Skeptical Freethinker

As a skeptic, I feel to agree or disagree you have to use the Socratic Method and Scientific method, you have to define what you mean, so you can find fallacies and hopefully correct your thinking and find truth, I am seeking truth, which is defined as something that is demonstrable or proven. Therefore, I must define what do I mean by god, according to dictionary.com, god is "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." God as defined by Oxford English Dictionary (the definitive record of the English language) is the one object of supreme adoration; the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. Also according to dictionary.com and Oxford Dictionary : An atheist is defined as one who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God. However, Charles Bradlaugh wrote in an essay titled A Plea for Atheism: “The best policy against all prejudice is to firmly advocate the truth. The Atheist does not say "There is no God," but he says: "I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me. If, however, 'God' is defined to mean an existence other than the existence of which I am a mode, then I deny 'God,' and affirm that it is impossible such 'God' can be. That is, I affirm one existence, and deny that there can be more than one." An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds. Pantheist belief that God and the universe are identical. A freethinker is one who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation. In studying the above definitions, I am a skeptical freethinker and by default an infidel. If Charles Bradlaugh’s definition is true, then I am an atheist too, for I cannot deny something I am unable to conceive, for as Albert Simmons, a 19th century rationalist, stated “We cannot say anything of the supreme cause as a deity or a god, for to conceive the idea would involve a conception of the inconceivable, and every conception involves relation, likeness and differences, whatever does not present each of these is unknowable.”I cannot call myself a permanent agnostic in principle (perhaps a temporary agnostic) because we are still trying to understand how the universe emerged. I cannot say we will never know which the definition alludes to, this why we have science and are trying to find the answers. I am not a pantheist as defined because although there is proof for the universe, I am unsure what the word god means and I cannot say that god and the universe are the same. I am a skeptic because I doubt and am critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds. I am a freethinker because I have rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation. I think the best summary of my freethinking skepticism was offered by the famous African-American Intellectual, co-founder of NAACP, Pan - Africanist Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois reply to a priest in 1948, in which the priest asked Dr. Du Bois if he believed in God, which Dr. Du Bois replied "If by belief in 'God', you mean a belief in a person of vast power who consciously rules the universe for the good of mankind, I answer 'No'. I cannot disprove this assumption, but I certainly see no proof to sustain such a belief, neither in History nor in my personal experience. If on the other hand you mean by 'God' a vague Force which in some uncomprehensible way, dominates all life and change, then I answer 'Yes'; I recognize such Force, and if you wish to call it 'God', I do not object"... neither will I. I also agree with Dr. Du Bois assessment when he stated “There is no religion which I know of whose dogma and creed is one in which I wholly believe. I do not believe in the existence and rulership of the one God of the Jews. I do not believe in the miraculous birth and the miracle of the Christ of the Christians; I do not believe in the tenets of Mohammedanism (Islam) and Buddhism; frankly I do not believe in the Guardian of the Baha'i' faith has any supernatural knowledge of what may happen, or is any more than a fine, conscientious, and hard-working leader of men.” Nevertheless, what I am above all things is someone who seeks truth (something that is demonstrable or proven) and how to apply this truth to my ephemeral existence. Sources: god. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god atheist. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist agnostic. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic infidel. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infidel skeptic. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skeptic freethinker. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freethinker http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_bradlaugh/plea_for_atheism.html

Existential Angst

If the Mayan Calendar right then I only have 17 more days before the end of the world. Perhaps this thought led me to do something that I normally don't do, I read the obituaries in the today's newspaper. The reality of death sunk in, especially when you read about people being in hospice and enduring a prolonged sickness. I felt afraid of death, of the unknown and uncertainty behind the mysterious veil, what awaits us beyond this life? Death is inevitable , there's isn't a damn thing I can do to prevent it. The only logical reaction or solace to death is to ask, what was my existence like before I was born? I didn't exist before I was born so it was nothing, well when I die will it be different than before I was born? Will there be something after death, if there was nothing before life? Both are forms of non-existence so how can they be different, if they are the same thing? Non-existence is non-existence. As Epicurus is alleged of saying Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death aint here. And when it does come, we aint here."Non fui, sum, non ero, non curabo (I was not; I am; I will not be; I will not care)

Parenting God's Way

When I was a Christian I signed-up for an email news letter that I still receive from Ever Increasing Faith Ministries, a mega church in Los Angeles founded by Dr. Frederick K. C. Price, who is now an Apostle. The letter I received this week is titled "Parenting God's Way". It starts off "Dear EIF family, God's perfect plan for His children..." I thought about God (whatever this means) as a parent, the only idea presented to me as someone born in so-called Western Civilization, is Jehovah, a bronze age despot, who put his creation (i.e. his so-called children) in a garden to be tempted by a talking snake to eat fruit that caused mankind in a downward spiral that led to murder, war, crime, etc. He blamed them for falling to the temptation that cause hardship on Adam, Eve and their offspring. He confused mankind's language to divide them when they were united, tempted Abram to sacrifice his own son, only to do it himself 2,000 years later, and from this mankind sin was paid for, but nothing changed, there's still murder, war, crime, etc. I don't think I want to Parent God's way, he has not been an ideal parent in my book. Although I think this is a bronze age myth, if this god Jehovah really existed,then he is a bad role model. Think about it. The Skeptical African

