For the purpose of this post only, let’s stipulate that a god or gods exist and that they are either omnipotent or at least unimaginably powerful. Frankly, any being that doesn’t fit this criterion probably shouldn’t be called a god, so I think that’s safe. When might be an appropriate time to thank this god? Well, for example, when one is viewing the wonders of nature seems like a good time. In practice, though, when was the last time you heard someone say “Thank god, it’s a rainbow?” Contemplating the simple fact of or aspects of one’s own life or existence seems like it should stir this sort of emotion, but one doesn’t often hear “Thank god, my kidneys work beautifully.” In fact, at least nine times out of ten, these two words only issue forth from the lips of someone who has recently experienced tragedy or near tragedy. Tune into any of the cable news networks the day after a natural disaster (so just about any day), and you’ll hear a whole lot of people thanking god. For example, you might hear something like “The wildfire destroyed my house, and my car exploded, but thank god I’m alive.” Hospitals are also a popular place for this kind of thing, such as “My baby died of Ebola this morning, but thank god I have another child.”

So, my question is why do these people choose to sing the praises of the lord right after they’ve been crapped on by life? “Thank god most of my goats survived.” Thank which god? Is it the same one that just sent an F4 tornado through your living room? “Thank god I’m in remission.” Did you thank him when he gave you cancer? People seem very willing to forgive the bad thing that’s happened when they are graciously allowed to live or keep some of their possessions. Would they be so generous if the offender turned savior was a human being? Wouldn’t it sound strange to you if you overheard a conversation between strangers, and one person said to the other “Thank you for taking me to the emergency room after you beat me half to death in that alley, stabbed me in the eye and stole my wallet.”?

Human beings attribute blame for the infractions of other people just as quickly as they thank those who have been kind or helpful. Why doesn’t god receive the same treatment? Why is it that when a surfer is attacked by a shark and loses his leg, he’s quick to thank god for letting him live, but he doesn’t seem to hold a grudge about the fact that this same god created sharks and/or created that particular shark and/or didn’t stop that shark from trying to eat him and/or didn’t make sure a better surgeon was on call and/or didn’t at least allow his very expensive surfboard to come through unscathed? None of that is ever god’s fault. I find it curious that a person won’t attribute the same level of complexity to the motives and actions of a magical, invisible being who pervades the entire universe as they will to the anonymous strangers who stole his hubcaps. Is an omnipotent being not (by definition) capable of good and evil? I suppose it’s uncomfortable to worship such a being and to know you have no choice in the matter. I suppose it’s what led early Christian theologians to torture a few snippets of scripture until they yielded the modern concept of the devil.

Whatever the thought process behind it, conscious or otherwise, it irritates me to no end. First of all, how dare you impose such limitations on a being who is capable of absolute evil right alongside absolute good? More importantly, how can you bring yourself to worship such a beast? How can you toss a fiver in the plate after your hamster has been killed in a motorcycle accident (must be a great story)? To do so is intellectually dishonest. It is to surrender oneself to celestial blackmail. Face the facts, people. God is a dick. (I feel like I’ve heard that somewhere.) For my part, if you could show me absolute proof of the existence of god this very minute, I would still choose damnation over worshiping that kind of monster.

~I AM~

I’m actually sort of torn on this. Despite the name, a tree is a fairly secular, or at least pagan, image. Whereas a Menorah, and the ceremony to light it, are indisputably religious. If the airport allows the Menorah, then they also have to allow other religious symbols. At what point then are they allowed to stop? If you extend that to it’s logical conclusion, you would need to represent every religion equally in order to be fair. Then the airport stops being an airport, and instead becomes a shrine to the religions of the world.

Whether they realize it or not, the Rabi’s petition for inclusion really puts Christians in a bind. Unless they are willing to admit that they have no interest in being fair or tolerant, then they have to advocate allowing the Menorah, and they don’t want that. The only other alternative justification for leaving the trees up is to admit that they are secular tradition, and they really don’t want that. Their choice then, is to either blatantly declare their intolerance of other belief systems, or to embrace a secular tradition free of crosses or mangers in public spaces. Clearly, the people sending the hate mail and phone calls have chosen the path of intolerance.

Personally, I enjoy a secular winter solstice celebration, and trees, wreaths, snow, etc., all fit in with my image of appropriate decorations for the season.

So, I respect the Rabi’s right to petition for equal coverage, but I find it sad that the airport didn’t have the balls to declare the trees secular decorations and leave them in place.

Besides, now that Christians have won the war on Christmas, can’t they afford to be a little more charitable?

