Critiquing Religion

Purpose - and the legacy of Christianity

2011-08-30T13:13:00.000-07:00

Purpose! If you listen to a Christian, they will imply that there is no prospect of an atheist having purpose because they have no reason to live beyond the 'greater glory of god'.

Possession of a purpose is actually the most important quality a person can possess because it underpins all else; your judgement, how you relate to people and things. The Christian is actually the most morally deprave person because they sabotage their capacity to possess a purpose. Why?There are three reasons:

1. Dogmas are not rational, i.e. There is no justification for their values

2. There is no prospect of a hierarchy of values; dogmas like statutory laws recognise no context.

3. If there is no meaning to your values, then there can be no emotional or psychological value proposition entailed in pursuing them. Which is why Christians are such vacuous, repressed persons. As I debate them, there is nothing stirring inside; just a blank space. 'Vacant'.

What can motivate a Christian to do anything - if they have no purpose? Well, first of all, not all Christians accept Christ as readily or completely as some. By the type most people reach adulthood, they have evolved as more 'practical' people than their Christian branding would imply. Most of these minds go unchallenged by a culture which accepts and legtimatises Christianity. These people have some semblance of purpose, compartmentalised or detached from their Christian beliefs. They live a life of Christian rhetoric (on Sundays), or maybe when it simply serves them, as a succession of detached rationalisations.

So where do atheists find purpose?

They find it where every other living thing finds purpose - in their nature. Humanity, like all higher species of animal, find curiosity a value by virtue of their faculty of consciousness. Bombarded by stream of sensations, protected by nurturing mothers (and fathers), animals come to feel comforted by like-minded species around them. Even observation of other species affirms the idea of life.

The highest of animal species rely only on their capacity to correlate good and bad events with certain mental sensory experiences. Animals draw upon these correlations from their life experience to survive.

Humans however possess a quality which differentiates them from animals. Its called conceptualisation or abstraction. This goes beyond the simple naming of objects, which is really a form of correlation which animals can grasp. It extends to the identification of qualities inherent and extraneous from the object under consideration. Animals cannot grasp these 'non-existent' elements. This is why animals cannot use higher level language, conceive of a post office or the field of politics.

Sadly, a great many humans cannot grasp these concepts either, but for another reason. They sabotage their minds, and thus their motivation for knowing better. They diminish their respect for logic, and they ingratiate themselves in a world of indulgence they choose not to know the greater significance of. The implication is that we have 'disciplined' Christians renouncing life for the sake of a non-existent abstraction, which is simply 'not natural', i.e. A negation of what is, and for those who cannot rightly accept Christianity, we have the 'recovering Christian' who no longer renounces, but falls into the trap of renouncing all ethical standards, a sense of purpose, and becomes therefore an utter subjectivist or collectivist. This is the legacy of Christianity. Dogmatists are destined to fall prey to collectivism, whether fascism or socialism, or whatever form they can justify. Cult leader or follower, it makes no difference. It is fundamentally a choice between victim or perpetrator. That is the legacy of Christianity. We are told Christianity is about love. No love is possible without fundamental principles or logic...yet Christianity renounces logic. We need to accept on faith, i.e. Acceptance without evidence. This is not a value system for humans; its a value system for slaves, and 3000-4000 years ago, the leaders of the Ancient World realised this. In more recent times, politicians just realise the practicality of associating with a powerful institution, particularly one with so much entrenched power. Ignorant parents raise their kids Christians thinking that they are giving them an ethical framework. They are not. They are destroying their minds. You good discipline comes from the mindless 'renounciation of values'. Life is about the pursuit of values. Not any values, but meaningful, logical, integrated, life-affirming values. For animals, they can mean 'bonking' the nearest genetically pleasing species. For humans, there is a more profound, conceptual frame of references, i.e. There is a notion of 'conceptual selection'. Evolution switched when humanity was created. We no longer evolve through 'genetic selection', we evolve through values selection. i.e. Those people with the healthiest values survive and succeed. Well, this is how it should be, if not for the legacy of Christianity. We have actually deteriorated as a society, because the intangibility of conceptualisation actually means we struggle to identify a meaningful path for living. i.e. We are destined to become materialists, both in terms of sex, wealth, reputation, and other such values. We want the tangible, because under the influence of Christianity, too many have renounced their minds. Those who retain their minds are persecuted for doing so in a democracy, so we reward materialism, the mindless extortion of wealth and soul.

In the process they will retain their Christian beliefs of renounciation, i.e. Life for society (i.e. non-self), live for dictator (i. non-self), life for the plants and animals (i.e. non-self), live for the environment (i.e. non-self). This is a negation of self, and thus a negation of your nature as a human being. It represents a disdain for your nature as a human being. Why? Because they failed to develop the right methodology, which means they were denied the validation, self-respect and efficacy that accrues to a person who knows how to use their minds.

------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Evidence for the existence of God

2011-08-09T14:01:00.000-07:00

Here is a good YouTube video explaining the implausibility of Gods or God.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

NZ Catholic school bans boys from school prom

2011-06-15T18:15:00.000-07:00

How can this school ban boys and accept 'outside girls'....this is the type of rationalisation you'd expect from a religious institution. Religion is wholly incompatible with education...so you ought to refrain from sending your children to such schools. There are those who will perhaps argue that this happens all the time, i.e. selective boy and girls schools. The reason it is wrong is that they have no good reason for establishing their policy. It reflects merely a disdain for homosexuality.
-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Religion not compatible with humanity

2011-05-31T17:46:00.000-07:00

The following video of animal cruelty in Indonesia highlights the problem with religion on so many levels.

For a start:

1. The dogmatic adherence to certain concrete values like the requirement under traditional Islamic values for the animal to be alive at the time the throat is cut.

2. The moral relativism which blames Australian graziers rather than Indonesians 'Islamic' consumers who stipulate such practices or abattoirs who appease them

3. The cognitive sabotage caused by religion - whether Christianity or Islam - such dogmatism is antithetical to good judgement. The problem extends far beyond religion since the contemporary values of journalists are not necessarily religious, but some derivative of religious indoctrination; and that extends to scepticism and logical positivism.

------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

An poignant analogy to Christianity

2011-04-23T20:18:00.000-07:00

Here is a clever little sketch on the implausibility of the Christian belief in God. Sometimes an analogy can provide greater clarity.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Evidence from the Universe

2011-02-10T12:32:00.000-08:00

Many of you are inclined to cite a lot of scientific evidence for the non-existence of God. This is the folly of the author of this video, who suggests that the Kepler astronomical orbiter proves something for Christians. It is a great video production, however its initial and final conclusions are flawed. They are:

1. Scientific arguments. The existence of a multitude of 'Earth-like' planets is going to make a difference to Christian belief - it won't. Anyone who has debated a great many Christians will find that they are impervious to reason. Why? They use it sparingly in the context of God. Their repudiation of logic is quite simply repression. They repress evidence which is contrary to their believe. They have the infallible capacity to deny reality, and to define it in terms of 'non-existence', or 'other existences', just as this guy suggests their are 'other Earths' or a person with multiple personalities creates other identities.

2. Humility. The guy in the final moments of the video advances the virtue of 'humility'. He is implying that the smallness of humanity is reason enough to feel 'humble'. The reality however is that the vastness of the universe, as difficult as it might be to comprehend, is not grounds for humility, but in fact opportunity. Look how far humanity has come in 3,000 years...given the universe has evolved (since the last Big Bang) over billions of years. Humanity (as a pspecies) is in fact amazing! Unfortunately, we spend most of our lives invested in immortality of the collectivist styles which manifested from religion, then socialism.

Humility is an act of self-repudiation...so fundamentally the producer of this guy agrees with Christianity. Belief is god is a side issue...if not god, they would still be self-loathing. There is no justification for collective 'self-loathing'. I don't even think people have good reason for personal responsibility in a world which possesses such confusing values. It is no wonder that so many fall prey to crime, low self-esteem and the 'temptation' of immoral acts. The Christian failure to utilise their rational faculty (i.e. faith is repudiation of logic since it is acceptance of ideas without evidence) is the ultimate in immorality, but it is a defiance of their nature, not of some God.

I can't help watching this video and feel excited by the opportunity. Humanity is so worried about polluting this 'Earthily environment", and its their values which cause the problem ultimately, and at the end of the day, there are thousands of plausible Earths out their upon which humanity might be able to settle.
haha...That won't stop Christianity....interestingly his final statement was in support of "humility"....which is self-repudiation...so fundamentally the producer of this guy agrees with Christianity. Belief is god is a side issue...if not god, they would still be self-loathing.

See the video.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Christians win the baby lottery

2011-01-20T20:35:00.000-08:00

Here is a case of an American baby who was kidnapped from Harlem Hospital 19 days after birth. The child was raised by a drug addict, and eventually was reunited with her real parents. In the video you will see her aunt praising Jesus for reuniting them with their family member after '23 years'. That is right...after being kidnapped for 23 years they appreciate the lords work. Go figure.

This supreme God who has the ultimate responsibility in terms of moral agency, turns a blind eye to an innocent child just 19 days old. Yep, oh lordie, he really does work in mysterious ways.

Why 23 years? Why not her 21st birthday. We will never know because there is no logic to it. No intelligibility. We have to repudiate all our logical knowledge...put that aside, and just blindly accept.

But we learn something more about Christians here because how can you be thankful for the return of a child, and 'blank out' the 23 years the child was missing, not to mention the actual abduction, which god must also accept responsibility for. He is even more responsible than the hospital because they just have lax security. God has perfect knowledge, and yet he did nothing. Shame! Shame! Shame! How does a Christian explain that.. Blank out. That is why religion leads to psychological repression. You know this by talking to them. I debate them often when they come to my door. Blank out to any philosophical arguments. "I don't know" they say..."Its a good point" they say....but contradictions are just discarded like confetti.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

What is a nun good for? Experimentation?

2010-11-04T21:25:00.000-07:00

Here follows more useless science. Dare I say it - another rationalisation to defend religion, altruism and 'positive' thinking. Such studies are performed despite the gaping contradiction of the study....its lack of relevance to the broader community. The study professes to look at Catholic nun's with the intent of determining the relationship between their brains and their 'positive thinking'.

The reality is that a nun is a parasite whom live off the guilt-induced efforts of others. They might be non-judgmental, so they are beyond judgement for most people - except me - but they are parasites regardless. They stand alone in that respect. We love to critique the parasitism of others like the unemployed, whom I would suggest mostly want a job, its just that they are validated or financed for doing nothing, so they just cannot motivate to do more than is required.

The guilt or ideological rationalisations which prompts you to support them is fuel for their happiness. They will live well on it. The 'unhappy' nuns are the one's who question their relationship to the world and realise that they are really the 'selfish' ones; but I don't like to call them selfish because they are really simply just 'anti-life', caught in a prison of personal ineptitude. i.e. Prisons of their poor early childhood decisions. Like doing the military.

The bigger target here are the researchers though who think science = correlation. Wrong! You need a theory of values. Your studies on nuns is not directly applicable to the broader population who actually work; moreover because they have a guilt which you seamlessly might avoid by 'virtue' of your utter righteousness. After all - who but me - would shoot down a nun 'metaphorically'...God's poor messengers.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The virtues of prayer

2010-10-20T21:21:00.000-07:00

Here is a nice video to explain the virtues of praying....and I respond to some of the feedback after.

It is interesting to read some of the comments after the video...to which I will respond:

"Not believing in something (i.e. No god) does not constitute a "belief system", for the same reason that "not fishing" is not a hobby".

Just as believing in a non-existing god is not really believing in anything either. Faith = non reason, altruism = non-self. Religion defiles your nature. Why? No reason. So having reasons for not believing is more of a system than faith, but I agree with your premise that atheists should have a full value system....but whose to say they don't. They are merely staying on topic.

"The notion that religion causes wars because they "KNOW" that they have "the one and only absolute truth".

There is nothing wrong with being certain of your ideas, or 'absolutes' as such. The problem is that religious absolutes are not based on evidence, but rather biblical assertions which cannot be verified to any satisfactory degree. I might add that objective truth is absolute, however it is 'contextual' absolutism.

"You need to realize that man cannot explain everything and in light of the fact that we are all ignorant to some degree or another some of us like yourself need to get off our supposed intellectual high horses and show just a bit of humility".

This is a weak argument. Humanity not being able to explain everything is not the same as not being able to explain everything. Context is everything. You have core knowledge, and you have peripheral knowledge. You can trust that which integrates and corresponds to facts. You can have still more confidence if you are a critical thinker with a propensity to seek and investigate alternative scenarios. I might repudiate the idea that humility is good by highlighting his 'apparent' absence of it. How can a humble person proclaim another people arrogant for having an opinion, which they 'humbly' repudiate.

"Well,as long as you can hate Christianity without hating Christians like Christians hate sin without hating sinners like yourself we should be able to get along. Well,at least not beat the tar out of each other".

Hate? Dislike? Sadly opposing values can make a big difference to our lives. Christianity and other forms of subjectivism are indirectly related to a great deal of collectivist political imposition and coercion, which ultimately destroy lives. That is just the 'political manifestations. Religion destroys lies, whether its the self-righteous parent who invalidates their their child; or the abusive parent who destroys their self-esteem with dogmatic nonsense; or worse sexual abuse. There are people who've been raised with unrealistic fears because of biblical teachings. More problematic and generally, there is the diminished capacity to think logically and critically, well-represented by Christians who cannot respond to logical arguments. The implication is that they are predisposed to repression and evasion.

"Christians go to the same schools that you go to yet you accuse them of being ignorant. They are not ignorant. They just do not accept the things you accept as being true. They choose not to believe some things just as you choose not to believe some things. What we believe is based on what we have experienced and what we have experienced you have not experienced. No one can be expected to throw out their experiences even in the face of your supposed logic. That would be illogical".

Logical argument? Case in point. Comparative ignorance is not simply a matter of school selection. Personal application and even parenting are critical, and there are a great many factors. If Christians have had a personal experience which justifies God, then they have less virtue because they have evidence, so less faith required to believe. Don't try finding logic in this nonsense. This assertion is a repudiation of objectivity. Christians can explain their experience, and they are open to account for that experience if they want to be taken seriously. One need only look at the quality of the Christian thinking to repudiate the philosophy. I might also add that a great many of you are not Christians but nevertheless suffer from a related 'subjective' fallacy, whether some form of moral relativism, scepticism or collectivism, or even liberalism. The only defensible philosophy is objectivism. It is the only one with a valid theory of values. I'll prove the point too. Email me for a debate!

"I am pretty sure small children have been murdered at the hands of atheists,agnostics,and religious folks".

True enough, Christians don't have a monopoly on immorality. Yes...immorality. Christianity is an immoral philosophy. A philosophy is a value system which ought to serve the life of the subject. The idea that people ought to find salvation in renouncing their nature is nonsense. i.e. Faith instead of reason. Faith is acceptance without evidence....so the opposite of logic. Someone in ancient times was really trying to screw with their subjects to teach them this nonsense.

Other types of subjectivism like socialism, fascism or environmentalism, or animal welfarists are equally immoral as they place others, even animals and the environment before humans. They also support placing some humans above the interests of others. They are a repudiation of objectivity and logic.....just like religion. They are just as bad as religion. Indefensible. If you want to defend subjectivity, simply walk in front of a bus...conflict resolved.

"It is a good thing that all who identify themselves as Christians are not the same then,isn't it? It is a good thing that the religious right is only a wing and not the whole bird,so to speak".

Christians vary in the extent to which they accept religion, and how they accept it. I have had Christians email me, thanking me for helping them resolve their attitudes to religion. They, like me, only needed a logical argument to drop religion like a sack of potatoes. Others tend to have less respect for ideas because they were not raised with it. I was raised with a great deal of respect for science, so it was an easy refutation when the arguments were presented. It was literary a 'day conversion'.

It is sad that libertarianism is supported by anarchists and Christians. They offer no plausible justification for freedom. Why? Anarchism is based on subjectivism. Religion advances altruism. Capitalism is based on an ethics of rational self-interest. They are incompatible. This argument greatly upset my grandfather 2 decades ago.

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Blessed is the honest bishop

2010-10-16T15:49:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting article by a bishop in the Huffington Post about the churches role in inciting hatred of gays, lesbians and the like. It is a rather candid article coming from the church.

When a religious leader is so progressive, you have to wonder whether he retains any religious conviction. Clearly he retains a great deal of intellect...but only by driving his conflict to a deeper moral fundamental realm. Christians are morally obliged to throw themselves under a bus to protect others from prejudice. He neglects to understand that such collectivism is the source of this prejudice in the first place. He is therefore not a champion of moral rectitude but moral ambivalence. But bless the church for engaging and compromising its integrity yet again. It might well culminate in another church to defend or react to the indefensible. But there is plenty of moral scepticism out there, so I'm sure this bishop will find a market.

