians & other "irrational" believers learn to be more rational?   Would they want to?  Should we try to be more like them, or at least give some thought to how they think? ... oops, feel?

The Kiersey site describes the rational group (NT) as being a minority:  "Rationals are very scarce, comprising as little as 5 to 10 percent of the population. But because of their drive to unlock the secrets of nature, and to develop new technologies, they have done much to shape our world."  This low percentage is similar to the low percentage of non-believers in the world.  Perhaps this is why atheists are a minority: because other people have a totally different approach to life.  We need to take this into account when communicating with them.
 
Just look at how "irrational" they are.  They "have a personal relationship with God."  They know that God is real because they feel something and they value their feelings more than their thoughts.  They like belonging to a "faith community."  (Just calling it a "church" isn't good enough anymore)  The crazy extraverts will even go to megachurches to get all feely.  They think that "trust" and "faith" are values that should be placed about reason and reality.
 
Take a look at our opposites, the SF's :

SFs tend to approach life and work in a warm people-oriented manner, liking to focus on realities and hands-on careers. They are often found in human services and in careers that require a sympathetic approach to people. They tend to be less interested in careers that require an analytical and impersonal approach to information and ideas. SFs are often found in the clergy, teaching, health care, child care, sales and office work, and personal services.

Clergy!  Not a coincidence, I'm sure! 
Maybe we need to track down some ESFP or ESFJ atheists and make them our spokespeople, instead of people like Richard Dawkins or other scientists expressing the atheist viewpoint.  You don't have to rely on a rational approach to become an atheist.  Or maybe rational NTs need to express why rationalism is more realistic in more touchy-feeling terms.  Even if you think Myers-Briggs is bullshit, there's something to the dichotomy between rationalism and whatever isn't rationalism (if you call it "irrational" they'll be irrationally upset and post nasty rants to the comments here!  Remember, they don't think).

Lest we forget about Elevatorgate...

Here's a (male) lawyer's point of view, with some excellent observations:

http://wellslawoffice.com/tag/elevatorgate/