He made some comments in an interview recently that I imagine most of the readers of this site can appreciate; “From my point of view I would ban religion completely, [...] organized religion doesn’t seem to work. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it’s not really compassionate.” I couldn’t agree more.

I’ve never really liked Michael Medved, and now he’s given me yet another reason. Here’s an excerpt from his reaction to Sir Elton’s comments.

Despite that “hatred and spite,” religious leaders actually express more tolerance to homosexuality (and non-believers) than Sir Elton expresses toward organized faith. Imagine the indignation if a religious leader suggested that we need to “ban homosexuality completely” — or urged an outright prohibition on atheism? It’s true that many believing Christians want to persuade gays to overcome their same-sex urges, or try to get non-believers to replace their doubt with faith, but no factions in the varied array of conservative religious groups has called for “banning” ideas with which they disagree.

Is he serious? He’s either supremely naive, utterly stupid, or intentionally deceitful. Just in case he reads this site (it could happen), and assuming that he’s just ignorant of the actual “hatred and spite” of many religious leaders, I thought I’d help him out by posting just a few headlines about gay bans from the past couple of years. Three things about this list are worth noting; I didn’t include any references to gay marriage (too easy), it’s in no way comprehensive there’s much more out there, and this short list makes it apparent that the only thing preventing actual bans on gays are the courts.

Drives to ban gay adoption heat up in 16 states
Alabama Bill Targets Gay Authors
Texas May Ban Gay Foster Parents
Vatican to Israel: Ban gay parade
Utah lawmaker seeks to ban gay-straight clubs
Behind the Vatican’s Proposed Gay Seminarian Ban
CBS, NBC ban church ad inviting gays
County Rescinds Vote to Ban Gay Residents
Tennessee County Wants to Ban Gays
Drives to Ban Gay Adoption Heat Up in 16 States
Hong Kong court upholds rejection of gay sex ban
Gay pride challenges Moscow
BYU Student Poll: Ban Gay Students
State Baptists to meet, may ban churches that back gays
Homosexual Group Slams Bishops for New Stance on Gays

and of course we can’t forget…

GodHatesFags.com

The last headline above actually speaks better of the “tolerance” Medved claims is common amongst religious leaders. However, I think the Catholic Church, in releasing a more tolerant position on gays, is really just covering their ass because they’ve finally realized just how many of their clergy are already in fact “celibate” homosexuals.

Medved also drops this little gem towards the end of his rant.

“In the bitter debate about teaching our children about the origins of life on earth, religious activists make no attempt to block the teaching of Darwinism or random natural selection, but it’s pro-evolution fanatics who fanatically resist any messages or questions that even hint at Intelligent Design.“

Maybe it is intentional?

LBBP

No, Dwayne Wade has not started a country music career, but if he did, I am sure it would be very similar to Underwood in it’s abundant references to God. Why do I think that? Well apparently Wade felt it necessary to subject the general populace to an explanation of his “faith” in God in the form of a Converse ad. I wouldn’t really care except for the tag line.

If your curious you can see the ad for your self at Converse.com.

Now, it doesn’t matter to me if he can’t sleep at night without a spiritual comfort item. My three year old has a teddy bear and a favorite blanket, Wade has God. I also don’t care if he feels the need to justify away his talent by giving the credit to God, but I am sick and tired of being told that my life is meaningless, worthless, bleak, or otherwise “lost”, unless I subscribe to an illogical destructive self effacing delusion. I am not lost. Should I get lost, I’ll get a map and GPS, not a bible.

What really sucks, is that if he had said, “if you don’t have faith in Santa Clause, you’re lost.” people would just laugh at him. But, sense his imaginary friend is “God” it’s not just OK, it’s a “brave message of faith”. It just makes me sick.

Oh yeah, I’m not going to buy the stupid shoes either.

LBBP

My guess is that most of the more prolific atheists simple ignored Avi’s first post on this subject, and that he neglected to do any research on the topic of atheist morality. Otherwise, he would have found that there is a plethora of opinions out there on how one can derive a moral viewpoint without God. In general, these morality systems seem to fall into one of three very broad groups of thought; morality derived from God (or some other place outside of human existence), morality derived from individual rights (absolute individualism), or morality derived from arbitrary social constructs (moral relativism).

The more difficult concept for many people to swallow is that of moral relativism. Even amongst those that claim to support moral relativism, there are certain things that most people consider absolutely wrong, such as murder or rape. As with Avi, when confronted with the notion of complete moral relativism, most people exclaim “but, without some moral absolute, then there’s no real morality and anyone can do anything!”

Yes. So what?

Morality is relative. Get over it.