I am hoping to drive a 'Greek-inspired' revival of rational self-interest. These Christian apologists however keep 'doggedly' or 'dogmatically' clinging to their 'altruist' beliefs contrary to all the bleating evidence. Oh well....another century before the next intellectual revolution. I think we will have to wait until the next century before we can download a code of ethics into people, such that they will no longer quibble over 'what their bleating minds are for'.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Gold medal for Australian Catholic Church

2010-10-14T22:21:00.000-07:00

According to the NZ Herald, the Catholic Church has taken upon itself to recognise Mother Mary MacKillop as a saint...Australia’s first. I’m not impressed. The basis for this honour is:

1. She lived a life of integrity

2. She performed miracles

I would suggest she did no such thing. You can’t give without receiving....unless one of her miracles was to conjure up piles of money to perform her feats on this earth. I trust not. She more probably conveyed the biblical message and was able to raise money in order to do what she did. My guess it would not have been to hard to raise money in that time because Australia was having a commodities boom. According to the Christian standard, her work was only possible with the help of a lot of ‘materialistic’ people, who gave surpluses to her so that she did not need one.

Now of course....if not for the generosity or ‘guilted’ altruism of others, who is to know what would become of her? Would she be one of the more desperate flock rather than a leader of people? But saints are not necessarily leaders by the standards indicated.

The other aspect of this honour is that she ‘saved’ lives with some ‘miracles’. Of course there is no way of verifying that she had any such capacity....but the fact that someone who dealt with such desperate people could only find two souls to save suggests to be that she really had no skill at all, and it was merely a distortion, or someone’s overactive imagination. Self-delusion to be sure.

There is of course a great deal of political strategy in this announcement. There can be no better way of promoting Catholicism than by anointing a new saint. Why? Well there are two reasons:

1. Religion looks ever more relevant if you can point to some modern day miracle to support your rationalisation. Of course there are miracles being performed in India every day among the uneducated.

2. Religion needs to sanctify the life of pastors in order to attract more members, and also to reward the best performers. That is simply good business....and we need to remember ‘blind faith’ is a hard sell....yet its the more virtuous...but hell you have to give the pastors something to hope for don’t you. It can’t be all faith can it?

3. A miracle 100 years ago would appear to be 'modern enough' to be in the scientific era, but not so modern that anyone is going to dig up a scandal about Mary....or disprove her mythical miracle. Of course Mother Theresa did not look so positive for this reason. She was considered a control freak by some. Isn't that unsaintly? Certainly not humbling. Well, one flaw. Any miracles?

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Secular religion gone crazy

2010-09-26T12:56:00.000-07:00

Religion has unfolded into a plethora of different schools over the last 3000 years or so. We might well ask - what is the next step. I can see light at the end of the tunnel. A religion which is open to everyone regardless of what they believe. I believe I have found them on a website called ReligiousTolerance.org. I do like the fact that they do state their values upfront. True to their name, they count an atheist among them. I guess that is consistent with their belief in democracy.

Where I disagree with them is:

1. "In the inherent worth of every person. People are worthy of respect, support, and caring simply because they are human. Unfortunately, we have not reached a consensus on when human life, in the form of an ovum and spermatozoon, becomes a human person. On this matter, our lack of agreement on when personhood begins mirrors that of society at large".

Let me add some clarity. When a person is 'inherently' or intrinsically of value, you admonish the very concept of value, or any notion of a hierarchy of values. Intrinsic values are thus a repudiation of life, of meaning, of science, and of knowledge. People are worthy of respect, support and caring to the extent that they have earned your respect, and you theirs. The reason why you can't reach a consensus on what life is, is because you see the implications of that decision. In any respect, abortion is not an issue related to when life begins, but the proper ethics between lives. You clearly believe that a life ought to be able to impose obligations on other lives. This is evident is abortion and the collectivist state, i.e. welfare, education (i.e. the right to an education is the right to coerce teachers into providing an education).

2. "In working towards a culture that is relatively free of discrimination on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, physical disability, age, body shape, etc".

Well, there would be less discrimination if educators actually recognised its cause. Discrimination is not actually the problem. Discrimination is actually a proper consequence of making value judgements. Price discrimination is something we do every day, and we make all manner of value judgements. Why not racial, religious and sex discrimination? Well, in some context they are appropriate, and mostly they are not, but its a question of reasons and context. There is no dogmatic way to make such decisions. Clearly religious people are more likely to exercise such irrational forms of discrimination because they make a virtue out of 'faith' (or acceptance without reason). Given their humble acknowledgement of their prejudice, you will often hear Christians say, I wish I did not have this prejudice...oh well, I am only human. Original Sin - its the ultimate cope out.

3. "In the value of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment including the death penalty".

There are good reasons to repudiate the use of capital punishment. Perhaps the most important reasons are that (i) our justice system is underfunded, (ii) Our government persecutes more than it prosecutes given its underlying value system, (iii) the objectivity and critical thinking skills of our judiciary is lacklustre, (iv) Our court system integrates with the police and prison system, so there is a possibility of judicial indifference, bias and unaccountability, and (v) attitudes to evidence, and what constitutes evidence are often arbitrary or non-contextual. I do however think there is a place for capital punishment; but at this point government bureaucrats cannot be trusted with the responsibility or its regulation.

4. "In the importance of democracy within religious, political and other structures".

Not sure what this means, but these institutions are entirely consistent. We have religion which repudiates the mind, and we have a political system which subjugates the rational thoughts of some individuals to the mindless indifference of the majority, who are themselves disempowered, vestiges of their former, mal-developed selves.

5. "In the separation of religion and state; and the freedoms of speech, association, and expression".

Nice idea, but unfortunately it makes little difference. Whilst religion might have little direct influence on politics, on some level it affects the thinking of people, and that culminates in coercive government policy, and the oppression of individuals. Just as religion is based on arbirtrary dogma, so is government policy. The difference is that religious dogma comes from traditional nonsense, whilst government policy derives from collectivist nonsense. Our democratic tradition is based on subjugation of individuals to the majority, which is not a competition in 'quality' arguments, but a 'numbers' game which precludes the possibility of conflict, which prevents the realisation of solutions. This is what we call the 'tyranny of the majority', which is more concerning that the 'tyranny of some minority' because it has the force and legitimacy of the law. Your arbitrary Senate structure offers little in the way of protection, such that many people actually consider it worthwhile to abolish the institution of 'accountability'.

6. "That freedom of speech is one of our most important rights. This includes the freedom to compare the beliefs of faith groups with each other and with other sources of information. It includes the freedom to criticize faith and other groups when they harm others".

What good is freedom of speech when you have no freedom of property. What good does it do me to have the freedom of speech when I have no right to material expression, say the creation of wealth. What is the purpose of ideas, but to seek some material manifestation of it. Knowledge is not an end in itself. But yes, you ought to have the freedom to be stupid, or not. But I should be free of any motivation you might have to impose your values upon me. In which case your arbitrary assertions tend to manifest in wars, which is why religion is ultimately as dangerous as any other subjectivist (i.e. collectivist political) movement.

7. "That the systems of truth that we have studied on the topics of morals, ethics, and religious belief are often considered absolute within various religions and secular belief systems. However, they are obviously relative because they vary greatly from one culture, religion, and time to another".

Wow, this is an intellectual contortion. Truth is absolute, but it is also objective and contextual. It is not a 'dogmatic' absolute divorced of context. As soon as you talk about reconciling dogmas and secular thought is where you descend into relativism. It cannot be done with any credibility. Either you are preaching absolute mumbo-jumbo, or you are talking relativist mumbo-jumbo. Anyway, any mystic idealist is condemned to descend into scepticism by merely 'virtue' of their idiocy and declining morale. Hence the ultimate scepticism.

8. "In the generally positive influence that most religions have had on their followers and on society".

Religion has a terrible historical legacy, but I guess if you accept that humanity was born with 'Original Sin', you could delude yourself into thinking almost anything. Are we better? Does that correlate with the declining levels of religious belief. Empirical evidence suggests that atheists commit fewer crimes than Christians. I don't want to suggest that only Christians are bad people, but that all critical thinkers are going to be educated 'thinkers'. i.e. The ratio of Christian scientists are far lower at 5%, than the 66% ratio of Christians in the broader community.

9. "In the importance of education. We believe that people are not truly educated unless they have studied the world's major religions and ethical systems. They need to learn of both the good and evil impacts that each has had on society".

Studying all the major religions of the world would be great if it was not all you studied, as it might highlight in your mind the fact that they all descended from paganism, and are thus forms of early deception, and how institutionalised religion is really nothing more than plagiarism of early paganism.

If this dialogue made little sense to you, it is because you need to raise your intellectual proficiency. There are a great many books to read....i suggest you get started.

------------------------------------Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Christian Fundamentalist response to 'Koran smoking'

2010-09-14T02:50:00.000-07:00

In my last post I discussed the smoking of the bible and Koran by an Australian. He was of course making a point that people should relax, and not take religion 'so seriously' and their 'sacred books' so symbolically. He argues correctly that they are just books. I have actually torn up a bible on one occasion on public transport to the disdain of a fellow commuter. I was given the bible by a Christian promoting his cause. I wanted to destroy the bible because its antithetical to my values.

In my case the gesture was practical. I wanted to remove one cancerous book from society. I would not be silly enough to buy the book, but it made the Christian virtuous for giving me the book, and by a different moral standard, it made me virtuous to destroy it. He was very angry at me, but made no effort to beat me up. I challenged his arguments with my own, and he calmed down.

So let's look at a video by a Fundamentalist Christian and examine his arguments....

1. He accuses him of doing drugs in the video - but in fact they are clearly not real drugs. Maybe he has tobacco in them, but they are not 'rollies'.

2. Censoring himself - He may not have closed his account, its probable that the University of Queensland required him to close the account, or maybe YouTube closed the account.

3. He could lose his job - Well some things are worth fighting for; but actually its actually improbable he would lose his job. He has actually raised healthy communication with this video. Its actually a celebration of religious tolerance and Australian anti-intellectualism, i.e. 'just get over it'.

4. Same as Terry Jones - Its not like the Terry Jones case at all. Alex is an atheist opposed to fundamentalism, and Terry Jones is a fundamentalist. Could the disparity be any greater?

5. Because of Terry Jones - Alex Stewart's opportunity to take a stand arose because of Terry Jones. True enough, but why is that an issue. Did he plagiarize Terry's content? No. Actually, he came up with his own. The flipside is actually true. This fundamentalist is not just making this presentation, which is contingent upon Alex's action, but he actually recites mostly media material without any references.

But 'hell', don't expect any intellectual honesty or coherent ideas from Christians or Muslims. That is why they believe - because they need some intrinsic concept of value to satisfy their under-developed minds. Defined by fear at such a fundamental level that they know not their true nature. That is the defining aspect of a fundamentalist - Christian or Muslim.

---------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Smoking the bible and Koran - Alex Stewart

2010-09-14T02:00:00.000-07:00

News is circulating about Australian Alex Stuart, a professor at the University of Queensland, and a self-professed atheist. In the spirit of dissension, in probably inspired by the Florida pastor who proposed to burn copies of the Koran as a protest against the building of a mosque near the World Trade Centre; Alex recorded a YouTube video showing himself smoking a page from the Bible, as well as a page from the Koran. He argued that the Bible tasted better and the Koran made him sick. He also said that those who are upset by his video are taking life way too seriously. Alex has been placed on leave, and may face the loss of his job for his efforts.

Alex's account has been closed, whether by him or YouTube, however clips can be viewed elsewhere. EXCUSE the idiot who posted this. Myself excluded.

We might ask - what exactly has the guy done wrong. A number of points are made:

1. He is not anti-Christianity or anti-Islam, he is against both forms of mysticism

2. He is exercising his right of self-expression. If it is ok for a person to believe in God, then it has to be ok to believe in atheism. He is therefore against all forms of persecution. Despite this, the University of Queensland is at a loss as to what to do about the situation. Just as they want to declare they are tolerant of religions, they need to be tolerant of those who profess none, and rejoice in their lack of a religion.

3. He is actually highlighting a 'possible' institutionalised discrimination of atheism. For this reason, I believe Alex willretain his job. After all he is dealing with an academic institution right? Who values reasoned arguments right? We can only hope.

But what of the practical consequences of these actions. Is a single, or even a group of Australians smoking the bible and Koran going to cause soldiers in the Middle East to be attacked. Well that is an interesting point. I would suggest it is. And here is why.....THEY ARE DIFFERENT. The Middle East is packed full of collectivists. They are not lovers of freedom, so don't expect them to embrace freedoms. You think you can remove persecution in countries where it is so embedded. This fails to appreciate the extent to which collectivism is embedded in the culture. Its not just political, its deeper, so its pointless dealing with it on this level. For this reason, there is a need for Australia and other Western countries to either remove themselves from the Middle East, or hold them accountable for their values.

Do we really need to placate fundamentalists? Do we really think fundamentalists are only people who blow up their children? Christianity has their nutters as well....do you see the correlation?

In the NZ Herald, the president of the Islamic Association of Australia said "Mr Stewart's motives were deeply hurtful to Muslims but his future was for the university to decide". Well, actually if his philosophy was meaningful he ought to praise him for his honesty. He made no judgement about religion. In fact, in essence, he is opposing extremism in the most non-judgemental way. He is saying people need to relax. Did he intend the issue to be divisive? Probably. But maybe he just wanted people to reflect on the fact that 'they are just books'. Even good whiskey is more valuable than any particular bible. He is opposed to symbolism, which he sees as mindless.

Sheik Muhammad Wahid said:

"We condemn it and our feelings have been hurt by this man. ...There is no need for this kind of thing, just to create disunity and disharmony among people living in Australia".

The reality is that he has not created disunity....there was never any unity. He has exposed what was always there, but for the sake of political correctness and fear, few people are willing to deal with. The reality is that this is a test for Muslims and Christians alike. Who will resort to retaliatory acts? Catholics? Protestants? Muslims? Of course some fundamentalists are destined to fail, and because of psychological repression and political correctness around the world, the disdain for Alex's actions will overlook an important issue....Alex has allowed us to see that its ok for people to have different views. He is a role model for peace in Jerusalem. After all his views are not exactly embraced by the majority of Australians. Atheists number (10%) about as many as Muslims (5%) in Australia, and Muslims are closer to Christianity than atheism.

"With respect to books like the Bible and the Koran, whatever, just get over it," he says. "That said, I don't think it's completely appropriate unless it's done for a good purpose, which I've done today".

Alex is not entirely consistent. He says 'get over it'. Get over what? This sounds like repression to me. Anyway, its a side issue. Why does he favour the bible? He suggests its probably the paper. Of course the Islamic clerics are not interested in the contents of the video, merely in its capacity to be used as a matter for scandal. Why are Islamic clerics [and Christians] making more of this than it is ...because they are fundamentalists with a desire to appease their followers, or to incite hatred, so they will have a following. Nothing wrong with that, except they are not using facts.

In my next blog I will talk more about the response by Christian fundamentalists.

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Extreme case of Christian virtue

2010-09-07T20:55:00.000-07:00

Ever wondered what religion is doing to your children or indeed yourself. Consider the following extreme case. I don't want to imply that religion is the only source of abuse, merely one form of collectivism which is undermining human progress.

In a Sussex County court room, New Jersey, the jury heard how a woman made no effort to feed her four starving children, telling them God would provide for them as they grew weaker and hungrier by the day. Estelle Walker, 50, was found guilty of child endangerment. The children, aged 8, 9, 11 and 13, were so malnourished they could hardly speak when discovered by police in 2006. The jury of eight women and four men rejected the unusual defence claim that the New York City woman was not responsible for her actions because of her strict religious beliefs and what her lawyer called an extreme reliance on God. "She was acting to her stringent religious beliefs that God would provide. She lost weight when they lost weight ... She and the children prayed together.

At one point, Walker said to Supreme Court Judge N. Peter Conforti that “God will defend me”. She also told the judge she had been directed by prayer to reject a plea bargain that would have allowed her to go free with time served, or the one year she spent in jail before making bail. She now faces up to 10 years in prison for each of the four counts of second-degree endangerment.

Walker starved the children in a mountain cabin provided by the Manhattan-based Times Square Church, to which she belonged. At the time, she claimed she needed to escape an alcoholic husband. But when Walker refused to leave in May 2006, the church began eviction proceedings and cut off financial support that ranged from $700 to $1,000 per month.