Audio Book review: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins, MD

Chapter 1: Dr. Collins was raised by Agnostic Parents who allowed him and his brother to join a local Presbyterian's church choir. He graduated high school at the age of 16 went to college at The University of Virginia he was an agnostic became an atheist. He went to Yale for a PhD in Chemistry two years into a quantum Physic program took a course in Biochemistry was hooked, he applied to Medical School and enrolled at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He went into the emerging field of Genetics where look for errors in the genetic code which lead to discoveries in down syndrome, sickle cell anemia, etc. (Doesn't these Genetic errors show that no personal god exist?). After graduating from medical school he was a resident at UNC, an elderly woman, who was a Christian, and dying from a painful disease asked him what was his belief,he was uncertain, this hunted him for days, he saw his willful blindness and arrogance. He looked at the facts what he called the cliff-note version of the world religions, he visited a local Methodist minister in Chapel Hill and asked him various question, the minister gave him a book by C. S. Lewis titled Mere Christianity. He found a book that answered the questions he was asking. He became a Deist due to Lewis' argument from the Moral Law i.e. the universal awareness of right or wrong (what about psychopaths and sociopaths? How is the Moral Law missing in them?) and selfless altruism. He believes that atheism is a failed explanation for the moral law and altruism and that agnosticism is a cop-out. Chapter 2 1. Is belief in God wishful thinking? The longing for something that transcends us could be a guidepost that there is something there that can fill it. He uses C. S. Lewis as his answerer, people feel hungry therefore there must be food, a duck feel the need to swim therefore there must be water, etc. Which lead to since there is a longing for something that transcends us there must be a God. 2. Hasn't religious belief caused a lot of harm? 1. Many wonderful things has been done in the name of religion ex. Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Theresa, etc. 2. Religion (i.e. what he calls "the church") are made-up of flawed people which why we know there is a moral law that we cannot keep and God has provided the remedy his sinless son. 3. Why does God allow evil or suffering? He argues that we have free-will and if god always intervene this could lead to chaos. Also, a lot of the suffering is self imposed we create weapons, drugs, etc. He gave a moving example of his daughter's rape as an example of suffering and admits he does not understand why God allowed it to happen, (Is one person free-will more important than another, like the rapist free-will vs. his daughter's; why was her free-will not to be raped not honored?). Natural Disasters? God plans are not our plans i.e. God works in mysterious ways. He quotes C.S. Lewis again in that we want a benevolent grandfather, perhaps God uses suffering for soul-building, perhaps we learn more from suffering than good experiences. he uses Dietrich Bonhoeffer suffering and death in a Nazi camp. He could in a dim way see his daughter's rape was a lesson in forgiveness. 4. How can a rational person believes in Miracles? C. S. Lewis in his book Miracles "Every event we call miracles are eventually presented to our senses" Dr. Collins uses Bayes Theorem to explain the probability of miracles. He admits miracles are rare but goes into how the Universe is something that can't be explained by our sciences, and ask is this a miracle? Chapter 3 Origins: He discusses the Big Bang, Anthropic Principle, Heisenberg principle of uncertainty. He argues God is supernatural he is not limited by time thus he concludes he could create us via natural selection by evolution. He discusses Literal Interpretation vs. Non-literal or Allegory, where he quotes Saint Augustine "In matters that are obscure and beyond our vision we find in Holy Scripture passages that can be interpreted in various ways... in such cases we should not rush head long on one side so that further progress in search for truth, justly undermine our position, we too fall with it..." Chapter 4: Life on Earth: Of Microbes and Men Intelligent design: Paley's Watch Maker Analogy, Paley argues 1. Watch is complex 2. Watch has an intelligent designer 3. Life is complex 4. Therefore, life has an Intelligent Designer. Dr. Collins shows the flaw in the argument by using lightning as his example if the watch maker analogy is true and thus intelligent design then one could argue that 1. Electricity comes from the flow of electrons. 2. Electricity comes from an electric company. 3. Lightning comes from the flow of electrons 4. Therefore, Lightning comes from an electric company. In the remainder of Chapters 4 to 6 is his case for the evidence for evolution from a genetic and biological evidence. Chapter 7 Option 1: Atheism and Agnosticism (When Science Trumps Faith) Dr. Collins believes Atheism is like theism it is blind faith. He quotes Stephen Jay Gould claim assertion that science cannot neither prove nor disprove god. He next defines agnosticism that the term was created by T. H. Huxley, which is defined as the knowledge for the existence of god is unknowable. He could in a general statement that agnosticism is a cop-out; and it is rare to find an agnostic who have looked at the evidence and that most have become believers once doing so. Chapter 8 Option 2: Creationism (When Faith Trumps Science) In this chapter he defines the Young Earth Creationism (YEC) as the belief that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and the humans are special creations. YEC accepts micro-evolutions but doubts macro-evolutions, believe in a worldwide flood; approximately 45% of Americans believe in some form of YEC. He thinks YEC and modern science are incompatible because Young Earth Creationist think a literal interpretation of their sacred books i.e. the Bible, Quran, etc. is necessary and that any other belief is on a slippery slope. He thinks the bible is to reveal the nature of God not a scientific book. YEC at least some argue that God is using science to test believers faith. Collins believes YEC eventually leads to spiritual and scientific bankruptcy for that risk what Saint Augustine warned about falling with YEC when new evidence disproves it. Chapter 9 Option 3: Intelligent Design (When Science needs Divine Help) Intelligent design argument comes from the idea of irreducible complexity and Phillip Johnson a Law professor at UC - Berkley is considered the father of ID, created the Discovery Institute, (what have they discovered?), other proponents of ID are Dembski and Behe. Three propositions of ID is 1. Evolution promotes an atheistic worldview and must be resisted by believers in God. 2. Evolution is fundamentally flawed because it cannot account for the intricacy complexity of of nature an example they often use is the complexity of the eye and bacteria flagellum. 3. If evolution cannot explain the complexity of life then there must be an Intelligent Designer. He concludes that scientific objection to ID is that it is not a scientific theory, because it does not present any falsifiable evidence. Chapter 10 Option 4: BioLogos (Science and Faith in Harmony) He opens the chapter with a Presbyterian minister , a father of one of the graduates, at his graduation asked them to consider three things 1. What will be your life's work? 2. What role will love play in your life? and 3. What will you do about faith? He joined the American Scientific Affiliation and briefly discuss how it is evidence of faith and science in harmony. He then discusses theistic evolution which he claims has six proposition 1. The universe was created by God, approximately 14 billion years ago. 2.The properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life. 3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, it is possible that the development of living organisms was part of God's original creation plan. 4. Once life began, no special further interventions by God were required. 5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes. 6. Humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the knowledge of right and wrong (Moral Law) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures through out history. He concludes that God who is not limited by space or time created the universe and established natural laws that governs it, seeking to populate an otherwise sterile universe with life using evolution was the mechanism to do it. He gave these creatures free will, intelligence to know the moral law of right and wrong and knew they could not obey the moral law. He admits that belief in God will always require a "leap" of faith. Chapter 11 Truth Seekers He discusses his trip to Nigeria and his experience of Agape love when he helped an poor Nigerian farmer. He concludes the chapter quoting Einstein Science without religion is Lame and how science can be a form of worship, quotes Proverbs 19:2. What barriers prevent belief in God? Of all the worldviews he concludes that atheism is the least rational. He believe there are pure waters of spiritual truth carrier in rusty containers. Appendix In the appendix he discusses Stem Cell, specialized medicine based on DNA, cloning, SENT, PGD, etc. He believes and concludes that faith-based bioethics is not recommended due to religion's historical suppression and false piousness. I agree with e-Skepic's conclusion that Dr. Collins dismisses the Young Earth Creationist and Intelligent Designers when he claims they are arguing from the god the gaps i.e. ignorance but then Dr. Collins uses a god of the gaps (i.e. ignorance) when he refuses to acknowledge that there could be other answers for the so-called Moral Law, mankind's desire for transcendence, and the anthropic principle/fine tuning. He ultimately admits belief in God requires a "leap" of faith and thus in admitting this he knows there is and thus provides no evidence for belief. Therefore the language of god is a lost translation because his evidence is not based on science (knowledge) but on faith. Indeed,Truth cannot conflict with truth. Think about it...