There are no absolutes, there is no “purpose” to life. If that means your life is meaningless, that’s your fault not mine. The meaning in my life is my family, my career, and a quest for knowledge. My life is affirmed every time I hold my daughter, kiss my wife, achieve at work, or observe the awesome spectacle of existence. I don’t need anything else. Why do you?

According to Avi, atheists are intellectually cornered into “…a place where the very concepts of morality and ethics are rendered meaningless, a worldview in which a thieving, philandering, serial murdering cannibal is no less commendable a member of the species than a selfless, hard-working philanthropist. (In fact, from an evolutionist perspective, the former is probably better positioned to impart advantages to the gene pool.) It is a thought so discomfiting to an honest atheist that all it can yield him is fury.”

From a tit-for-tat approach to this debate, I could point out that the Old Testament is filled with examples of thieving philandering serial murderers who earn not just forgiveness, but rewards from God, and that therefore this line of argument is perhaps a bad choice for the theist. But, that would just feed into his point about angry atheists. So, instead I’ll point out that I’m definitely not furious over this issue. In fact I find it quite exciting. We, all of us, are in control of the world we live in. Not some arbitrary set of rules handed down by a faceless imaginary sky monster. We decide, as a group, what is “right or wrong”. Personally, I find this to be far from infuriating, and in fact rather liberating.

There is no evidence for, nor any need for, an outside source (God) for morality. No, the bible doesn’t count as evidence. Should anyone be able to bring forward any actual evidence for God, and/or his terminator style enforcement of morality, then I will be happy to reconsider divine absolute morality. In the mean time, I won’t hold my breath.

Similarly, moral absolutism based on individual rights, is on equally shaky ground. Proponents of individual moral absolutism suggest that morality can somehow be scientifically qualified, and that individualism itself somehow imparts each of us with a magic bullet of moral self importance. But, placing the root of morality in the individual, is no less arbitrary and imaginary than placing it with God.

We are all individuals, but we are not solitary individuals. We do not exist, nor can we exist in a vacuum. Whether we like it or not, it is necessary for us to interact with other individuals. In these interactions we will not always have the same self interest. I may want a smoke free environment, you may want to smoke. If we are both in an area designated as “public” property, who’s need is greater in that situation? Some might argue that given the potential for harm caused by secondhand smoke, that I have a right to a smoke free environment. Others might argue that the smoker should have a right to light-up when they want, and that any law that restricted their right to do so, would constitute coercion and thus would be “morally wrong”. Who’s right? In our country there is a growing number of people that feel the non-smoker has more rights than the smoker on this issue. But, in many other countries the trend is just the opposite. Ultimately, there is no “absolute” morality on this issue, though I am certain there will be those that disagree.

Take another example; two individuals are lost in a desert, they are two weeks away from any hope of rescue, and there is only enough water for one of them to survive. Given no other information, and assuming that the two individuals are of equal age gender status etc.., what is the right moral course of action? If they share the water, they guarantee that they both die. If one of them keeps the water for themselves, they condemn the other to certain death. More important than what they do is, how do they decide? They will have to come up with a system, a mini social contract, to decide. Perhaps they’ll draw lots. But what happens if they can’t agree on a system? Neither of them wants to die, if they can’t agree peacefully, they’ll be forced to fight for the water or die in indecision. It’s in neither of their self interests to concede to the other taking the water. To capitulate would be the same as committing suicide. So, is it wrong for them to fight over the water? If one of them dies as a result of the fight, should the victor be considered a murderer?

Those types of struggles are faced by humanity everyday. Without an imaginary friend in the sky to tell us what to do, we must create rules, systems, or “social contracts” to define how we will interact with each other. When we create these rules, not everyone is going to agree with them. It’s not in the self interest of those that have agreed to the rules (society) to allow those that disagree with the rules (criminals) to ruin it for everyone else. So society protects itself through laws, and enforces those laws through punishment. If the disagreement escalates, or if large groups disagree, then we get wars. But no matter what, the rules are all still arbitrary constructs of social interaction.

That’s it. There’s really nothing more to it than that. Who decides the rules? Everyone does, just like Wikipedia, the stock market, or open source code. Do some people have more influence than others? Of course, there will always be individuals that hunger for power and control, and there will always be people that just want to live their life and stay out of the way. In the end, everyone participates in creating the rules, whether they think they do or not, and they always have the choice of not following the rules or attempting to change them.

For those that lack the mental fortitude to grasp the vagueness of such systems, this must be a very scary concept. For those that embrace them, they open up a world of possibilities. But, as long as most people are convinced that there is some kind of magical “right” or “wrong” we will continue to be stuck in the moral stone age with the Avi Shafrans of the world.

LBBP