In his closing arguments, Assistant Prosecutor Francis Koch portrayed Walker as a cunning, evil woman who used her religion as an excuse to get a rent-free lake house at the expense of her children’s health. Walker, he said, could have asked for help from friends and family members. Instead, Koch said, "she did nothing".

No one could criticise this woman for a lack of Christian virtue. Sure, there is other dogma which says that you should not test God's faith, but its a game where you stack one dogma up against another, its all enough to drive you insane. Here are some reasons why:

1. Original Sin: You are evil by nature so there is no prospect of doing any good anyway.

2. Dogma has no context so there is no possibility of 'measured virtue'. There is no hierarchy of values to say you are debasing a higher or more fundamental principle for an incidental one. For this reason, people have the potential to engage in unspeakable acts justified by a certain dogma, and at the neglect of another.

Of course some of you are going to argue that non-Christians are also capable of insanity. True enough, which is why I alluded to the other types of non-mystical collectivism which are evident in the world. It is however interesting to explore the relationship between the various mental disorders and values. The reason I think its interesting is because the greater number of 'nutters' seems to be in the Bible belts of countries like America.

Back to the issue of non-mystical collectivist nutters. My mind wonders to Japan. There are people doing some really crazy crimes in Japan. i.e. The kid who cut off his friend's mothers head and put it in her post box. Japan has heaps of such stories. But the country does have a low crime rate. I guess some people are just more accepting of collectivism.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Everyone is wrong - except me

2010-09-03T21:45:00.000-07:00

Religious leaders in Britain have lashed out at Steven Hawking as he sought to debunk a religious explanation for the creation of the universe. My conclusion - they are both wrong. Let us consider their arguments:

Hawking says that given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing" according to an excerpt published in The Times of London.

This is nonsense. Matter does not spontaneously evolve from nothing, it transforms from another form of matter, a matter than is far more dense and thus relatively smaller.

The head of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams, told the Times that "physics on its own will not settle the question of why there is something rather than nothing".

Actually he is right. Physics will not answer that question because science seeks to explain things in terms of causation, and there is no causation. Even non-Christians seem to be mystified by this question, of what caused the universe or matter. The answer is NOTHING. There is no cause...there is no starting point. The universe has always existed. The Big Bang was not the start of the universe, it was merely a fragment in time in which matter underwent massive, but not unprecedented change. I am suggesting that the universe has undergone periods of collapse and re-birth. Gravity provided the momentum for its collapse, and instability (i.e. nuclear fission) provided the basis for its ultimate expansion.

"Belief in God is not about plugging a gap in explaining how one thing relates to another within the Universe. It is the belief that there is an intelligent, living agent on whose activity everything ultimately depends for its existence".

True again. Religion is not about providing rationalisations for reconciling facts and faith. In truth religion and science are incompatible. Science seeks to develop a rational framework for understanding the universe, whilst religious wants people to accept a certain dogma on faith, which involves acceptance despite or without reference to facts. Any resolution offered by science could only diminish your faith, and therefore your virtue.

An intelligent god? Well that is just the unqualified dogma.

Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said: "Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation. The Bible simply isn't interested in how the Universe came into being".

This is not strictly correct. Science is about explanation. That much is true, but religion is not about interpreting, as that would involve reference to facts, arguments as well as analysis. Religion is about dogmatic assertion. We must understand that the 'power' or persistence of religion does not derive from its compelling arguments, it arises from people's insecurity, that they would find greater value in intrinsic values rather than objective values, which convey meaning, understanding and the need to earn them. It is those aspects of an objective universe which Christians want to renounce. They want religion not simply as a moral system. Its more fundamental than that. Their need for religion can arise at a more fundamental metaphysical to epistemological level.

"Hawking's god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge. "Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative," he added.

There will always be gaps in science, whether fundamental or incidental. The contradiction that science makes to our life is incoherent because scientific inquiry in marred by poor values, of which religion is part of the toxic pool of diminished cognitive capacity. Anyone with a critical thought capacity (like myself) can find the flaws in religion and science (with may appear like a religion sometimes). We ought to recognise that 'idiot science' is a legacy of the thinking imparted by a religious based private school education, not to mention the public 'collectivist' school system, which ultimately has the same origins....thousands of years of religious self-loathing. The skepticism implied in the quote above is a testament to that.

There are of course those religious defenders who would see God as a passive 'designer' who, having made the universe sits back and derisively laughs at the idiots he created.

Fraser Watts, an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science asserts:

"A creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not".

------------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Complaint against BSkyB (Psychic Kids)

2010-07-26T16:07:00.000-07:00

This item is not so much an issue of religion, but a lack of disclosure or accountability with respect to the promotion or depiction of mysticism in the media.

I take the development of knowledge seriously. I consider integrity very important. For this reason, before I acknowledge or accept certain knowledge as fact, I consider the context in which the knowledge is presented. Everything is knowledge, though the veracity, plausibility or accuracy of that information is a matter for interpretation. This type of vigilance underpins not simply my integrity, but also the clarity of my cognition. The fact that I am a far superior thinker to most people is a testiment to this discipline, whether it depends on the filtering of information by critical thinking, definition of terms, or dedication to the reconciliation or integration of all knowledge, as opposed to repressing or compartmentalising information, which essentially integrates as a universal experience.

For this reason, I made a complaint to BSkyB.com about the basis of their 'Psychic Kids' series. In this program they depict kids having psychic experiences. The contents of the program appear factual. i.e. A psychologist and a 'ghost buster' type guy takes two kids into a 'haunted house'. These kids convey fear, and even simulate 'mystic phenomena'. What am I to make of these events?

I have never experienced anything mystical which I could not explain. i.e. Deja vu and a 'mystic-like' subconscious experience which I attribute to alcohol and associated dehydration. These things I can explain, and I know the context in which they occurred, so I can always adjust my thinking.

My complaint about this program is that it is depicted as fact, but the whole event could be 'staged' as fact, but in truth it is just someone's imagination. This strikes me as the 'subjectification' of science, and it is just one more step in the degeneration of society. i.e. The science of climate change has been turned into a popularity contest. To my mind the only scientists who matter are the critical thinkers....the rest are politicians with a value judgement to 'grind'. There is nothing wrong with scientists or anyone having an opinion, but we do need to know some context to the assertion, and knowing whether content is fact, and the veracity of those factual assertions is part of the required disclosure. In this context, it is not scientific veracity I am seeking, but some legal declaration that the producer experienced these phenomena, so I can sue him if later evidence proves he lied or deceived.

I contacted the 'Psychic Kids' acquisitions manager at BSkyB.com, Jinal Patel, and he tells me it is factual content. I did ask him if the production house is required to sign a contract or statutory declaration attesting to the 'factuality' of the content, but he did not respond. Clearly I am suspicious of mystic claims, principally because commercial enterprises care little about integrity....but I hope to raise their standards and yours. This is the type of regulation I like...that which clarifies rather than distorts markets :)

For this reason, I made a complaint to the UK regulator for the communications industry. There is a section for Video-On-Demand at their website, or you can email: vod@ofcom.org.uk.

---------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

How do we cure religion?

2010-05-12T03:53:00.000-07:00

Otherwise stated - What can an atheist do to discourage or otherwise subdue the 'Christian beast'? Firstly it is not about God. Its about what God embodies. Have you recognised how Christians who are abused or taken advantage by one church, go on to become victims or benefactors of another. If Christians are to stop preaching or embracing religion, they ultimately need to do more than discover reason, because some Christians are rationalising that religion is a justifiable philosophy.

I must however state that young people are inclined to have a rationalised Christian perspective purely because they are young and have yet to challenge the parent, school or social Christian values. This is particularly likely in these situations where you are surrounded by religion. i.e. Consider the Philippines or the Middle East where religion is pervasive....almost suffocating.

By so recognising this point, they need to recognise that values are conditional, as opposed to intrinsic or dogmatic. Conditional because they are accepted or repudiated for a reason. Which means that there is the possibility of failure or rejection. If you repudiate the meaningful standard of value, and argue that you are great because you are 'with god', then such dogmatism gives a person the self-delusion of efficacy, without actually possessing any. It might boost your confidence, but its not going to help.

The fact that they repudiate this notion is a fear-response. The question is why? The reason is - they have been physically or mentally abused, or have otherwise had their intellectual development arrested by dogmatism. A poorly developed cognitive capacity is going to undermine one's self-esteem. In which case, thinking is an act which provides no validation.

----------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Fear-fighting Christians

2010-04-19T15:33:00.000-07:00

when I reflect on the success and longevity of religion I would attribute it to several factors:

1. Its ability to reinvent itself

2. Its ability to undermine the self worth of believers

3. Its ability to spread fear and intellectual dependency

My neighbour and I were talking about the Christians that come around the neighbourhood each month. I guess I see about 6 of them each year. Most come in pairs, some come with their children. My neighbour is a Catholic. He suggested I don't like how they are always trying to get money from people. Well proof enough that there is no God perhaps; but one must concede that they do need money to survive, and I dare say the rich dislike parasitism as much as maligned community members who have lost confidence in religious institutions. His point however was that 'They mean well'. Being a Catholic, he looked at me like he saw a ghost. Fortunately he has long since repressed my atheism, so he is nice to me again. There was about a month when he avoided me.

The reason I suggest that Christians are not well-meaning is because people only look at Christians in a superficial sense. Christians of course vary in their degrees of moral rectitude. Most people would consider their moral righteousness in terms of their 'giving spirit', or their 'commitment to God'. I simply look at the extent to which I can have a reasonable conversation with them. The reason for taking this approach is because:

1. Money given was money taken from elsewhere. I'm not suggesting Christians don't earn money, but I do suggest those that give in the name of altruism are fakers seeking moral superiority. Anyone needing to peddle such influence usually has a guilty conscientious.

2. A person who is not reasonable is open to any action. A reasonable person can still be deceitful, but they have to rationalise, and this places them in a position in conflict.

Now I must confess that I am rather provocative with Christians because I now have the freedom of not being employed by such people. On the surface they are rather friendly and non-judgemental. But when placed in a position of conflict I have found that they tend to lose control. The problem is of course their lack of mental efficacy. The reason they lack mental efficacy is because from an early age their minds have been sabotaged. Until non-Christians who are simply the product of a bad education system, they have grown up with an anti-life (i.e. anti-reason) philosophy. That does not stop them trying to rationalise it.

This week I joined a local philosophy group. Unsurprisingly these people are all over 65yo Christians. Why people bother to take an interest in philosophy just prior to dying I will never understand. I learnt it from age 19yo, and if I knew its importance I would have studied it from 15yo. Mind you, in a world of contradictions, perhaps I needed more life experience before I could accept such 'provocative ideas'. Regardless over 65yo is too late.

The next problem is that they are reading a Christians interpretation or rationalisation of philosophy. They are reading 'Think' by Simon Blackburn. The problem with this book is that it is a rationalised interpretation of philosophy. It has intelligibly pieces of other philosophers like Schopenhauer. The implication is that Christians are not challenging themselves. They are getting the same sanitised version of the truth that they get at church. There can be utterly no respect for facts or reality if:

1. You do not challenge yourself by reading other material (giving you greater coherency or integrity)

2. Seek to resolve practical problems (giving you grounding)

Another example. My parents have never in the last 20 years of knowing me sought to understand my values. I have challenged them on a great many issues, and yet they are not honest enough to engage in a reasonable manner. It is the psychology of Christians. You might ask why I am lampooning Christians if they are not terribly Christian? The reason is that they come from Christian households and they went to Christian schools with the same destructive impact on their 'young minds', which was never corrected by having children. By the age of 10y0, when children start to question their parents, such parents undermine their children rather than embrace the facts of reality. Of course many children cannot espouse coherent philosophy. But don't under-estimate a child's capacity to identify a contradiction in their parents. Parents in the formative years will laugh off the 'honesty' of their kids. e.g. Daddy, why is mommies skin so wrinkled. When a child retorts to a parent, Christian or otherwise, and they don't have an efficacious mind, they are inclined to attack the child rather than deal with their own issues. The implication of this is:

1. The child is denied validation

2. The child is attacked or abused physically or mentally

This is why social problems persist in society; because people do not have sufficient respect for the facts of reality. They would prefer to undermine those who provoke or challenge us to think rather than actually solving personal problems. It ought however to be apparent that teaching faith (i.e. The opposite of reason, accepting without evidence) is going to sabotage a person's mind.

Why do they do it? Simply because they cannot confront their own shortcomings? People will say that their fear makes them selfish. But its not in your self-interest to sabotage your mind or anyone else's. This is why Christianity has been so insidious. It spreads the myth that values are subjective; so people self-indulgently don't seek to reconcile their values with facts. i.e. Objectivity. People only take an interest in a delinquent child from the age they start to commit crimes. The problem of course is that its much harder to solve problems at this level.

So you might ask yourself - how do you stop Christians rationalising that they are good people. Well, you withdraw your moral sanctioning of them. They cease to be 'well-intended' and you start treating them as intellectual cowards who would rather sabotage their minds, and their childrens, rather than confront (and resolve) the challenges in their life. The greater 'sin' is allowing another generation of people to be injured by religion. The other great travesty is the moral ambivalence that 'non-Christians' have, such that they were raised in Christian households unable to develop a coherent sense of values. They are insecure, but they know enough to know that there is something wrong with 'institutionalised religion'. Many would conclude that the problem is the people. i.e. Humans are evil by nature. But no one questions the underlying philosophical premises shaping these 'lost souls'. They were of course lost before they discovered religion. Religion appeals to vulnerable souls, but it does not help them. It gives comfort by deluding them into thinking that love or values are not rational, or conditional. They live on a succession of reduced expectations and rationalisations.

Those of you who are inclined to argue with Christians to save their souls, you are wasting your time if they are espousing baseless assertions. There is no way a rational argument will convert them. If you recognise that they are responding with intelligible arguments, then you have a chance. But bear in mind that they are still challenged by their social identity with the church. It might not be as strong as the entrenched 'cultural identity' of a cult, however it is nevertheless the basis of their security system. You would have to offer a comprehensive repudiation of religion, as I have attempted to do in these blog entries.

My thanks to those who give me feedback. Glad to know I am influencing people. I'm particularly pleased if people tell me why that appreciate the arguments I make, or what difference it has made to their thinking. The reason being I want to know people are 'really' getting it, and not rationalising.

When I was young I was so passionate about learning. I retain that attitude today. There is no fear of learning from any source. Science was no doubt a key, as it developed a respect for objective reality. If we can teach people to give primacy to facts, to have confidence in their cognitive ability, so they need not fear the world, then society will be a far better place.

-----------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Is religion selfish?

2010-04-05T02:07:00.000-07:00

The answer to that question is supposedly – ‘morally yes, but practically no’ when a person uses religion in order to attain some benefit. The problem with this understanding is that it lacks a theory of values. Consider the notion of selfishness – defined as a primary concern with one’s self interest, which is what? This is where most people stop thinking. But we must ask – What constitutes our self interest? Is rape in our interests? And we have to renounce rape because its against the law right? (selfless conception). Or is there some objective standard to say that rape is bad. This objective or ‘enlightened’ self interest concept invariably leads one to conclude that self interest is good if one has objective interests or values. i.e. It matters neither whether you profess to do something for others (i.e. non-self) or oneself, the issue is why you do it. Does the value have legitimacy. So you ask – what is the basis for prescribing the basis of any value – objective or subjective. I would suggest that it is your nature as a human being.

It is easy to identify the moral validity and illegitimacy of some values because their actors are so pathetic that their actions could only be construed as good or bad. i.e. We are not going to bad-mouth Warren Buffett for working hard, nor for giving billions to a non-profit foundation. The flipside is that we would regard the deception or abuse of people as repugnant because its universal application could only result in a degeneration in social values. But what of moral greyness?

What of a productive person who compromises his values in order to attain a big order? What of capable person who accepts a idiot guy because she fears never meeting another guy? Is this moral greyness? Is it simply a bad choice?

-----------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Does religion convey good values?

2010-04-05T02:06:00.000-07:00

What is the purpose of a relationship with God? The idea that you need a relationship with a person before you are able to connect with a being strikes me as asymmetrical. We associate a relationship with mutual interaction, yet a relationship with god is polar. You may as well be talking to yourself; and more importantly, there is good reason to think that you are talking to yourself. I do not dismiss that some Christians are even able to talk themselves into such a ‘frenzy’ that they can imagine gods.