Random Thoughts

I am thinking about how the idea of something does not mean it actually exist. When someone say for instance, do you believe in god? I understand to a certain extent what they mean by god, but at the same time if someone ask me if you believe in unicorns? I understand what they mean, but this in no way means that a unicorn actually exist nor for that matter, does this means a god exist. In other words, just because you understand the idea of something does not mean it exist. Also, I was listening to a presuppositionalist on The Thinking Atheist podcast, and the only comment I would say to a presuppositionalist is; I agree we all start off with a preconceived notion of something, but what happens if what you're presupposing is false, you're stuck. However at least with science, if whatever I am presupposing is not backed up with observation or others cannot duplicate my hypothesis then I have to accept that I could be wrong and have to look for another explanation that matches or best explains what we observe. I finally get why the fine tuning argument is an ultimate failure of an explanation for the existence of god. My refutation of the fine tuning argument is called the lottery, in a universe with billions of billions of galaxies, solar systems, stars and planets, I would find it more improbable that none of them would have life. For example, someone in the United States even with odds of 1 to 330,000,000 eventually hits the lottery (a matter of fact in the recent Mega Millions 640 million jackpot three states had a winner), thus with billions of galaxies, solar systems, suns, and planets eventually you will find one with life, because here I am thinking and writing about it, and I feel like I hit the lottery, if one thinks about the probability of even being borne, it seems improbable but yet I am here and it does not mean it was fine tune, but means we happen to hit the jackpot in a universe that has a lot of lotto balls. Think about it.