Having established a ‘loving relationship’ with god, what is the purpose of the relationship? I guess it is a shared love for others. Why does God need us to do that? Why doesn’t God simply have the same relationship with them as he has with us.

It seems a great many people only want a relationship with God for material things. It might be argued that herein lies the problem. But I think if these people could have a good job, they would be more than happy to earn the money to get those material things. Maybe God could give them the courage and conviction so they could actually get those things if we concede the argument that the role of God is to give us things; that is the things which are not material. It makes one think; if the role of god is not to give us things, what is the point of having a relationship with him, unless we are a useless hobo.

Even if we admit that God has the capacity to give us things; so he has the capacity to take them away. How can we argue that we either deserve to receive things, or deserved to have things taken away from us? Does god intervene in our life to do justice or charity? At the end of the day, is it not simply us getting things, whether by earning them, stealing them or being given then. At the end of the day, is it not good for our sense of pride to do these things for ourselves.

---------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Religious fraud

2010-04-05T02:04:00.000-07:00

There are religions around the world – such as the Catholic Church (in various countries), various mystic groups in India and sects in various countries which solicit money from people on the basis of fear, guilt or social pressure. These efforts involve subjecting people to public mocking or shame by compelling them to give money in private. Surely it would be more considerate and humble to actually give money in private, if only for the sake of the poor. Even for the rich. The idea of giving money in public can only lead to vulgar displays of wealth, for a religion which surely has monetary resources in abundance. Anything less simply looks like ‘cold hearted’ business. Are religion clergy the saints they are depicted as, or are they the worst form of manipulators?

What of paying penance to atone for your sins. Is that a legitimate practice? Why is it bad for people to be concerned by material wealth, and yet it seems to be the sole consideration for moral virtue in churches around the world. I wish I could say it is mastery of manipulation; but simply it is mastery over fools. We might well hear from religious leaders who condemn casinos for taking money from people who can ill-afford to lose it, and yet are the churches not going the same. Why would you seek a relationship with god if you did not need some material reciprocity, and would you not be peeved if you needed food, but only got advice from a clergy? The vice being: You have not got enough faith; keep searching, and it will come to you. You will finally meet someone who is as guilty as you. That is virtue? Well I do not doubt that there are other ‘true believers’ who would actually concede some material benefit so that these people may benefit. I have no doubt that reaching the bottom can only result in people seeing nothing but ‘blue sky’ ahead; most particularly in a welfare state where is really never was so bad, and where an adjustment of personal expectations can give one a lot of relief which one might interpret as a ‘gift from god’. Or is it simply we stopped wanting the intangibles?

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

How do atheists find a purpose in their lives

2010-04-05T02:02:00.000-07:00

Another common statement by Christians when they find out that you are an atheist is….’how do you find meaning in life’. What is there to live for if you are going to die in 50-60 years. This of course suggests that there is an after-life.

I personally find value in life from being good at a skill and exercising my mind. I think a lot of people do the same, whether they identify it as a sense of identity, or simply something they have to do to live their lives. I don’t particularly care a great deal about money, but I love the idea of investing in ideas which pay off, developing or discovering knowledge, and the companionship of people who have similar values…which is pretty rare, so instead I spread a lot of time investing in knowledge so that I can contribute to a better world, where my values have more likelihood of being held. I am thus fighting a pitiful education system, a collectivist government and a good handful of Christians. But it’s all fun if you are engaging your mind in purposeful, constructive, efficacious action. I can take pride in a hard day’s work, and at the end of the day its building something great, so at the end of my career I will be able to look back and say at any point that “I did that”. …then die with a smile on my face. Anyway, I won’t be complaining when I’m dead, and I’m not going to waste time worrying about it now.

------------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The problem for atheists

2010-04-05T01:44:00.000-07:00

I am an atheists and in many respects life is good. I can’t say it is perfect, but I could not be happier. There is no place in my life for God, but I am very happy. A year ago I was not so happy. There was no place in my life for God then either. So there seems no positive correlation at all. Now is it simply about being happy? Does having a relationship with God impart any greater sense of happiness? I think not. In fact a great many of the Christians I encounter seem to be scared of their own shadows. They seem to have little in the way of mental efficacy. The more logical ones tend to be more defensive and evasive. In the case of my ex-boss, who was also a minister of his church, I would suggest he was terribly conflicted.

The more engaging ones simply don’t want to explore their minds. Its not that they are ‘closed minded’, its as if they have turned it off. Any argument results in a counter-assertion which is simply some dogmatic assertion they have learned at church. It is interesting to ask such people why they are happy. Don’t expect their happiness to relate to any meaningful values. They can no doubt celebrate the incidental….I want to change the world. This is in fact the basis of my happiness…the expectation that I can make a positive impact on the world, by helping people to become better parents, helping people to make money, helping people to develop good character values, etc. It really has nothing to do with helping people. It has more to do with being good at something. I am a consummate thinker developing new knowledge. I want to share these ideas so that I can achieve some practical success as the discovery process is so intangible….so I want to make it real. Poor fellows those Christians. I have tangible reasons to have confidence that I will achieve my goals, but they have to accept God’s world on faith. Faith is incidentally the acceptance of some assertion without evidence…not a good thing and contrary to your whole knowledge system.

Anyway, what makes me happy is the fact that I love my writing/work. I can't wait to get up in the morning and do my exercise, and start writing. If I have any hang up, its my impatience to get my ideas into books. The editing is a drag, though also a necessary process in developing ideas and organising them. Equally as important I finally have a lovely partner in my life, I no longer work for unethical people in the finance industry. Mostly I am excited about the impact of my future books. I have so many ideas....god is the last thing on my mind...so why spoil it. Ok, well its the last thing now.... :)

It is therefore understandable that I might think religion is a pack of crap. I can have a satisfying and rewarding life without it; I have intellectual arguments which dispel any need for it. The question then becomes - would I recommend it to people in difficulty? Well, not even if a gun was pointed at me. The reason is clear. Faith is not going to help you achieve; you don't develop a sense of efficacy by renouncing your mind; you don't develop your cognitive skills by memorising Christian verse. Basically you will only find another really insecure person at church. Hardly the type of person you want as a life partner....notwithstanding that there are morally 'grey' Christians with some redeeming Christians. Personally I take this as a superficial distinction. I don't spend much time around Christians. The only ones around me I have converted. It is a slow process, and who has the time.

----------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Working with Christian bosses

2010-04-05T01:42:00.000-07:00

My bosses were Christians – one more pragmatic one I could more easily get along with. The other was a prick of a person. In his defense he appeared to struggle with certain moral values. He was smart in a way, but really he was very conflicted. I used to present him with challenges…I used to frustrate the hell out of him. I was not very politically correct. I used to write reports where I would call Korea a collectivist or statist economy. He did not like this. I think the Koreans are proud of this, but he had a problem with it. He even went to the point of arguing ‘statist’ is not even a world….so I showed him the word in the Macquarie or Collins Dictionary. Haha.

This was a very difficult man to deal with. He made me particularly uncomfortable because I loved my job. He always had a stressed, conflicted look on his face, as if he was going to explode. I had very different philosophical values to him, so I was always worried about saying something wrong. This was my first job, and I loved it. I also recall meeting his children….poor things looked like all self esteem had been beaten out of them. The oldest was probably fretting from the expression of his disproving dad…..No, the meek are not going to inherit the earth. This kid was the embodiment of religious virtue…no ego left in him….I’d say he is probably doing drugs today…repressing any notion that he was a failure in his dad’s mind.

---------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Christianity is the origin of capitalism

2010-04-05T01:39:00.000-07:00

There is a belief among some Christians that religion actually gave rise to Christianity. This idea was suggested to me in my early 20s. He must have studied a different period to me because I had always associated religion with the political and religious oppression of the Dark Ages.

Years later I would learn more about the period in history which placed this notion in his mind. It was the Calvinists of Switzerland, and he probably took some comfort from Thomas Aquinas who also had some notional support for freedom from tyranny. Adam Smith was a Christian too, and perhaps John Locke.

It is safe to say that anyone in this period is going to espouse to be a Christian, even if they are not, precisely because these periods were periods of oppression. We even have this legacy today…why is it that no one talks about religion and politics. Ok, you won’t be executed, but in those days people were, so they were more cautious. Today you are merely marginalized or alienated.

The point is that Christianity was incidental to the development of religion. Certainly there was the concept of ‘divine rights’ but most of these philosophers did not argue them on the basis of divinity, but rather on the basis of logic, which is the counter-point of faith and mystic revelation. The implication is that philosophers did not seemingly have much integrity, and not much scope for honesty about their religious beliefs. To be fair, the clergics and followers would have pulled them apart if they preached anything which contradicted the church. Look what happened to Galileo.

---------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The moral code of atheists

2010-04-05T01:38:00.000-07:00

One of the reasons that Christians distrust atheists is that they think we have no moral code. They think this because we repudiate God. God for them is a source of accountability or moral guidance. In fact God or religion is not even a direct. It’s a renouncement. It tells you the thinks you can’t do, and they are always things for non-self, another negative. For God, for the church, for others….never you. Why can’t it say that you should live a life according to reason, establish a comfortable life, and then invest in the people around you so you can feel as if you have saved the world? That would be an entirely concrete guide, but at least it would not be around renouncement.

The problem with renouncement is that it establishes no positive values. Consider this…a Christian might suggest…if you don’t believe in God, what is to stop you going out and raping any child. The implication of such conversations is that the only form of accountability is mystical, and more problematic, that these ‘religious folk’ obviously think it is morally acceptable to abuse kids. Should is surprise us that many clergy have been caught with their underwear on the wrong side of their robes.

What religious folk fail to realize is that people can have moral values grounded in some understanding of human nature, be it implicit or explicit, and that these values are rewarded by practical consequences. Of course most of our parents model fairly decent values, even despite the fact that they are confused by religion. We nevertheless mostly reject the nonsense, i.e. Any notion that we should not judge others, ‘turn the other cheek’, etc. It amazes me how churches seem to have lost all relevance to people’s lives. It’s as if the church stays in the 15th century because if it dared to discuss a contemporary problem it would only marginalize a group of people, or reveal its inadequacies. Nope, the church properly should remain in the 15th century…..the Dark Ages…the time when religion reached its zenith. People like it in this period because they can pretend to be a good Christian, and using psychological trickery they can easily compartmentalize their current lives from any possibility of Christian dogma. Any hint of a contradiction can readily be repressed…no problem.

So Christians take note….when you think you cannot have moral values without a god, you are exposing the fact that you really have no moral guidance. Whenever you meet a Christian who is professing to do you a favour…expect some seriously deceitful act to follow. I am not ruling out generosity, but generous people don’t seek a stage before they offer. They just do it. Mind you…there are people who give in the expectation of receiving. This is the beauty of trade….value for value or voluntary exchange….nothing is fairer.

----------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Open invitation to Christians for a debate

2010-04-05T01:36:00.000-07:00

I would welcome the opportunity for God, an aspiring Christian or theologian to put forward arguments which would justify a belief in God. I suggest a dialogue over Gtalk so that each party has a complete record of the conversation. I will place the discussion on this website, and they can do the same on their website. My intent is to show that their values are based on baseless dogmatic assertion. Please email any time to arrange such an debate.

-----------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Creation wisdom - the complex hypothesis (part 2)

2010-03-19T12:05:00.000-07:00

The Australian mallee fowl is a remarkable bird, but it is only one of many different creatures, and contrary to this Christians assertion, there are good reasons for accepting Evolution. Firstly, one species is not going to prove or disprove Evolution, and there are species with far more research than this Megapode. Regardless, the evidence ‘against’ Evolution solely based on this Christian’s assertion is not in itself CAUSE for believing in Creation. He does not offer any explanation for the Creation argument. Why does he even try? God demands faith not justification. Why did he have to research about the mallee fowl, when he should have simply accepted Creationism as a leap of faith.
Mallee fowl are certainly an oddity; building "nests" or mounds comprising soil, twigs, leaves, sand and organic matter. The mounds can grow to 17metres in diameter and several metres in height. All of these fowl build mounds for the females to lay up to 35 eggs per season. The purpose of the mounds is to provide safety for the eggs from predators, whether dingoes, snakes or any of the other predators which occupied Australia thousands to millions of years earlier.
The various species of megapod span from Australia to the Philippines. This covers climates contrasting from the hot, arid deserts of central Australia to the wet, rainforests of Indonesia. The author marvels at the sameness of the species despite the different conditions, and yet the factors are essentially the same. The mound size is likely the same because the birds are the same size, or their feet are the same.
The fowl uses its large feet to flick dirt or sand into or out of the centre of the mound in order to control the temperature of the eggs buried within. The author asks:

Which came first, incidentally, the big feet, or the big mounds?

The answer is – look at the historical ‘fossil’ record. The author conveniently ignores the fossil record. This species of fowl has existed for millions of years, and its far larger relatives have since died out. They likely died out because of the drying out of the climate, which made food scarce. Such processes happen slowly, so it’s apparent that climatic change favoured smaller animals with smaller appetites in a drier climate.
A researcher of megapodes remarks:

I find it remarkable that a bird is able to estimate the amount of organic matter it must add to a heap of soil so that the heat generated by fermentation is just enough to bridge the gap between the soil temperature and the temperature necessary for incubation.

This is not the thinking of a mallee fowl. This is the thinking of a human with a human researcher. For the fowl, it’s likely they have sensors in their beak or feet to estimate the temperature. Extra-sensory capacities in animals are commonplace. There are no ‘complex formulas’. Having conjured up some ‘complexity’ the author asks “Could they [the megapodes] have evolved all this through blind natural selection?”. The answer is yes, though it’s not so miraculous if you consider that the need to gauge temperature was probably always there, even if temperatures have changed. No doubt the success of the methodology has proved itself over the changes in climate.

The Australian mallee fowl of arid inland Australia has a more difficult task because in dry climates there is less moisture for leaf little to decompose. For this reason, the mallee fowl has to rely on the sun for heat rather than the heat released from decomposing plant matter. Stabilising temperatures in these climatic extremes sounds impressive, yet whilst outback Australia is hot, it is also very dry, so any shade from cloud or leaf litter substantially reduces the heat. Below the surface it is surprisingly cool. This is why Australia’s arid regions are rich in life. The surface temperature might range from 20-110ºF, however the subsoil temperature is far more consistent.

The author repudiates the evolutionist arguments for the development of the mallee fowl. The reality of species research is that such issues often are speculative, as there are millions of species, and the fossil record is not complete or fully understood for each species. Rest assured recent developments with the Genome Project will advance evolution a great deal, allowing us to make the hereditary path of each species.
It seems probable that the mallee fowl came to incubate its eggs to conceal the eggs from predatory animals. This explains why the fowl disperses its eggs among several mounds. It is its insurance policy. He simply stays in range of all the mounds to adjust their temperature as conditions demand.
The fowl starts building the mounds in May, and spends winter searching for leaf litter, before piling (i.e. flicking) on soil in August. The wetter winter can allow leaf litter to remain moist under the shade of added soil. The temperature in the mound begins to rise until mid-September when the female lays her first eggs. The eggs will hatch in early November, before the extreme heat of summer. During the entire incubation period, the male must regulate the temperature. The fowl keeps the temperature between 90-95ºF by altering the amount and type of mound cover. Heat is produced both by decomposition and the sun. If the eggs overheat, the mallee fowl simply piles more soil on the mound to insulates the eggs from the sun's heat. If the mound cools too much, the fowl can scatter the soil in the cool early morning air, only to collect it after the sun has reheated it. In arid regions, mostly the sun is shining. Any moisture helps to retain heat in the mound.

Mr. H. J. Frith, an expert on the mallee fowl, said:

"We thought it possible that all this temperature - control work could be merely part of a fixed behaviour pattern evolved by natural selection to suit the seasons".

The author equates this canny behaviour with ‘intelligence’, which it simply is not. It is simply an example of an animal correlating learning behaviour over thousands of years. It is probably that early eggs did not require heating (in a tropical climate), and were simply buried for protection from shelter as the parents searched for food during droughts. During climate extremes they likely made a correlation between dead eggs and colder weather. When climate change occurred, they simply adapted their behaviour to keep the eggs cool, and in the process developed a simply means of keeping the egg temperature stable.
The implication is that no GREAT INTELLIGENT GOD is required to explain the origin of fowls; just a critical and educated individual. Christians and other mystics have always relied on the ignorance and fear to spread their nonsense. This is no exception. The other tool of manipulation for various churches and cults is of course the practice of ‘love bombing’. Anyone who lacks confidence in their judgement, has been abused, neglected, i.e. denied validation, is vulnerable to a torrent of religious recruitment. Many get sucked in, and used as pawns for recruitment drives if not direct contributions.

The author asks “Why, if evolution is a fact, do birds of any given species build identical nests? And, if one type of nest supposedly evolved in-to another, why do we have such extreme diversity among different species?”
The answer is that only species which need to change have to change. If no advantage is rendered, no variant has a preference. Mounds are the same because the fowls critical features are the same. Also diurnal temperature variations in tropical climates is less extreme because of higher humidity; whilst the dry temperate climates render more extreme temperatures less harsh in the shade or underground.
The author asks:
“If one group of birds can survive with a "primitive" nest, why take the trouble to evolve into another kind? It doesn't make any sense”.
Hmmm...science doesn’t make sense but Christian assertion, which does not make sense, should be accepted without question. The reality is, if you lack knowledge, nothing makes sense. It’s amazing how many senseless topics become meaningful if you learn more material, adopt a critical mind and repudiate any unintelligible concepts like religion.
The question of whether fowls learn, are trained or have instincts is really a separate question from evolution, so it will be addressed elsewhere. How do animals attain the genes to adapt to new environments, like the drying out of the climate? According to the theory of natural selection, they slowly change in response to small genetic variations which give a certain variant natural advantages which are reinforced through reproduction if they are indeed critical to the survival of the species. The author highlights several theories for evolution; “some of them quite contradictory” apparently. In fact there is no need for any of them to be compatible as they are discrete ideas. These theories are:
1. The "Highly Specialized" Theory draws attention to the "highly specialized" habit of the mallee fowl, arguing that it is a legacy of the birds' reptilian ancestors. The author refuses to accept this. No explanation is given. The more explanation is that “ancestors of the present-day megapodes were ground-nesting birds that developed the habit of covering their eggs with sand or leaves when leaving the nest, as a protection against predators. Several present-day birds, in fact, do this ...” while the Australian climate and flora are gradually changing over thousands of years. The author is sceptical, but offers no contradictory evidence or justification for his pet theory – Creationism; which of course contradicts the fossil record.
2. The "Degenerate Bird" Theory proposed by George A. Clark, an ornithologist at Yale University, asserts that the fowl reverted to a more degenerate reptilian habits, much like the whales and porpoises, which are mammals, returned to the habits of their fish ancestors”. This theory may in fact arise simply because of an incomplete fossil record so should be discounted somewhat.
3. The "Primitive Bird" Theory proposes that modern birds might display some residual habits of the ancient birds from which they evolved, thus providing a trace of their ancestral lineage. We might therefore expect modern birds to retain some behaviours of ancient birds because their practical benefit has been retained over evolutionary time. Allen (1925) suggested that the megapodes might therefore be linked to the alligator on such a basis.

The author implies that these theories are contradictory, and ‘confusing’. But in fact they are entirely realistic and compatible. They conflict only with the theory of Creationism, which conflicts with all human knowledge since ‘faith’ is acceptance of assertions without evidence. Christianity requires its believers to renounce their minds, and to trust in cunning manipulators who want their money. Christianity rests on the willingness of a person to renounce their mind. Ask yourself why facts are scarier than some arbitrary assertions. Because these churches promise ‘unconditional love’. This is why people are ultimately drawn to it. It’s not a better argument. Its a philosophical need to evade facts because they result in value judgements the ‘believer’ cannot accept. There is no convincing them unless they can confront their psychological flaw. That is not to say that all are flawed. If they are young and have not yet challenged Christian arguments, they might well grow out of their ambivalence.
The author goes on to say that evolution is only a theory, or ‘speculation’. The only reason evolution is a theory is because humanity has no direct ability to observe it in action. We can model the concept by grafting plant species and alter the genetic code to achieve new species, but we cannot directly prove evolution. But actually that is no obstacle because we have an immense body of indirect evidence which integrates into knowledge.
The author states: “Attempts to explain design without a Designer, creation without a Creator, intelligence without an Intelligent Being bestowing that intelligence. It can't be done! The notion that the earth requires a designer simply displaces the burden of proof. Firstly it presupposes a ‘starting point’ for the universe, and hence that a designer was required. As previously indicated, isn’t it less miraculous when things actually act according to their nature? If we were the centre of God’s plan, why would he wait 20 billion years for universe to mature after the Big Bang? Why not just conjure up a world where the illogical is possible? That would be a miracle; not cause and effect.
The author even challenges ‘God’s work’. “Why evolve such a largely difficult method? Why lay 35 eggs in different places at different times?” Firstly I’m glad he asked the question. But I am equally concerned that he never sought to answer it. Is his plot self-delusion or manipulation? I did finally get my answer when I went looking for the ‘Plain Truth’ Magazine. Here are the answers:
1. Truth is not asymmetrical – if you are prepared to challenge science, also be prepared to challenge the alternative hypothesis – which is God, using the same scientific vigour.
2. Difficult habits – It does seem unfathomable for a bird to invest so much energy to keep the nest warm, and attend to so many nests, but consider the environmental conditions and the historical context. The bird is vulnerable to attack from predators, so the bird manages as many nets as he can. I would suggest the animal derives a sense of efficacy by doing this. Only a single nest can be attacked, and it one is threatened he can still attend to the others. The nests are far enough apart to elude the predator, but not so far that the fowl cannot reasonably attend to them. Fortunately most predators will hunt during the ‘cool’ of the day. Remember that there are two ‘parent’ fowls.
3. Universal context – consider the context in which this author is arguing the point. He focuses on an animal which is special or controversial in order to cast doubt over all science. That is what you might call an ‘asymmetrical perspective’ whether its nature is delusion or deceit.

It is amazing how solutions come to mind if you take pride in solving questions, as raising them. This is the nature of such asymmetrical thinking. So what came first? His mental ambivalence or his scepticism. I would suggest normally they ‘evolved’ together, though this document is written by a person who should have known better, so I have another more tragic explanation.
--------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Creationism wisdom - will it never die (part 1)

2010-03-19T01:51:00.000-07:00

Here is some creationist nonsense camouflaged as science. It raises some interesting points though so I thought it was worth applying some critical thinking to the content. This material was produced by the Worldwide Church of God – they had a publication called ‘The Plain Truth’. Often you find with these exotic churches that they use science as a leverage to find new recruits. Basically its a case of 90% upfront logic, 10% baseless assertions or fallacy. For that reason I don't need to repudiate all of the content, but rest assured I will be repudiating the premises purporting to support Creation because they are baseless.
So lets run through the content of this 14-page essay.

It's far more logical, far more scientific, to see the overall 'pattern' in the reproduction of all living things as a 'master plan of design'. The very fact of embryonic beginnings looking similar is 'proof' of 'one great mind' who thought out all life.

Actually its not. Its important to understand that the intelligibility of the world is a consequence of things having certain characteristics, which cause though things to act in a certain way. The fact that things act in accordance with their nature is logical. If they acted anyway, that would be a 'miracle', so it seems the Christian folk are playing both sides of the table.

Embarrassing as it may become — "Which came first — the chicken or the egg?"

This is easy enough to answer - both the chicken and egg came before in the same way that chicken and eggs will come in future, and just as we appreciate when we graft a tree, both the seed and the apple came first, and will come after the fact. Evolution is not a historical fact, its an ongoing one. We did not create it in a laboratory, we have for the past 15,000 years been part of the process, and we are taking our influence to the next step, to out-conceptualise what you might imagine to be God, but is really just commonplace wisdom for those with focus and commitment.
Source: http://olliverlyle.com/Science/Creation/megapode.pdf
--------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Child abuse by Catholic Church clergy

2009-11-29T20:16:00.000-08:00

Here is an article in The Spectator by Alex Massie which follows the child abuse issue in Ireland by Catholic clergy. I'm sure you can find more stories in your own country. Makes me wonder why I've never written about this abuse before.
We also see sex abuse claims in religious cults. Can anyone make the connection? Institutions of abuse. If its moral to give, its practical to take/receive. I thus suggest you approach life as a 'trader' exchanging value for value, whereby you show some regard or respect for your counterparty.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Arguments against evolution

2009-10-03T02:29:00.001-07:00

Richard Dawkins has done a good job dispelling arguments against evolution in this article. Read his arguments from creationists about the evidence against evolution at Newsweek.

Actually reading the newspaper today, apparently there is new evidence suggesting a further link between chimps and homosapiens called 'ardipithecus ramidus. He is neither a human nor a chimp, but something in between. You can read this story at the NZ Herald. The evidence grows for evolution whilst there is no evidence against. No creationists can find evidence against evolution. There are no misplaced fossils. From creationists however we are already getting the rationalisation that the Bible is just a story to depict ethical principles, and not a factual document.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

False profits of Creationism

2009-09-23T16:24:00.001-07:00

There are few scientists who still retain a belief in creationism. This might be regarded as evidence enough that creationism needs no further consideration. I care to differ. Science is not a democracy. It only takes one thinker to be right, and often its a critical thinker who goes against the majority.

DNA EVOLVED BY CHANCE? - Watch the best video clips here
Here is a video by a scientist against Evolution. Interesting he is not identified by name, he does not identify as a Christian, he does not identify as a Creationism, nor does he pose an alternative explanation. His argument that Evolution is Stupid appears to be based on the fact that:
1. Humanity is not at the top of the evolutionary chain. He rests this argument on the belief that complexity is synonymous with 'higher' or 'intelligent' life forms. I would suggest that is a weak argument. Life only needs to become intelligent if its life depends upon it. Humans are surviving with 42 chromosomes, so why do they need 100 (like a carp).
2. Common evolution: There is no evidence to suggest that humanity developed from the same ancestor. I actually agree with his statement here. There is no necessity for all life forms to share a common lineage, though there does need to be a sequence or progress from simple to complex. This is why its probable that humanity shares a common lineage, but its not a requirement. It in no way supports any argument against evolution though.
3. Common building blocks: He suggests that the reason why we can eat other life forms is because of common DNA. I reject that. Plenty of poisonous plants I cannot eat. The fact that we come from a pool of 20 amino acids is not relevant.
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Charles Darwin and the principle of evolution

2009-08-24T14:58:00.000-07:00

Charles Darwin in 1859 released his book outlining the process of 'natural selection' by which living things have evolved on Earth. In this video about evolution Richard Attenborough highlights in single terms the process by which natural selection accounts for the development of all life forms including humanity. It is noteworthy that important fossil finds are still being made today which give ever greater clarity to this natural process. Radiometrics have also been important in determining the age of fossils and rocks, whilst the genetics is promising to unlock even further discoveries.

My particular interest is in the value of science to the development of philosophy and politics. What this video does highlight on this subject is how religion is not only a repudiation of science, it played a big part in repressing scientific development. Darwin postponed publication of his works out of deferrence to the ignorance, superstition and fears of his Christian brethren. Today science and indeed all knowledge and even our livelihoods are being repressed by religion. Such is the depth of the betrayal of human nature.
You can see the video about Charles Darwin and evolution at this website.
--------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com - just as importantly Andrew Sheldon evolves. Always testing convention.

The Universe - A justification for God

2009-08-14T19:26:00.000-07:00

People look at the magnificence of the universe, its expanse and complexity, and conclude that this is evidence of a God. I look at this reality and consider it justification for no God. Let's consider the evidence:
1. Science suggests that the universe is 20 billion years old, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Despite this Christianity is a very human-centric philosophy. I cannot argue that religion is consistent with science, whether astrophysics or human nature. Religion to me is a repudiation of everything I know. I can disprove every argument you can make about religion.
2. Grand design: The idea that the universe is a miraculous design, so there must be a designer. This ignores the reality that there was no conscious designer for the universe, it developed or unfolded as a result of its nature. i.e. The materials comprising the universe developed as they must, in accordance with their physical properties.
3. Creation. The argument that there must be a God, otherwise who created the universe 20 billion years ago. The origin of the universe is a speculative issue, however I would posit that the universe was never created; that it has always existed. I would assert that every 20 billion or so the universe goes through a 'Big Bang', or sometimes perhaps smaller bangs. I don't think the universe has the uniformity in its evolution as posited by physicists.
4. Motive: A human-centric God as the maker of the universe and humanity is dubious when you consider the requirement for God to be so patient. He would have to wait 4 billion years for the Earth to form, and 20 billion years for the universe to develop before he could have created humanity. It seems more probable that he does not exist, and Christians are ignorant idiots.
5. Causation: The idea of a God defying all the natural laws that drive every other physical entity is another basis for driving a peg through the Christian hypothesis/'scare model'. The Christian philosophy is a repudiation of human nature, as shown elsewhere.

For a greater appreciation the smallness of humanity in the context of the universe watch this video clip. I recommend it not to show how small you are. You are very important to you, and to anyone who values you. You cannot detach the value from the valuer, which it was Christianity asserts. You are not intrinsically good. You are good for reasons....as determined by a thing which has the capacity to value, whether your pet dog, a presidential nominee, or your wife.

-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Religion in Western countries

2009-08-14T18:52:00.000-07:00

People reading my religious blog might be inclined to find me very critical about religion. They might find merit in my statements about religion in the third world. True, the third world is full of desperate people who use religion as a crux to manipulate or deceive others out of money. They will assert in defence of religion 'that that does not happen in the West'.

I want to make a number of points to dispel any residue Christianity in you:
1. Religion in the Western colonies was just as manipulative historically as it was in the third world. Afterall religion was essentially a 'franchise for manipulation' developed in the West before it was spread to the developing nations. You can consider religion to be the first franchise. It was not about accumulating money, it was about accumulating souls.
2. Modern religion is not as manipulative as it was in the old days because general standards of education standards have improved. Not just in your country, but internationally. Churches have to apply quality control measures. Yet no accountability or special ethical standards have been adopted by organised religion. It is all about managing perceptions. In fact, with respect to sexual abuse, the church has proven highly secretive, soliciting confidentiality agreements and offering pay-offs to 'aggrieved' persons. In the same way the Church has also been protective of its 'brand', and it maintains strict compliance with central policy. This would be understandable and logic if indeed logic and judgement were facets of religion, but they are repudiated by the churches. Faith and acceptance were the premises I was raised upon.
3. Rule of law. You cannot get away with deceit in the West as you can in developing countries. People in developed countries have more to lose from breaking the law, both in terms of future employability, damages from any successful law suit, and the prospect of imprisonment. In developing countries, people are less likely to seek legal remedy, police are less likely to take action, and courts are more readily paid off. The poor have no chance against the rich, if only because they don't have the education or support to take successful action.
4. Ethical values. Traditional values in developing countries are often of a low standard, particularly in the lower income portion of the population. There tends to be greater reliance on gratuities, a stronger desire for 'easy gains', greater cynicism about the system (thus greater willingness to breach the rules of that system), less judgement, greater acceptance of collectivist/religious philosophies (ie. They embody these philosophies as opposed to giving lip-service to them). In truth they are the practical manifestation of a Christian people, yet they are materially and spititually they are broke. They have greater integrity than any rich man in their city because they have nothing to give.
5. Western romanticism. The Romantic tradition associated with the Western Industrialisation is a philosophical system that sits juxtaposed against the naturalism of the prior period. Unfortunately romanticism never had a complete philosophical justification. It was smeared by collectivists who far out-numbered the logical exponents of justice. Romanticism still requires a defence today.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Religion breeds hypocrisy