Happy Winter Solstice - The Real Reason for the Season

Kirk Franklin thinks Jesus is the Reason for the Season, but history tell us something different. Unless, Mr. Franklin is admitting that Christianity is really the worship of the sun god(s), not the son (sun) of god. It doesn't take much to link the hope of a new sun with the hope of new life, to a babe in a manger, which is another symbol of the hope of life, like the pine and fir trees symbolizes the hope of life in the cold of winter. Think about it...Happy Winter Solstice, Happy Birthday Mithra.

Think for yourself?

On the way home, I was listening to George Hrab's Song entitled "Think for Yourself", the Beatles had a song with that title as well. It is a song, that I as a Free Thinking advocate agree, it is a song about learning how to be a critical, skeptical thinker, to don't accept what someone else say, believe, or sale you without asking who, what, when, where, how, and especially why. As I listened to the lyrics, I had an insight in which, I thought about evolution, especially Human Evolution. We primates emerged on the scene about 30 million years ago, then the hominids separated from Chimps and Bonobos about 6 to 8 million years ago. The most famous of our early ancestors is Lucy also known as Australopithecus afarensis who lived 3.2 million years ago in Ethiopia although she wasn't the first hominid, a recent fossil of Ardi (Ardipithecus Ramidus) pushes hominid evolution back to approximately 4.4 million years ago when, due to probably climate change some primates begin to walked on two feet. Being bipedal in an environment where the ancestors of lions, leopards, cheetahs, and hyenas where looking for their next meal was a tremendous risk but also gave them advantages it freed up their hands and allow them to see their predators in the changing environment, and this with many other variables led to higher development and evolution of the hominid brain, which eventually gave us an advantage on the East African plains and here I am writing about it,(isn't evolution da bomb!). In order to survive the early hominids had to cooperate and work together in order to survive. This led to us being a social species and it led to human primates having longer childhoods than our primate cousins. For example, a Daniel Dennett wrote in Breaking the Spell, Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, "Natural Selection build child brains with the tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them", it had survival benefits because it you were warned about going near the water hole because of crocodiles, if someone disobeyed and was eaten this reinforced the authority and social order of the clan or tribe. Another example, would be if someone was kicked out of the group and was later found dead or eaten by hyenas this reinforced the social order.Therefore, my argument is thinking individually or thinking for yourself is a recent phenomenon in our species way of thinking for a species who lived for millions of years who lived in social groups in order to survive, and propagate they had to think collectively therefore, I think group-thinking is the default position in our brains and to think for yourself take effort and practice and we don't do this well as a species, because for most of our evolutionary history we had to groupthink. What is Groupthink? Groupthink, "a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of "mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment" (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making. source: (http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm) This is why religion thrives because it's probably a byproduct of groupthinking. In Summary, I think groupthinking evolved out of our sociology need to survive, cooperate and pass-on our genes (DNA) and thinking as an individual is a new phenomena and we default to groupthinking because we evolved in social groups that banded together to survive on the East African plains. Think about it or think for yourself, but it will take practice to override our default towards groupthinking. John D. Socrates a.k.a. The African Socrates.

God, The Afterlife, and Original Sin

Recently, the thought came to me about how "if" the god of Christianity messed up this world according the doctrine of original sin, in which he put mankind into a situation where in his omniscience he knew he was going to fall and the suffering it entailed, then I can only imagine how he messed up the afterlife. Think about it....

The sky is Falling Harold Camping the Modern day Chicken Little

Here we are two days after the rapture supposed to have happened. As I read Harold Camping's May 11th interview in Nymag.com : " Interviewer: What will you be doing on that day? Are you just waiting for the earthquake, are you having some kind of ceremony?
Harold Camping: "There’ll be no gatherings of any kind that I have anything to do with. There'll be no — it’ll just be simply waiting, and the likelihood is that I'll be doing what everybody else will be doing, which is listening to the radio or watching TV, seeing what is happening as it begins on the other side of the world."
When I read this my skeptical antenna's went up, because why would he be watching TV or listening to a radio if the "believers" where going to be raptured away,they wouldn't be here to watch TV or listen to a radio, unless heaven or wherever the raptured are going will have TVs and radios.
Most Christians did not buy into this specific nonsense but they still believe that the rapture is going to happen. For example, Tim LaHaye famous for his Left Behind books and movies is your typical Christian response for he states in Huffington Post: "Instead, Lahaye sticks to the oft-cited passage from the Gospel of Matthew that is interpreted to mean the apocalypse will not be predicted:
But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (Matthew 24:36).
Lahaye points out that Camping has been wrong about the date of the end times before, and he goes on to explain:
You can be sure the rapture will not occur when anyone sets a date because God wants us all to live every day as though Christ could come today. A great motto for daily living is PERHAPS TODAY. For one day it will happen and we don't know when, but we don't want you to be left behind!"
This opens a can of worms for the belief in the Trinity (that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or Ghost are One Divine Being), for how can the Father and Son be one and they don't know what the other is thinking or knows.
This whole rapture fiasco should wake up people to even the prophecies in the bible, for they could have been just as wrong as Harold Camping and the other Henny Penny/ Chicken Little, who can't wait for the sky to fall. Think about it...
Black Socrates