2009-07-15T17:25:00.000-07:00

I'm back in the Philippines. Walking around the neighbourhood yesterday a curious gentleman asked me where am I from. Suddenly another neighbour zeroed in on the conversation. Where are you from? Are you staying in the village? Who are you staying with? Are you married? Do you have any children?
One gets the impression these people are victims of the Spanish Inquisition. Such problem solving skills? So purposeful. It might make you ponder exactly what purpose they are intent on solving. Well no problem per se, except the sins of the world. But is that really their intent. Well no. But either is it to be a good Christian since there really is no such thing. There are only Christians with fewer contradictions. These are the most hypocritical Christians you will ever find. Severely crippled, conflicted minds. Never have you passed across such judgemental people.....and to what end?
I personally engage in a great deal of judgement. Nothing wrong with judgement. The problem is with judges who don't self-reflect. Their purpose is not so much seeking a truth, but running away from one. Fine I say, judge me. There are just two problems with the existence of such people:
1. They have the vote - which means they have some level of power, though in a 'modern' democracy the vote really means very little. In fact, never did it really mean much, so I don't know why people talk it up, like we have freedom. We have the pretense of it.
2. They have the power to initiate force. Far be it for me to incite violence, but the reality is that these people are reproached by a mind like mine for several reasons. (i) I'm educated. (ii) I'm a symbol of the West, (iii) I'm wealthier than them, (iv) I'm consistent in my ideas, (v) I'm courageous, and finally (vi) I am confident.
I am a repudiation of everything they believe in, except their most basic premises (which no one can refute), so they are forced to hate me, to castigate me, to judge. But they will never reflect on the reasons. They are not that honest. In fact they don't even appraise me on a conceptual level. Instead they are motivated by fearings. There are several things they look for: (i) A desire to forge relationships by finding common ground, (ii) An interest in their lives, because they want to talk about themselves, (iii) Finding an excuse to engratiate themselves into your life.
Just because they see more evidence that I am not their type. Don't think that this would repell them. On the contrary, it would be a basis for rationalising or justifying their ultimate purpose, to use me in some way. Being a foreigner, they think I have money to share with them, visa assistance to grant them, or a daughter whom I can marry. In the Philippines I am often offered a prospective wife. I am less surprised to see women do that since they support their children's best interests. Be wary when siblings are setting you up. They are hoping for the day when you will support their alcohol or drug habit.
This is of course the seedier side of the Philippines, whether its the pretentious 'no class' landed class or the uneducated, desperate poor living on hopes. Fortunately I am a diamond-hunter, and as a diamond hunter I am only interested in understanding 'dirt' as long as it helps me find diamonds.
Slightly less painful as dealing with these religious hypocrites is dealing with people who give weight to the assertions or judgements of these people. The victims and fence sitters need to assert their views if such arguments are to be overcome. They are cowards only emboldened by the belief that they embody the social conscience. That is why they hate me so much. I am only accepted by pluralistic thinkers. They too might be conflicted, but they are at the very least (i) Not threatening, (ii) Open to alternative ideas.
The problem of course is that their capacity to know the truth is limited by their lack of conceptual skills. They have been sabotaged by the same Christian dogma as the neighbourhood snakes. The problem is that they are not for me, they are just not against me. They do judge, but its sting is benign because they have effectively desexed themselves, removing the last vestiges of moral pride. They have decided that ethics is subjective. "What is right for you, is right for you, and what is right for me is right for me'. This of course does not prevent coercion, though it tends to be subtler than the snakes in the neighbourhood. They will tend to not repay loans rather than steal money. But they also don't share the same ambition, and they might be safe enough to be beyond even such pettiness. Such souls have long been attractive to protective men who like to be taken care of. So long as you allow such people to believe that, you will pose no threat to them, and them no threat to you.
This dichotomy is the basis for the perpetrator-victim culture we find in the Church. We need to look at organised religion as a business system. Its a place where people come not for religious salvation but business connections. The price of admission is a paltry some. If you pay more you get to network with a higher 'class' of people. i.e. More money which means more influence, that assumes you can connect or resonate in the minds of these people. Money is power in the Church as well. But its not enough. You need to be influential. You need to make people feel good. Not by setting new standards, but by dropping them. By making every person you connect with feel that you have a special bond with them, and then having the diplomacy to drop them like a sack of potatoes as you move on to the next person. This is the realm of modern diplomacy as it is practiced in the Church, politics and business. Some business is different because it demands some level of standards, i.e. We have higher standards for engineers, architects, doctors, and sometimes accountants and CEOs, depending on the stage of the economic cycle.
------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Politics in the Catholic Church

2009-05-25T05:04:00.000-07:00

There was an interesting story on ‘Australian Story’ tonight about a Catholic priest at St Marys Church is Brisbane. Father Kennedy was evicted as administrator of St Mary’s because of his alleged ‘unCatholic’ practices. It showed how ‘unCatholic’ the Vatican is, because it sends out spies to check on its parish administrators. Now, one cannot blame them for taking an interest or for investigating the conduct of Father Kennedy. Without question he is engaging in controversial practices, but then two issues were overlooked:
1. The Church survives on the contributions of its members. In this case Father Kennedy has the overwhelming support of his congregation
2. The Church never had a dialogue with the Father to establish the facts, or his position on them.
3. The Church was lacking objective perspective, and certainly it was acting with a ideological zeal that cannot be good for the Church.

This case highlights the hypocrisy of the Church or religious institutions. There is no question there are two issues here:
1. The ethical values of the Church – the institution
2. The ethical values of religion – as displayed by Father Kennedy, or anyone else who displays religious conviction which is independent or free thinking

It is apparent that the Vatican wants to dictate how its Church administrators conduct themselves. The problem for this administrator was that he embraced homosexuals, allowed women to address the congregation and even allowed them to address the Church. One can understand why this man was highly regarded by his congregation. He made people feel they mattered. The Church on the other hand wants to tell people how it is. It has an ideological agenda. That’s ok, but it’s an agenda divorced from the facts of reality. The Vatican is living in the past.
With respect to Father Kennedy, I support him to the extent that he has his own judgement, I support that he earnestly believes he is right, but he to departs from facts with respect to his values. Implicit in his values are that values are intrinsic, that people are good in themselves, regardless of what that may do. This is a hard position to maintain because he is not in a position where he can thus criticise the actions of the Church. No wonder he went relatively silently, but not before knocking the camera out of the hands of a spy from the Vatican. He displays the flawed values inherent in religion, though I respect his stand of relative merit. The Church is an autocratic institution; clearly there is no room for liberals. Clearly his popularity is a reproach to the institutional hierarchy. Further related news here and here.
---------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Persecuting the majority

2009-04-06T02:18:00.000-07:00

We have all heard of the Jews who were persecuted. Well no one likes to be persecuted. Though I would suggest to you that its often the religious folk doing the persecuting. That is not to imply that Christians have a monopoly on persecution or on any form of deceit or abuse. But they account for a good share of it. I often make the point that Christianity or Catholicism is particularly deprave when it is combined with ambition.

My latest example comes from a company being closed down in the Philippines. I have known these people for some time. I respect their aspirational values, but combined with religion it takes on a particularly ugly path. Charged with responsibility for disposing of company assets this woman (lets call her Jane) has taken it upon herself to take possession of the company's future, some $US20,000 worth of it, arguing that it was scrap. A deal had already been done to give the furniture to the Church in exchange for storage of tax files, but a good dose of rationalisation saw the charity receive only the junk and the good stuff (the majority of it) disappearing into a vacuum. So the church came up second best. Well God Bless!

More interesting was the fact that Jane was going to make me the God father of her child until she learned that I was an atheist. Well, why should that erk me. Well I know it was never my value system she was interested in, but the fact that I was a foreigner....presumably with money. The politics of getting money in the Philippines (at least by these methods) get very ugly indeed when you see such people blatantly denegrate any person who holds them to account. This is common practice in the Philippines. It is played out in the media constantly in the Philippines. It would be nice to think that there was a clean cut good & evil side, but often its all just ugly shades of grey. This makes it really hard to establish the truth. There is just no reality to these aspirational people who cling to the hope of getting their hands on money, with no long range sense of purpose which might actually incline themselves to EARN it.

It is to easy to find cases of moral greyness in the Philippines. The unfortunate reality is that the good people just end up leaving the country, and the place is left run by despots and wannabes.
------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

When religious people protest - Part 2

2009-02-22T20:40:00.001-08:00

Here is a really good interview by the AtCentreNetwork. It shows an interview by a reporter with a number of Christians who are protesting outside an abortion clinic. This interview is interesting for a number of reasons.

1. Empathy: The protestors want to make abortion illegal but they are unsure what should happen to the women who have an illegal abortion. In fact they did not think about it. This strikes me as interesting because they judge the behaviour without considering the consequences of the action. This of course is a result of their dogmatic thinking.
2. Unthinking: Its interesting that all of the people interview have not thought much about what they believe, or the consequences of their thinking. They just know its wrong.
3. Evasive: The conversation is uncomfortable for one of them, as I often find with those with a more pronounced ego, such they they no longer want to discuss issues. Having an ego is a sin to them, but being mindless is ok.
4. Detached: There is not a great sense of realism implied by people who want to make a certain act illegal, but give no regard to the amount of punishment that would be attached to the act. The reason of course they have a problem with sanctioning prison is because its a moral judgement. But then what they hell are they doing protesting at the clinic if judgement is immoral.

-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

When religious people protest - Part 1

2009-02-22T17:28:00.000-08:00

Religious people are among the most vocal of protestors. I don't disparage them for their right or inclination to protest - I disparage them for their lack of consideration, their lack of evidence, and for actually being part of the problem. Take for instance of the disappearance of Caylee Anthony, the missing daughter of Casey Anthony. Casey's parents called '911' to report the re-appearance of their daughter, and the disappearance of their grand daughter. They told the police that their daughter disappeared with their car a month ago, and has since returned without their granddaughter. Casey is a suspect in the disappearance of Caylee, and the grandfather might be a suspect also.
In this video clip we can see some very self-righteous people protesting about the disappearance of the child. What is amazing is that they have no idea about the facts. The grandparents have shown consideration and concern for Caylee, but CAUGHT ON VIDEO, as they drive off, look at how these protestors treat their child, who lies injured on the ground.

What is the justification for these self-righteous people hounding these people. One has to acknowledge that these protestors are very vocal about an incident that is peripheral to their lives. Might one assume that the protestors are themselves victims of incest? Unfortunately victims don't make the best defenders of justice. They don't make great parents; but they do make great participants for a lynch mob.

I am not suggesting that the grandparents are without blame. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Caylee's death is suspicious. Its possible that George molested his daughter, or that his daughter killed Caylee. She may have rationalised that Caylee is evil, maybe that its her father's child. I don't know. One cannot make accurate assertions without more evidence. The grandfather has since been hospitalised for suicide. The question is why? Did he feel guilty for incest? Did he fill guilty for raising a possible murderer? Maybe he was simply overwhelmed by the relentless hounding by the press and protestors. We can only wait as more evidence unfolds.

So what is the link to religion you might ask? I suggest you will find it in the family, and even in the protestors. Its evident in the dogmatic assertions detached from reason.

------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Recovering Christians

2009-02-11T15:04:00.000-08:00

Many Christians at some point in their life reach a point where they decide to dump the philosophy. At some point they realise that it just doesn't add up. I myself was the child of Christian parents. Not serious Christians, but nevertheless people who considered themselves Christian. My grandmother once said, half jokingly "Andrew, you're a Christian, you've been christened, and you have no choice about it".
But actually for me, it was very easy to break out of that thinking because I always had a healthy respect for science. I would go to the library and read about geology. Nothing more grounding than that for building up a logical framework. Being a loner also meant I was not inclined to develop into a social metaphysician with a collectivist sense of reality.
Upon reading philosophy at the age of 19yo I immediately dropped Christianity like a sack of potatoes. In Ayn Rand's arguments, as presented in her non-fiction and fiction, I had never read books so 'strictly correct' in their damnation of religion. Terms were defined, arguments were well-founded. No stone was left unturned. I had the certainty that people should come to expect. I didn't know everything to be sure, but I had the tools to expand my knowledge, and it made me very confident in myself. I wasn't pious. I was certain in my core knowledge because I understood the premises upon which those principles were founded. It gave me enormous pride. It did not give me a lot of friends because I was so keen to learn that I was challenging others at every turn. I am sure I was quite annoying because if you were not logical you were evil. My values have matured, but actually the core values remain.
The problem with Christianity is that people base their lives on it, and people are reluctant to change. I was 19yo when I changed. It would be far harder for a person to drop Christianity at 40yo, and still harder at 60yo. It does happen, as I know people who have studied Objectivism at 60yo and been changed. The more probable outcome is repudiation of what they know to be right, but vaguely threatening. Vaguely so because they will not fully identify their contradictions because they would feel guilty. Its like starting over. But really its not like you have to re-learn everything. You just have to correct ethical principles, and re-integrate.
The alternative is to become a bitter, cynical person. This is what happens to the repressors.
------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Christians as parents

2009-02-11T14:46:00.000-08:00

Nothing could possibly be worse than having Christian parents. The more Christian they are, the more dangerous. The problem as I see it is the following:
1. Impossible standards: Christians have a philosophical code which is anti-life. You can't live it. You are not supposed to. The code is intended to undermine your self-worth, to leave you damned in perpetuity. Remember you are evil by nature. A contradiction in terms, as ethics pertains to choice, not to robots.
2. Self-loathing: The implication is that Christians make the most condescending, autocratic and tyrannical parents because they need to deflect their own feelings of self-loathing. They can't be good, but by relative standards they need to feel better than someone else.
3. Judgemental: In the context of child raising, Christian parents can be very critical of their children. If they are a church elder, then they are even worse because they feel that their children are a measure of their own capacity as good Christians. The implication I find is that the children often are fearful of their parent(s), and have high levels of personal self-assurance. Everything they do is questioned. More problematic is that the standard they are being measured by is unintelligible, dogmatic. You might have heard of adults who say their parents were very hard on them; but they recognise that they were fair or that they did bad things. I'm not convinced they could not have been better parents, but at least they were able to conclude that their parents had a rational standard of value. My mother was subjected to this type of abuse because her father was a church minister. Fortunately he didn't sexually abuse her. That of course is another blog story.
4. Dogma: There is no good that can come from dogma. Acceptance of rules because they come from parents is not healthy because morality is contextual. Dogma does not help to develop a child's capacity to develop a moral system of values, but rather imposes a list of rules. Knowledge is a hierarchy of principles that derive from the facts of reality. It is not a list of assertions or 'commandments'. There is nothing wrong with providing kids with a list of rules for simplification, but this is no substitute for basing those rules in reality, or placing them in an intelligible moral framework. You won't find one in the dogmatic Bible. Its groundless assertion. Nonsense. The fact that you can quote it is not a badge of honour; its the surface wound of a scared childhood.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Christians and contracts - protecting yourself

2009-02-11T14:20:00.000-08:00

This blog is the story of two Christians - one with full-blown dogmatism, the other with the shallow superficial type. Lets call them 'DOG' and 'SHAL'. SHAL is a friendly Filipino guy who is very affable and polite. He managed to find a client who wanted a website developed. He outsourced the project to a colleague at his office. The colleague 'DOG' was happy to perform the service for $300, allowing SHAL to charge the Western client $500, giving him a $200 profit.
Upon completing the job, DOG told SHAL that his normal terms for referrals is 15% of the fee, meaning that he would get the $500 and pay SHAL just $75. This was no doubt good money for doing nothing, but then it was not as had been agreed.
It's hard to imagine how DOG could rationalise this. Maybe he convinced himself that he did more work than had originally been outlined. Maybe he thought I can afford to burn SHAL because they no longer work together, and they were not close friends. Maybe he thought he was evious because he was putting in so much effort (i.e. all the programming) but getting so little return. Maybe he thought a verbal agreement is not a real agreement, just a rough estimate.
From SHAL's perspective, he probably thought, I've known this guy for 3-4 years, so he's not going to cheat me. This guy goes to church, he's even in the church choir, so he is not going to cheat him. I myself am surprised because he will not get anymore business. But then herein lies the problem. DOG is no doubt confident of his own sales that he probably does not think he will need to rely on SHAL in future, so better to betray him on terms today.
Clearly the moral of this story is that you can only deal with Christians from a position of strength. Ultimately the best source of strength is a written contract. I therefore warn Christians and non-Christians alike, if you deal with those who profess to be Christian or morally superior, make sure you have recourse.
I think honest people even will go to the position of locking themselves into unfavourable terms because they have no problem taking responsibility. Those who resent you for questioning their integrity by requesting a contractual agreement are a worry. Do not back down!