Part 1: The African-American a Conservative: Christianity Still Enslaves the Mind Today

Hubert Harrison's essay: The Negro a Conservative: Christianity Still Enslaves the Mind of Those Whose Bodies It Has Long Held Bound which he published in the Truth Seeker, September 12, 1914 is still true today (97 years later). In the essay Harrison analyze and identify three areas as to why African-Americans are Conservative and why their minds are still enslaved by Christianity. The areas he discusses are education inequity, the affects of slavery and Christianity's role in Slavery, and the lack of economic freedom of circumstances, especially in leaders of thought.

Harrison opens the essay with the reflection that African Americans has taken part in every line of intellectual endeavor that Caucasians have, except for radical ideas like "theological criticism, religious dissent, social and political heresies such as Single Tax, Socialism, Anarchism; in other words, African-Americans are Theologically and for the most part Socially Conservative. For example, according to a Pew Forum on "A Religious Portrait of African-Americans" published July 30, 2009: "While the U.S. is generally considered a highly religious nation, African-Americans are markedly more religious on a variety of measures than the U.S. population as a whole, including level of affiliation with a religion, attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer and religion's importance in life. Compared with other racial and ethnic groups, African-Americans are among the most likely to report a formal religious affiliation, with fully 87% of African-Americans describing themselves as belonging to one religious group or another...The Landscape Survey also finds that nearly eight-in-ten African-Americans (79%) say religion is very important in their lives... Additionally, several measures illustrate the distinctiveness of the black community when it comes to religious practices and beliefs. More than half of African-Americans (53%) report attending religious services at least once a week, more than three-in-four (76%) say they pray on at least a daily basis and nearly nine-in-ten (88%) indicate they are absolutely certain that God exists. On each of these measures, African-Americans stand out as the most religiously committed racial or ethnic group in the nation...The Landscape Survey also shows that the link between religion and some social and political attitudes in the African-American community is very similar to that seen among the population overall. For instance, just as in the general public, African-Americans who are more religiously observant (as defined by frequency of worship service attendance and the importance of religion in their lives) are more likely to oppose abortion and homosexuality and more likely to report higher levels of conservative ideology. " Therefore, Harrison's assessment was correct that the African American is a Conservative was true in his time and they are today. The only area which African Americans are not socially conservative comes from economical reasons due to racism and discrimination, African-Americans believe in government involvement in social issues to protect civil rights, voting rights, and to open equal opportunities as well as create a social safety nets like Social Security, Medicaid, and Social Ware fare programs to offset the lack of economic equity in the United States. As a result, when African-Americans voted against prop 8 in significant numbers they were being true to their conservatism.

Part 2: The African-American a Conservative: Christianity Still Enslaves the Mind Today

The first reason Harrison highlights is the inequity in education, for example he states "when we consider that in certain southern counties the munificent sum of 58 cents is spent for the annual education of a Negro child" and the difficult task of even making it to college "we will cease to wonder at the dearth of thinkers who are radical on other than racial matters." Although this may not mean a reduction in African-Americans religiosity, according a 2002 Gallop poll concluded "that those with a lower level of education are more likely to "talk the talk" when it comes to religion -- that is, they're more likely to say they believe in God, place religion prominently in their lives, and recognize religion's importance in the world. But those with a higher level of education are as likely as those with less education to "walk the walk" -- by belonging to a congregation and attending services regularly. These results may point to a failure on the part of organized religion to attract and connect with those with a lower education level, perhaps reflecting the trend in the last century toward more highly educated clergy.
However, even though they do not belong in as great a number or attend as frequently as their more highly educated counterparts, those on the lower end of the educational scale have much more faith in religious institutions, perhaps reflecting a broader tendency to rely on institutions in other areas of their lives -- unions, HMOs, government agencies, etc. Those in this group have far less faith in the individuals at the head of their religious institutions -- the clergy -- than in the institutions themselves." In other words, The United States does not have a strong social safety net and so the poor have to reach out to religious institutions for assistents.

Part 3: The African-American a Conservative: Christianity Still Enslaves the Mind Today

In discussing Christianity's role in slavery, I too wonder with Harrison's assertion that "it would seem that the Negroes of all Americans, would be found in the Freethought fold, since they have suffered more than any other class of Americans from the dubious blessing of Christianity". For as Harrison illustrates the "dubious blessing" of Christianity, were 1. Christianity was used to justify the enslavement of Africans by using the bible for divine sanction of this "peculiar institution", with text such as "Cursed be Canaan", "Servants obey Your Masters" and 2. Christianity stressed "servile virtues of subservience and content" and as we can see "these things have bitten deeply into the souls of black folk." In other words, the very book they call the word of god and the Christian religion the Black folk follow was the very thing used to enslave them and it still does. The Christian Slaveholder knew the Christianity was an effective tool that could be used for subjugation, for they saw how it subdued the Roman Empire and the subsequent European tribes that came into contact with it. In fact, Harrison shows us how it was used in Africa to subdue and create colonialism through missionaries. For when the African closed their eyes the African had the bible and the Europeans had the land. He shows how B. L. Putnam Weale's book the Conflict of Color, naively advised the Lords of Empire (The Imperialist) not to civilize but Christianized Africa in the caption "The Black Sampson and White Delilah", so that "Delilah's work may well be done. Here in America her work has been well done and I fear that many years must pass before the leaders of thought among my people contribute many representatives to the cause of Freethought". 97 years later and still African-American leaders of thought among my people hasn't contributed much for the cause, for example, intellectuals like Cornell West and Michael Dyson, who is a Baptist minister, they both teach or have taught at Ivy League schools and proudly calls themselves Christians. Instead, of becoming theological critics or religious dissidents using historical or higher criticism or other methods that could help deliver their people from the mental bondage of their ancestor's slave-master religion (Christianity); they advocate and proclaim it! As Harrison states " the church among the Negroes exerts a more powerful influence than anything else in the sphere of ideas. Why is this? Harrison contends and I agree that "Nietzsche's contention that the ethics of Christianity are the slave ethics... Show me a population that is deeply religious and I will show you a servile population, content with whips and chains, content to eat the bread of sorrow and drink the waters of affliction. And he concludes that "Here in America the spirit of the Negro has been transformed by three centuries of subjection, physical and mental, so they have even glorified the fact of subjection and subservience. I think this "forbearance" was used during the civil rights movement that advocated "non-violence" and "is found in the fact that their spirits had been completely crushed by the system of slavery". For example, a lot of those who participated in the Civil Rights movement glorify and praise how African-Americans allow dogs to bite them and water through fire hoses to knock them down.

Part 4: The African-American a Conservative: Christianity Still Enslaves the Mind Today

Finally, he see economics playing a role in the enslavement of the mind, especially in African-Americans leaders of thought as he concludes "until Black Leaders are free by their circumstances, is when they will have freedom of thought," because if you make your living by the masses then you need to proclaim what the masses believe, in other words, he who pays the piper calls the tune. This is why a lot of the so-called African-American leaders are ministers.

Harrison essay explains how enslaved Africans adopt their Slaveholders religion and continues to, but I think there's an evolutionary and underlying reason too, it was for group cohesion and survival, especially after the end of slavery when over 4 million slaves found themselves free. For example, Nicholas Wade's book the Faith Instinct How Religion Evolved and Why it Endures argues how religion is key to our survival. Wade hold that natural selection can operate on groups, and that religion is a key tool for group survival, for groups that are cohesive will out compete groups that are less and thus will leave more offspring. In other words, belief in the supernatural was selected by evolution because it enhances our group cohesion by regulating our fertility, trade, warfare, social and national unity. As a result, African-Americans adopted Christianity because it is a slave ethic religion that was the dominant religion in the West and so it was easy for a group of people who had been transformed by three hundred years of subjection, physical and mental, to adopt a religion that had the slave mentality and ethic build into it and so African-Americans used religion through the Black Church to create group cohesion and bind themselves together in order to survive and pass on their genes. I think the way to break the chains of Christianity and other religions are through 1). Equal opportunity in Education and work will open opportunities for economic empowerment, 2) Strong Social Safety nets (countries with strong Social Welfare programs are less religious) and these two will lead to 3) Freedom of circumstances, which leads to freedom of thought. Think About It...

John Doe Socrates

Existentialism Part 3

Jean-Paul Sartre the French Philosopher who was the primary proponent of existentialism, coined the phrase we are condemned to be free, by which he means you are forced one way or another to make a choice. Freedom is defined as not under the control of another; at liberty or autonomous. However, with this freedom comes responsibility, which means liable to be called to account (to a person (including me) or for a thing. I am afraid of being responsible, because all of my life I have believed that there was an invisible force responsible or who at least would come to rescue me. Carry all your cares to Jesus he will bare them for you, therefore you don’t need to bare responsibility for who you are, we are told to deny who we are and identify with Jesus. Apostle Paul said everyday I decrease that he (that is Jesus) might increase. I am afraid but I am condemned to be free. I must choose and therefore take ownership of my existence. I am responsible for my health, happiness, and for what I become or will be. As far as I am concern unless proven otherwise god is indeed dead.