The intent here is not to show that all Christians are cheats, or that all cheats are only Christians. The intent is to show that Christianity enables a pattern of thought that sometimes results in cheating or gross rationalisations to obtain financial reward or to break commitments. It does this by encouraging dogmatism and invalid, subjective ethical judgements. At a psychological it also encourages evasion and repression by undermining the capacity of the person to think.
The more important objective of this blog is to show that Christianity is not a badge of respectibility. I was sooner respect a gang member than a Christian. The more they go to church the greater the level of delusion. The more successful or ambition, the greater the level of delusion.
-------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Christians in search of answers

2009-02-10T08:25:00.000-08:00

Humans have a desire for a sense of personal control or security. Men tend to even be more ambitious skill and want a sense of efficacy. Men need to be good at something. I doubt there is really much dividing men and women in this respect other than the values which shape women from childhood. Certainly women should be encouraged to be efficacious in some field if that is what they want.
The problem with a search for self-control or self-assurance is that its not a pursuit of values, its a search for self-assurance. Its not an endeavour that is going to lead you into fresh ideas, but rather a path which will find you rationalising that your existing ideas are right. This is actually the origin of self-righteousness and arrogance. Call it entrenched thinking as opposed to a thought process which is always open to new ideas. Of course, open to the extent that listening does not detract from your focus of achieving goals.
Christians of course come in all shapes and sizes. There are people for whom Christianity is something they don't give much mind; who might well think, aahh Yeh I can love God if it gets me to heaven. I can be kind to others, no problem since its consistent with practicality anyway. Yeh I can give money to a needy person every Xmas. Its nothing to me. But herein lies the rationalisation....its nothing to these people. They are essentially self-interested people rationalising that they profess certain values, but in reality they act selfishly. But its not selfishnes with any integrity. Its an indulgent or subjective sense of value. In fact, by objective standards, its self sacrifice. Mind you such Christians tend to have a strong ego, are intelligent, efficacious in some compartmentalised area of life, they are independent and doing quite well, thank you very much! But the extent to which they are religious is the extent to which they are undermining their thought process or insightfulness.
The greater concern is the deluded Christian (or child of a Christian) in search of answers. The problem as I see it is that they have been raised with dogma, self-sacrifice as moral values. They don't have a well-developed thought process, and they direct their search towards the familiar rather than the disparities. They are basically trying to shore up their existing premises rather than challenge them. A critical thinker does both. Logic demands differentiation and synthesis.
For this reason, they join these cults and other weird religious groups, of which there are too many to name. It is no accident that there are so many in the USA.
Of course you don't need to be a Christian to be insecure or vulnerable, but you do need to be to end up in a cult. Another expression of collectivist values might drift into socialist organisations or join a hippie commune. That is where you get your Christian chasing the REDS under the bed. The moral crusader - and in the USA - they have guns. The lynch mobs branded the Klu Klux Klan (KKK) being a case in point.
It is therefore not surprising that Christians and
-------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

A clash of values - doing business with a Christian

2009-02-09T23:44:00.000-08:00

In this blog I take the opportunity to cast dispersions on religion. Religion is of course the dominant value system in the Western world, and for that reason it goes unchallenged because its considered impractical to challenge it. This article will no doubt have negative implications for my future career. Why? Because contrary to Christian philosophy – they all judge – as they were supposed to. The problem is their judgement is motivated by fear and evasion rather than a respect for facts. The following is a recount of a dialogue with a Christian on an online trading site.

The counterparty in this dialogue has been concealed because its purely for educational purposes.

Communication before the auction

Hi Joe, I am living in XXXXX. It would be inconvenient to go to the South Island to get it, unless I organised a canoe trip to there in future. Might you have reason to meet half way in Wellington? I was the one who asked if you wanted to relist. I know the product, so if the condition is good, I can buy. I have a Tahiti already overseas. Might also be interested in the Tahiti as well for GF. posted by: shouganai 2:11 pm, Tue 30 Dec

Hi, we will be going to Wellington some time the end of March if this suits you. 9:09 am, Fri 2 Jan

After the auction

Hi Joe, I bought your canoe online. As per my posting below, I am a firm buyer, though I have a problem with a bank deposit payment because you could leave the country. Will you accept Paypal, credit card, cash on delivery (Wellington) as previously indicated? Sorry to ask this after purchasing one item, but TradeMe gives me no option to contact you. This method of purchase is more secure because if the canoe goes astray I can do a charge-back for non-performance. You don't have a credit history on TradeMe as a seller either. If you have other items like life jackets, oars, helmets I would be interested in those as well, subject to quality and price issues. Let me know, and I'll accept your offer at $210 on the Tahiti canoe as well. Thanks, Andrew

Thanks for getting back to me, I understand your concern about payment and oddly enough the reason we will be in Wellington the end of March is we are heading overseas, So now I've told you when I'm going to leave the country you don't need to worry. But our kids want to go to Wellington before we leave for a weekend, this will more than likely be Feb sometime does this still suit you? and cash on delivery will have to be fine. I'll keep you updated on our plans. Also I'm a Christian and stealing is not my thing :)

Hi Joe, Feb is even better, so that's no problem. I'm an atheist, but stealing is not my thing either. And I would caution you that there are Christians that do steal. Mostly it just comes down to a capacity to rationalise and opportunity. :) Regards, Andrew

A month passed until I initiated the next communication

Hi Joe, Are you still retaining the Bali canoe? And do you still envisage going to Wellington in Feb? Thanks, Andrew

No reply for 3 days

Hi Joe, You don't seem to be responding to my emails. I bought a canoe from you. Are you honouring our agreement? You even said you were a Christian. I'm interested to know what that means to you? Does it mean you are 'only human'? I would hope that means I should look up rather than down upon you. I hope I am wrong about you. Maybe you are rationalising that I can get one elsewhere. Yeh, but now I am left unprepared for an upcoming trip. Nice to receive an apology....an apology if you sold it elsewhere. It would be nice to get a reply so I know if you are overseas, out canoeing, or just repressing your guilt. I'm going with repression, it’s very popular these days. Regards, Andrew

Andrew. Firstly- Get over the attitude. Secondly- We are not sat by the computer waiting for your emails. (It was Waitangi weekend we was busy, However none of your business). Yes we still have the canoe but have not yet sorted out our plans to wellington. However after your outburst and total lack of trust maybe the deal is not such a good idea. Remember we were trying to help you out by meeting in Wellington. Apology.... no I don't think so we never agreed on any set day. I am sorry that everyone in your eyes is trying to rip you off, we have bought and sold many items and not come across this before (the double canoe was paid for immediately and they collected it from the Picton ferry terminal. They were happy and posted that on Trade Me.)

Regards Joe

Hi Joe, There is no need to be defensive....I was merely entertaining the possibility that agreements mean nothing to some people, and you might be one of them. My attitude is an extension of your comment upon purchase where you implied that you are a Christian, so therefore I am safe. Christianity is often used as an ethical device by others looking to gain others confidence. I was suspicious from that conversation. Yeh, I've dealt with a lot of Christians. I did consider the possibility that you might have been on holidays, and I concede that I could have waited longer than 3 days. A friend is asking me to travel so that created some urgency, and I wanted to canoe.
Actually I don't think having a holiday on Waitangi constitutes an issue of privacy, but clearly you don't like your honesty being questioned by people who have never met you. The distrust is because I have never met you and your lack of reply, and the Christian declaration. Probably best left unsaid - as it sounded so morality superior (arrogant). The fact that you were on holiday is pertinent because it’s a reasonable explanation for not replying. I should have waited longer before answering.

I actually didn't perceive the delivery to Wellington as helping me out, because you are not going out of your way. As I understood it, your kids wanted to go there, so easy to bring it along. So I perceived it as a counter-party trying to sell their product, and doing whatever it takes to do it. I suggest if there was any significant Christian charity (which you never see :) ) then you would be making such a sacrifice. i.e. In fact to be a very good Christian, you should be coming to Wanganui. But actually, I have too much regard for others to ask that, and too little belief that Christians actually believe in self-sacrifice. Anyway, everyone has their spin on Christianity. The story has changed so much in 2000 years, so it’s now more selfish, e.g. Charity begins in the home.

Correct, you don't owe me an apology. I merely canvassed the possibility that you might, and was trying to solicit a response rather than an evasion (i.e. The possibility of no reply) that gave me no idea where I stand.

I don't have a fear that everyone is going to rip me off, but I know there are dishonourable people in the world. That is reality. And there are more of them doing deals on the internet where they can stay anonymous. The fact that you are going overseas is also reason for distrust. Like I said, I was open to the possibility that you might have bad character. I don't think you should give so much weight to what strangers think of you. In fact you might show more empathy for their vulnerability. After all it’s possible I will be at risk, whereas you might have happily sold the canoe to a neighbour.
For what it’s worth I am pleased you think values are important. A lot of people don't. But clearly if you are acting on the premise that you are doing me a favour, then you are mistaken, and PERHAPS being dishonest with yourself. That's common too. Why? Because you are professing to be morally superior when you are not. Not that I consider charity as moral. I actually regard selfishness as virtuous, but not the flawed Christian conception. My guess is you didn't see that response coming. Regards, Andrew

Mr. Sheldon, You are making this very personal and your personal opinion is not something that I am at all interested in. You really need to get over the whole Christian thing. We are selling a Canoe that is all! YOU were the one that said it would be hard to get to the South Island so please a one line response will be more than enough. Do you still want the Canoe...YES or NO? If not that is fine. However If you do, unless you are prepared to pick it up here you will have to wait until we get to Wellington and that will likely be mid March. I would like to remind you that in the advert on Trade-Me we ONLY offered delivery to the South Island. Regards, Joe

Hi Joe, Everything is personal, that's what makes values worth pursuing. I didn't need to know your religion. You volunteered that info, I just made a value judgement based on the limited knowledge I had..hoping for a reply; to which you got defensive...but enough philosophy.

Back to the canoe. You offered to deliver the canoe to Wellington - in the ASK QUESTIONS section. But it’s ok, I might be able to relieve you of that burden. I might actually have reason to go to the South Island to meet a friend, though it’s not certain I will, or that I will take the car. I'm currently waiting for him to come back to me. Regards, Andrew

Andrew, we have just got advice from the team at trade me as the deal between us is not working. They not only told me to put what has happened in your feedback but also have stated that payment has to be received within a week of the auction closing, this is not open to discussion afterwards. As there has not been any payment within a week of the online auction, the auction has been broken. Before you start to jump up and down stating I could run off with the money, I would just like to point out a couple bought the double canoe, they paid for it by the Friday and they had it by the Sunday, they kept to all the online auction code of conduct and so did I and if you want you can read that in their feedback. Didn't have any personal insults from them. Maybe you should look in the mirror and ask why this auction between us didn't work but the auction between myself and the other couple (who I didn't know) worked. Interesting under the code of conduct all buyers and sellers are expected: "Conduct themselves honestly and in good faith at all times" I have been honest and interestingly the word "faith" I thought I would look that up in the New Zealand dictionary- 1 strong belief; trust. 2 a system of religious belief. Did you have any trust from the beginning? N.Z is a Christian country, so I didn't feel I was out of order to state I'm a Christian. If a Bible ever does falls on your doorstep look up 2Timothy 3:1-7, see I'm not sure why but this scripture keeps coming into my head when I read your Emails (maybe it’s the part that talks about being self-assuming, haughty, headstrong ect.), receiving Emails from you strengthens our faith in the Bible, so Thank you for that.

By the way as for philosophy you may want to remember that one man's philosophy is to another verbal diarrhoea. Please don't even bother to reply with a thesis on your own personal view points that we have absolutely no interest in,you can't seem to get it we were selling a canoe nothing more. I'll save you the time and block you out of my Email address. Joe.

Hi Joe, I don't care if you read this or not, it’s all content for my blog on religion, so the reply to you is incidental. The primary goal is research for my blog. In response to all your points:

1. True to my early points, you are taking the high (self-righteous) moral ground and contacted TradeMe. So what? No doubt you gave them your biased perspective. The context which you will be missing is that prior to the auction you offered to deliver to Wellington (saving me a $350-450 ferry trip). You agreed to deliver the canoe to Wellington, and it was cash on delivery. The point being that I did not re-negotiate the delivery terms after, it was in the questions.

2. I had a legitimate reason not to pay because you mentioned that you were going overseas. You say that the other canoe was sold without incident. Likely they were going to the South Island anyway, or had it delivered, and they wanted it within one week. You probably didn't tell them you were Christian, or maybe they were as well. Maybe they know less about human nature because you are behaving as a Christian would behave. i.e. rationalisation, evasion.

3. You said that you have been honest and forthright from the start, but actually I have found you to engage in gross rationalisations.

4. It was I that contacted you wondering whether the sale was going to proceed. I conceded that I could have waited more than 3 days before casting dispersions on your character. I actually agree I have a low opinion of Christian values for the reasons highlighted by this conversation.

5. Where is the evidence that I have not acted dishonestly, or in bad faith?

6. Well I don't read the Bible because it’s all dogmatic assertion divorced from the real world, but I will indulge you. Am I self-assuming, haughty, headstrong ect? Yep, all true, and you are insecure, evasive and repressed, which is not a combination that is going to get along. I have (honestly) conceded that I should have waited a few more days before sending my follow-up email. Three days was not enough.

7. The prospect that my emails strengthened your faith in the Bible is contradiction. Faith is unconditional, so my actions should have no impact. But there you go, the Bible has contradictions, so why should I expect any less from you.

8. Actually NZ is not a Christian country, it is just a country dominated by Christians. Let me go further. Politically there is a separation of religion and the head of state. If you want a religious country, you will find more luck in Iran, where there is a religious head of state. Secondly, the other aspect of NZ, the market economy is based on the premise of self-interest, which is contrary to the philosophy of selflessness which you espouse. You trade value for value, not selfless act for selfless act. For example, I don't surrender my money for more than I judged the value of your product, and you did not deliver to my city because it’s too far away. We reached an agreement half way in between at your convenience and mine.

9. In conclusion, this online sale failed because I sometimes choose not to grant people contractions. Sometimes for practical reasons I don't feel inclined to correct people. Usually Christians are more gracious than you, since I often debate them when they come to my door. The fact that I did not validate your repressed, conflicted ego made you upset and emotional. It’s to be expected. Did I expect you to change your values. No. This is merely an educational tool for those who want to understand the true nature of religion. Thanks for the example of your values.

10. You should consider this as you 10 Commandments if you want to be a better person. Of course I don't expect it.

I dare say that people will think me as much a 'religious' zeolot as Joe. True enough. I think values are important, and I want to bring to the forefront of people's minds the importance of effective thinking, and warn people as to the dangers of religion. The intent is not to persecute Joe. No force has been applied to Joe. When he stops being self-righteous the discussion will be over, and I will shift to another issue. The good news is - I don't go knocking of doors :) But as you can guess, I am always willing to open them. Always disappointed. I have lengthy conversations, but it always ends in empty assertions and quotes from the Bible. The contradictions I identify, they cannot answer. See other blog posts.

In defence of Joe, I don't think he is a person with bad intent. Why? Because he is proud. Its actually a good value if not rationalised. I just think he has a flawed value system which is embraced by too many people. Its great that he believes in something, but I want to convey that his dogmatic ideas are a threat to civil society because they are motivated by fear. His rationalisations meant I did not get the canoe I contracted to buy. This is the type of rationalisation that turned a previously 'civil' society like downtown LA into a looting tribe, as we saw with the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in the 1990s.

THE END. P.S. Unless Joe is like me and likes the final word.

Is Christianity the root of all evil? No, but its close. The root is man's failure to live in accordance with his nature - He needs to think rather than evade that responsibility. To focus rather than repress. There is too much of the latter, whether motivated by religion or collectivism.

--------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Evidence for evolution and against creationism

2009-01-20T00:16:00.000-08:00

If you want evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years I suggest you study geology. There is so much evidence for a protracted history for Earth - it begs belief. Let me start:
1. Geological principles of cross-cutting rock structures
2. Process of sediment to rock maturation - we can observe rocks deposited up to 7,000 metres think without deformation, so they must have been layed down. We can observe typical speeds of deposition.
3. Dating of radiometric isotopes in rocks, ice core. Not just one isotope but a plethora of them from different rocks, each of which tells a story that integrates with the rest.
4. Tree rings alone can be 6,000 years. But there are also tree fossils preserved in rocks which can extend the sentiment history even further. Afterall x number of rings in a rocks must be at least X times older than the rock in which it was found, and they take a lot of compression & heat to mature sediments into rocks.
5. Lake sentiments recording the annual deposition of snow-melt related muds.
6. The massive global database of rocks around the world - empirical veracity
7. The movement of hot spots - eg. Hawaii has left a trail of volcanoes which tell us the age, distance, speed of movement
8. The movement of continents - magnetic reversals from spreading centres
9. Direct observation of geological events. eg. Frequency of meteorites.

Given more time I will think of some more. But lets stack the Bible up against science. They don't so much argue that science has contradictions, but that there is gaps in science. Its not surprising or a concern that there should be gaps. The important issue is that assertions are based on evidence. So let's look at the Bible.

Evidence of strange mystical powers? The Bible and other sources showing that people paralysed in fear by experiences they didn't understand in a pre-science era.
Evidence to refute such assertions. Given the Bible was written by disciples of God, contradictions in the Bible and its philosophy highlight its flaws. This blog is all about those, so don't waste any time.