Assumptions

On the way to work this morning I had a thought on some assumptions that are essential for Christianity's existence. I would call these assumptions the pillars of the faith. According to The Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus American Edition (The World's Most Trusted Dictionaries) (a statement I am somewhat skeptical, on whose authority is this statement based on)., back to my definition; assumption is a noun, which is defined as 1. Assuming 2. Accepting without proof 3. Arrogance and 4. Reception of the virgin Mary bodily into heaven. I am using the second definition of accepting without proof. Christianity accept without proof 1. There is an afterlife, I don't mean our matter-energy will be absorbed back into the ecosystem, but there will be a life after this one that is similar to this one but in a different realm or invisible to our senses. The second assumption that Jesus of Nazareth, which Christianity believes is the promised Messiah or Christ, physically rose from his death and afterward broke the laws of physics and ascended up to heaven to the right hand of the father. ( According to Luke 24:51 ironically this is the only gospel that makes this claim, since Mark 16:9-20 was not in the oldest reliable manuscripts, therefore we can disregard Mark similar claim). This leads to the assumption that heaven exist, which has conveniently turned into a realm invisible to our senses, but not according to the bible it was a place where Stephen saw Jesus (See Acts 7:55) and where the people of Babel could build a tower to in Genesis 11. The assumption was it's a place were people could see or reach if not why would Yahweh come down and confuse the languages or Stephen, who was still alive although being stoned could have not seen it. The biggest assumption which I think is the foundation of Christianity's existence and therefore upholds it is; there is a god who is involved in human activities and is personally involved in human affairs. Yet there is no physical evidence at least today of a god like Yahweh, the God of the old testament, Yahweh did miracles, he stopped time, parted seas, fed and clothe the people of Israel and so forth, yet this don't happen today where everyone could see instantly on worldwide news. Is there a god who is actively involved in human affairs. Think about this, as I typed and edit this blog which took me about 45 minutes and in this time 781 children have died from starvation and hunger related diseases, (approximately 1,042 children die every hour) because on average 25,000 children die every day from hunger and hunger related diseases (see globalissues.org). This is neither including the 2700 who died from Malaria today (see http:/.cdc.gov/malaria/facts.htm) nor the 100's of people who died from typhoons and mud slides. As a result, if god is actively involved in our lives, I think maybe we would be better off if perhaps he wasn't involved. Therefore, these are assumptions in which there is no evidence today or reasonable evidence that these things are true. ... think about it....

Soul Man? Part 2

I think the idea of a soul is not unusual, we don’t know what death is, and it is something we do not have control over. In the person of Jesus of Nazareth you have the story of a person who overcame death by his so-called resurrection. It does not bother the average believer in Jesus that he conveniently ascended to heaven to no longer be heard from or seen again; or at least until his "second" return. He symbolizes our desire to overcome our greatest enemy, death. Mankind have conquered almost everything on this planet except his death. I think it is our imagination and desire to be associated with something that is eternal and supreme. For example, If you listen to any contemporary gospel or "inspiration" station and if you listened to an average song that the words will be how god was worthy of worship because he is holy and if you asked yourself how do we know this is true, that there's a god who is holy and worthy of worship, to be honest we don't, I have yet seen a sea part or a talking snake. I cannot fault Christianity or Islam because they give the answers to one of our greatest fears, the fear of no longer existing. In Islam and Christianity you are given the promise of immortality, which I think is wishful thinking and nothing more. I hate to be the bearer of reality but this is it folks, there is no second chance, no reincarnation, no resurrection, yes your atoms will be absorbed into the natural ecosystem like other natural things but the you who you think you are, this egocentric identity will end when the brain dies. We need to get over the fear of death and live this life, as Epicurus allegedly stated "Death means nothing to us, for when we are, death isn't and when death is, we are not" and that's the way it is. Think about it...

Meaning of Life Part 2

I think one of the best quotes I have every read came from a debate between William Lane Craig and Dr. Ray Bradley in 1994. In the Q and A section of the debate an audience member asked Dr. Bradley if there's no God then what's the meaning of life. Dr. Bradley answered "The quickest way I can answer is to invite you to consider the following analogy. You open a book, a good novel perhaps or a history. You read it. What do you read? You find all sorts of sentences that in the book have meaning. The book comes to an end. There's a period at the last page. There's nothing more thereafter. Does this mean that because the book--your life by away of analogy--has come to end, there is no meaning in life? On the contrary, I want to suggest the meaning of life lies in the little things that we do for each other in life. It lies in the texture of everyday existence. It does not lie in yearning for something in an afterlife. If it lay in the latter, if this life had meaning only by virtue of there being another life afterwards which gave it meaning, then what is the meaning of that life? It would have to be followed by a still a third, and so on." The entire debate with the exception of the Question and Answer section can be heard on Common Sense Atheism , this site have over 400 plus debates.

God's Problem a short review.