I would leave you with another point. There is no reason to believe there was actually a starting point for the universe. I would contend that the universe has never started, that it has changed forms, but it has never come or gone in or out of existence. For that reason, I assert that the universe has always existed and always will. I would argue that the formation of the universe as we know it 24 billion years ago was actually just the start of a cycle, and that there has been an infinite number of such cycles.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Intelligent Design - the pitfalls

2008-06-03T21:38:00.000-07:00

I see this argument as an over-simplification or context-dropping if you prefer. Actually there is no definition of God since God does not exist. What people take to accept as God is really just a repudiation of what is 'real''. For instance God is 'supernatural' (= non-natural), Gof requires such to accept him on 'faith' (non-reason), he wants us to love others unconditionally (non-values), he wants us to live this life his way (non-reality) for a chance to live in another. When a dictator asks me to trust him to deliver a better life, I am cynical. When a ghost does it, I laugh. When >50% of the population think this is a reasonable proposition, I consider democracy dangerous.

Religious people seem to accept the notion that there was a Big Bang. I prefer to believe that there was a succession of Big Bangs every 24 billion years or so, that in fact the universe was not created or destroyed, but rather is recycled. I see no evidence that matter can be created or destroyed, just that it changes forms, whether at a chemical or sub-atomic level. The universe explodes, expands, coalesces, contracts, then explodes again. I dont see the need necessarily for a single 'symmetrical' Big Bang, because I see no structural reason for assymmetry. But maybe the assymmetry of the universe is reason to believe there are sometimes multiple Bangs or the coalition of matter. I don't know all the dynamics. I know that the ethics underpinning religion are flawed and contrary to human nature (ie. faith is not compatible with reason).
I dont think the creation of humanity is such a mystery. Nor do I think that the conditions for the development of life are so stretched. I think the problem is the low probability of sustaining conditions on a planet long enough (billions of years) without some meteorite destroying it. But we dont know we are alone. Maybe the odds are higher than we expect. Maybe lifeforms are on their way as we speak.
I dont think there is a wrong or right amount of energy, since there is a focus of area where conditions where conditions would have been right somewhere in the universe. The problem was not that there was no place suitable, the problem was sustaining those conditions. The 'cratered' moon shows Earth was spared destruction, that humanity was given the opportunity to evolve, because we had an atmosphere. Some want to believe it was because of God. But Earth is not the only planet with an atmosphere, or with oxygen. So where is the 'intelligent design' that requires God.
The next question is really a nonsense question. "Why were we created?" There is no answer to this question because its an illegitimate question. Its like asking the reason for reason. It just is. Reason is inherent in the transformation of things, not in the things themselves. You can't ask why an orange is yellow instead of green beyond understanding the light that causes it. It just is. At root this question is really 'why do life forms evolve?' to give it a non-religious bias? We just do. The nature of things is so organised. If we destroyed everything it would happen again, and not because of God's grace. What possible explanation could God have for the meteorite explosion that wiped out the dinosaurs? Did this perfect God decide to reschedule human evolution? Duh!
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Filipinos and religion

2008-05-06T17:30:00.000-07:00

I have made the point that religion is a terrible philosophy because it creates a dichotomy between moral and practical action. The problem is shared by all collectivist philosophies. Religion is worse because you only get salvation after you are dead. Though I'm sure you could find a few faithful socialists who are still clinging to the dream. Here is a dialogue between my girlfriend and a relative that strikes me as not too unfamiliar in the Philippines. See 'A Sense of Entitlement'. My point with this post is to provide a practical example of the altruist creed that 'its moral to give, but practical to take'. This is how an altruist manipulates people into bestowing them with benefits.
I thank my girlfriend for the recount of her conversation. Her court scribing skills are appreciated.

---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

A positive spin on religion

2008-02-12T17:31:00.000-08:00

Is there anything positive we can say about religion? I think there is. Religion was man's first attempt to explain the events that shape his world. Its not surprising that religion is based on fear since in an age before science, there was a great deal that was unknowable. But we now know. It is not surprising that he is depicted in negatives, because we really have no relationship to him. Afterall isn't he a he because we dont know any better. Isnt he 'supernatural' because 'he' or 'it' is not natural.
So the most positive thing you can say about religion was that it was humanities first attempt to explain the world and the elements that shape it. But why do people still believe it today? I suggest its because fear-ridden people communicate the same fears and confusion to their kids.
-----------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Science quashes the existence of ghosts

2008-01-26T06:14:00.000-08:00

This is a little off-topic but then, if you believe in God, I guess other forms of mysticism are not much of a stretch. Here is an interesting documentary I watched the other day. It presented evidence to disprove the evidence of ghosts - see http://www.tvokay.com/documentary/5th-dimension-ghosts.htm. Several of the conclusions were:
1. Magnetic fields are often around us, and they can cause people to feel a burning sensation on the skin or a sense that something has brushed by them. This can cause the person to think there is a presence in the room.
2. Dark places can make the most ardent 'ghost skeptics' believe there is something in a room. Being in a dark room elevates stress levels and this can cause people's sight to deteriorate, particularly peripheral vision. This observation was actually proven by a scientist who thought he was in the presence of a ghost. He tested his own hypothesis.
3. Rationalisations - people want to believe in certain things because they dont have the critical mind which would question the validity of their conclusions.

Perhaps more impressive was the fact that they even showed how these physiological responses occurred using a simulation when a person was placed under these types of conditions. Check it out!
----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The Ten Commandments - a new translation!

2008-01-07T17:31:00.000-08:00

Christians have long been blessed with a simple rule book for living - the 'Ten Commandments'. What could be simpler? Well I am a little perplexed by it. Might reality be a little more complicated. I dont know about you but I was given a different rule book growing up. But thats ok, I eventually reached my current thinking for similar reasons. These commandments come from the New Revised Standard Version translation of the Bible: Exodus 20:2–17, and I have got this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments. Lets consider the rules:

1. Do not have any other gods before Me: Hmmm, can we take it that God is not an advocate of free markets and competition. Why then did he make competitors? Why didn't he just make me - one human with one subordinate woman like Eve. That would have been consistent at the very least since we are expected to be subordinate to him. And on that point, why do we have to worship him. My parents gave birth to me. Do I worship them because they might claim to have invested 18 years in me. No, because if they didn't have a selfish motive, why did they do it. How can he give man free will, but not let him exercise it. How can he pretend to give you a choice if you the choice is submission or damnation. Its like the choice you get from the tax office or any other common criminal. This strikes me as a big vague anyway coming from a God. It would need a court room interpretation. If I was looking for loopholes, I would say I am free of damnation if I praise no God since by doing so I am placing no God before, because I am not accepting any.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: OK, well I do think alot of myself, and I think anyone with a healthy self esteem would do the same. But I dont care if you are a God, I dont accept flacky arguments that dont add up. I always thought weak people have idols, whether footballers or shrines. Frankly I think this rule is God trying to be intangible so he can grab market share. A cynical ploy. I think his strategy is to be everything so he essentially kills all competition. But if he is 'the sun, the light, the holy spirit', is he not 'the idol' as well....see so he's not consistent.
3. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me: Dont worry I would never be so pathetic. Get this next section...He is a jealous God. That strikes me as rather insecure and not very understanding. How can you justifiably punish a child for the behaviour of their parents if you believe in free will, as God is supposed to. And if that was ok,why would you stop at the 3rd or 4th generation, and if you were perfect, why couldn't you decide which one - 3rd or 4th. This Christian God is looking pretty pathetic. I think he's pretty insecure, consider that he seems insolent like a child 'those who reject me'...classic manic depressive symptoms. He's like a school bully.
4. but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. This doesn't make sense either for the same reason. OK I can understand him being rapped at the idea of getting attention, but why should generations 2-999th get a free ride, and why stop there. Cant he count higher?
5. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. I grew up with a different understanding. I thought we were supposed to not use God's name in vain, but this has a different meaning. This new interpretation seems to place a copyright on the use of God's name. Very smart! In fact its the first smart thing he has said. But even his commercial astuteness doesn't pass because he has on many occasions deplored the accumulation of wealth as a terrible sin, and what are royalty cheques but a blatant receipt of the 'almightt dollar'. This strikes me as an act of idolising.
6. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy: This one is a bit vague. Ok I grant God his Holy Day. Dont like shopping anyway, so I dont see myself missing Sunday's anytime soon. Mind you, this doesn't require me to go to church. He in fact doesn't even define what 'holy' is. But he does tell us in the following commandment - what it isn't.
7. For six days you shall labour and do all your work: Ok I dont agree to this one. But I can live with it because like a great many things it depends on how you define your terms, and I have yet to see a book called the 'Holy Dictionary' which means that everything is pretty much in the air. Mind you, I think a sensible God would not be so loose with his commandments, so he doesn't retain much credibility with me. For instance, does Sunday start at 12AM as that time format was estsblished later.
8. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. Ok he's starting to sound like a lawyer now. But read this - God is actually giving credence to the notion of slavery. He is tacitly supporting slavery. I am overwhelmed. No wonder why religious institutions seem to be constantly rewriting or revising their old interpretations. This is damning evidence that God is a closset fascist - and not even a benevolent fascist like America's Thomas Jefferson who also had slaves. At least Jefferson treated his slaves well....I cant say the same for God - apart from the Sunday holiday. And its not like he offered time and half...that came much later. And if you think its 'money' ok, but its money to the employer too, so why should it not go to the person with more need. No sense there.
9. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it. This item seems a bit redundant. For a perfect God he's a bit repetitive.
10. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. Ok this is grounds for impeachment. Firstly my parents made a great many mistakes. Second, why should I honour parents intrinsically when you dont. If we are living on the same earth, why is your moral code different from mine? You damn them and their children for 1000 generations, so why would I dogmatically honour them for that.
11. You shall not murder. Well I dont agree with this. I think it depends on the situation. If my life was threatened by others, I would feel compelled to kill them to retain my life. That is to say I would kill only in response to someone else initiating force. I think God stuffed up on this commandment. Poor judgement. How can you justify placing others right to kill above your own right to live. People will rationalise that you should have faith, but I've got no confidence in this God. I dont even think I want to capitalise his name any more...so 'god'...shame on you! Pity your disciples a 1000-fold. His mistake here is clearly that he stated it as a dogma, not as a principle that needed to be held in context of other facts. eg. Whom is seeking to derive a sense of value by fraud or force. That is the basis of philosophy, and why religion has nothing to add on ethics. Shame on him!
12. You shall not commit adultery. I think this commandment is the closest one could come to a credible commandment. Certainly you should not engage in extra-marital affairs without your partners knowledge, that would be lying. And as above, it would amount to trying to receive a value by deception. Here again, definition is important. If you have an open and honest agreement with your wife to have an open relationship, that should be legally ok, though I think it undermines the legitimacy of the relationship. But then that is not in question. They might be doing it to preserve the stability of family for the kids. I dont think its necessary if handled correctly, but its an error that I dont think anyone should be damned over. I give his half points for this one because I am a generous person, or generous God based on his performance.
13. You shall not steal. This suffers the same error - definition and context. I think its ok to steal from people who have stolen from you, though I think one needs to establish a support for objectivity, otherwise its likely to lead to rationalisation. That objectivity comes from confessing your actions after the fact so that an independent legal authority can determine the merit of the counter-claims. One could argue that this results in mob rule, but I think there is a context in which it might be ok to steal. eg. A society in which government has the moral right to steal (taxation). I dont care if one person or a person claiming to represent 50% of the population steals, it is still stealing. Righteousness is not a popularity contest.
14. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour: I think this commandment is not bad...but its not very comprehensive, so falls short, so I give him half points for this one. Its one thing to lie to others, but its equaly important that one doesn't delude oneself.
15. You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour. This is good too, but its not clear why? The problem is we dont know whether he is speaking metaphorically, whether one's 'neighbour' is a peer in the community, or anyone. I suspect anyone. If that is a universal principle, might this commandment be suggesting that we shouldn't covet any wife, slave, animal (whether for sex or possession I guess...lets not quibble) or possessions. Anyway it makes sense in as much as you shouldn't covet things because others possess them. This suggests that there is nothing wrong with honest ambition.

My Ten Commandments
As a final word....I am wondering why all the talk of 'Ten Commandments' because I can identify about 12 here - allowing for the fact that he is a little repetitive. I did not see much value in these commandments. I was trying to be generous - I give him 2 out of 12 points, and thats being picky about what you call a commandment. So thats just over 16% - not a good rating for a 'god'. But what is interesting is the things that he left out. Are there any acts of morality not covered in the Twelve Commandments? Well I can think of a few:
1. Be honest with thyself - not just others
2. Dont attempt to attain values by coercion or deception - more comprehensive than 'god's'.
3. Empathise with vested interests - but dont live for their sake
4. Live by your own judgement and place nothing above it
5. Live in accordance to your own hierarchy of values - Live for your own sake
6. Identify and pursue your values with a integrity and deliberance
7. Find purpose in everything you do - except your personal rehabilitation
8. Embrace reason as the standard of value
9. Take 100% responsibility for your achievements and failures in your life - even if others fail you
10. Feel free to junk these commandments and do what you like, but be prepared to pay the consequences on this earth - there is no other pertinent to your life until another is discovered

Mind you - you dont have to call me God. And I really couldn't care a F**K if you followed these rules or not. Its your life to screw up....you wont need damnation in another world, you will have it in this one. You will experience it in your career, your relationships, your personal sense of self worth. Have a nice day!

The Nature of Sin

2007-12-31T02:27:00.000-08:00

What is sin? The concept of 'Original Sin' implies that humans are predisposed to being sinners because of a choice that Adam and Eve made to eat an apple from the Tree of Knowledge. Whether you believe the parabole or not, there are important contradictions to recognise here.

1. How can a descendant of Adam & Eve be considered morally impudent as a result of others actions. There is no psychological scientific) basis for suggesting as much, and it is contrary to the popular belief that we have free will.
2. Original Sin is also a furfy because you humans cannot be judged for their actions if they are 'sinful by nature'. Moral concepts such as sin apply only to humans because they have a choice. If there is no choice, than humans are free of moral responsibility.

If you appreciate this, you realise that Christian philosophy is not a philosophy for humans, but to cast them into the Dark Ages, which is exactly where they went between 500-900AD. Consider that a human need only rationalise that they are 'sinful by nature' to accept their flaws as much as they might claim to be repentent. They cannot escape their nature, and if their nature is flawed, then they can evade moral responsibility for the most vile crimes against other men. Jesus is presented to us as a victim - never as a perpetrator - but if anyone has moral responsibility its the 'perfect' God that has no limits in their capacity to heal. Any suggestion to the contrary is blatant rationalisation.

The Virtue of Humility

2007-12-31T01:55:00.000-08:00

Why is humility a virtue? Why is it right to place the interests of others above oneself? Why is it virtuous for others to help you, but selfish for you to help yourself?

The first task is to actually define ones terms so we have a common understanding of what we are talking about. Part of the reason why moral confusion and conflicts in people's lives is that they lack the clarity in thinking required to resolve their conflicts. Poor definition of terms plays a big part in this confusion. The terms I would like to define are:

1. Selfishness: Most dictionaries consider selfishness as an interest primarily with oneself. No conflict there. But here is where the moral confusion arises because: Acting in one’s self interest need not be at the expense of others. Acting in one’s self interest might actually mean serving others. The people we help are not all of the same standing. Everyone has a hierarchy of values. There are people we hate, strangers, acquaintances, friends, family, lovers, and they all occupy some ranking in terms of personal importance. If we were to renounce our values, we would seek to place lovers at the top and we would treat all these people the same.
2. Humility: Humility requires one to attach less importance to oneself. Humility thus cannot be judged out of context. In what sense can we be said to have a heightened sense of importance. We can be overconfident in our capacity to deal with events, or in our relationships with events. Is that not the proper sense that comes from success, and when we fail, we adjust. What justification is there for thinking less of oneself unless it is considered wrong to attach any value to one's life as a moral code.

The reality is that people cannot reject selfishness or pride. Consider the paster that argues that we should believe in God. How can a humble soul with a diminished sense of his own importance get up and preach with such righteousness and certainty. The answer they would argue is that they are agents of God, that God is acting through them. If that is the case, why are they so imperfect by any moral standard. If they are not entitled to the reward of pride, what possible motive can they have for acting. Are they machines? If so they are outside the field of humanity or morality.

The reality is that religious values are not consistent with human nature - they are the antithesis of it. These 'moral' principles were in fact conceived by men to control men. The history of religious tenets suggest as much. Many of the ideas that are expressed in the Bible are not even original, rather they were developed over time. The implication is the Bible was merely a synthesis of pre-existing ideas that was packaged for political purposes by Roman scholars intent on controlling the Israelites through the church 'establishment'. Recognising the practicality of the strategy, the Church under the support of government, spread the same philosophy to other territories. Today the Church still has the distinction of being a tax free entity.