Recently I listen to an audiobook by Dr Bart D. Ehrman, a renown Bible Scholar and Professor of New Testament at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, called God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer. I enjoyed the audiobook, in it he shows that the Bible offers at least five answers that often conflict with each other. 1) The prophets think God sends pain and suffering as a punishment for sin and also that human beings who oppress others create such misery; 2) the unknown writers who tell the Jesus story and the Joseph stories think God works through suffering to achieve redemptive purposes; 3) the writers of Job view pain as God's test; 4) the writers in parts of Job and Ecclesiastes conclude that we simply cannot know why we suffer; and 5) the apocalyptic belief (a dualistic ideology) that was popular during Jesus' ministry in which suffering is caused by the forces of evil (the Devil and his angels) and therefore, God is not responsible. When the kingdom of God comes, God will make things right, and the righteous will inherit the earth. He shows how these answers fall short of answering why we suffer, especially if you take into account gratuitous suffering of innocent infants like those who died in the Nazi's death camps, who were cooked alive in the fires of the Nazis when they did not have enough time to kill them with their mothers in the gas chambers; or the children who died when the 2004 Tsunami that occurred in the Indian Ocean which killed thousands of infants and children; and those infants and children who were killed by God's commandment in the old testament flood, and God's authorized genocides of land claiming by the Israelite Armies. One of the things that really hit home for me that Dr Ehrman brought out was about praying or giving thanks for your food. If you are thanking god for giving you your food, you are at the same time implying that god failed to provide food for someone else, why don't god provide food for the starving infants and children in the refugee camps in Darfur today or even the 25,000 people who die daily from hunger and hunger related diseases and illnesses; why didn't god provide food in Ethiopia during its great famine of the 1980's (he did in the Old Testament for the children of Israel in the desert, when he provided manna and quail). This is why I left the faith of Christianity, because I don't see any evidence for the god it claims to exist, a personal god who is active in the world would be a failure if such a god existed. Think about it...

Supernatural vs a Natural Uncaused Caused and Occam Razor

I just read something that I have been thinking about and it deals with a naturalistic view versus a super-naturalistic view of the cause of the universe and Occam Razor. Occam Razor simply means when you have two competing ideas that equally explains an observation go with the one that requires less explanation or the shorter explanation. In both ideas it is believed that the universe has a self-contained uncaused cause; in the naturalistic concept the universe itself is the self-contained uncaused cause while the super-naturalistic concept is a god is the self-contained uncaused cause of the universe, and thus Occam Razor would mean the naturalistic view should be accepted because it is the shorter explanation because of the one additional explanation of god for the theistic view. In other words, naturalism advocates the universe is itself the self-contained uncaused cause; while super-naturalism advocates that a supreme being is the self-contained uncaused cause. Now you have added something that requires an additional explanation: what is a supreme being?, who is the supreme being?, what evidence does god give for this supreme being’s existence? (I refuse to use a gender for god.) In all honesty both view may be false, we simply don‘t know, however I digress one of them is true because if a third alternative is given it would either be natural or supernatural. I too believe that there is an uncaused cause, because you would have to get to a point where there is something that was uncaused or you would have an infinite regression which is meaningless, because you would never explain anything, however using Occam Razor one would lean towards the universe itself being the self-contained uncaused cause because it requires one less step for explanation., therefore I accept the naturalistic point of view.

How do I know it's true?

I don’t believe that what Christianity professes is true, not just Christianity but any religion that make an unproven claim. What do I mean by true? True is something that is a provable or proven fact. Christianity is a faith or is based on faith, it is something that you have to accept on the word of another, but I have a difficult time just blindly accepting someone’s opinion that don’t have any provable evidence to back up it’s claim. How can we prove the tenets of Christianity’s claim? How can I prove that Jesus is sitting at the right hand of his father? As I type this it is almost laughable that people actually believe this, that is, that a god impregnated a virgin in a village in what was a Roman providence in the so-called middle east area that is now called Israel, this semi-divine being walked on earth, did miracles, knew he was going to be killed and he was going to rise three days later, and if you believe this you will be saved from the punishment this semi-divine being‘s father has created for people who don‘t accept this, believe something else, or even perhaps never heard. The reason this semi-divine being did this is because two naked people in a garden ate some fruit that his father had put in a garden and told them not to eat and they ate the fruit after they were convinced by a talking serpent. It is like me as an adult actually believing in Santa Claus and his eight tiny reindeer, without me being mentally ill or handicapped. However, a believer don’t think this is delusional but it actually happened because of a book put together by the Roman Catholic Church, the remnant or what is left of what was the Roman Empire. I can understand how someone can believe in an uncaused cause, an unknown intelligence that is innate in the universe or that is the universe, that caused the big bang or was the big bang, that goes from simplicity to complexity over an infinite amount of time, however, science hypothesizes that this universe will stop evolving and will one day die. This leads me to ask questions about science. How do I know science is true? How do we know the age of the universe? How do we know the age of the earth? How does science come to its conclusions? Why is this significant? Why do science believes that it is right? What happens if science is wrong? These are things which we should think about...