10 Things I Love About Not Being A Christian

10. I don’t have to tell my wife to be in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Let’s get something straight once and for all: As necessary as they may be, pregnant women are NOT attractive. Besides, my wife is a terrible cook.

9. I can go almost anywhere on a Sunday morning and it’s not crowded. I hate crowds, or at least I will until I am famous.

8. I don’t have to construct cockamamie philosophical arguments to prove my god’s existence (as opposed to any other god). This in particular frees me from the Herculean task of defining what a god is. Wait, was Hercules a god or a demi-god? If he was a demi-god, what was Jesus? Oh crap, see what I mean?

7. No tithing! Which sounds like ‘teething’ which reminds me of babies which requires pregnant women. Refer back to number 10.

6. I don’t have to automatically vote Republican. Thank goodness, since I can’t stand people who justify war, mistreat the downtrodden, and sympathize with the rich like Jesus did.

5. I don’t have to use fear to get people to coerce people to behave. That is SO old! I’d much rather subtly manipulate people without them realizing it. I respect that kind of game-play.

4. Speaking of fear, there’s no Hell. Even if there was, it can’t be as bad as staying at a Days Inn in bumfuck New York.

3. I don’t have to claim there is a culture war in America that is unfairly targeting Christians. Because if there is one thing no one likes, it’s when the shoe is on the other foot.

2. I don’t have to read the Bible. I mean, it’s SO long. And if 99% of Christians can’t be bothered to read it, why should I?

1. I don’t have to pretend a male god making the first person ever another man isn’t a totally gay thing to do. Do you know why Jesus told us to turn the other cheek? To look the other way.

Gambling on the Teleological Argument

Theists often propose the teleological argument for God’s existence; that is, given the apparent complexity of the universe and the emergence of life therein, the universe must have been designed by some rational agent. What the theist is saying – in no uncertain terms – is that they believe all of the life, in all the world, in all the universe, is too incredible to be the byproduct of chance. In short, it is believed by theists that the degree of complexity the universe exhibits is so mind-boggling, it must be the result of some kind of superior intelligence that had the intension to construct it. 

            There are many well-known objections to the teleological argument. Richard Dawkins argues in his book The God Delusion that use of the argument applies to the existence of God as well; God’s existence becomes even more unlikely than the universe’s existence. Thus, the question, “Who made God?” is raised. In Atheism: The Case Against God, George H. Smith argues that evidence of design are those things not found in nature. Another objection argues that even if the universe were designed, such a fact tells us nothing about the designer other than that they are capable of designing and building a universe. It is this objection that I’d like to focus and expand upon.

            This particular flaw in the theist’s reasoning, the conclusion of the existence of their god based upon the appearance of complexity of the universe, is quite peculiar. It certainly does not tell us anything about who designed and built the universe if it was in fact designed and built. But an even greater peculiarity is in the conclusion of a single designer.

            What do we know about things that are designed? More often than not, we know that the greater the complexity of something, a skyscraper for instance, the greater likelihood there is of there being multiple designers; a designer of the overall structure and a designer or designers of the parts that constitute the exterior and interior of the building. It is almost never the case that a designer designs both the overall structure of a building and all of it parts. What is even less likely is that a designer designs both the overall structure of a building and all of it parts and builds the building all by themselves. In fact, I don’t believe there is a skyscraper in the world that has been designed and built all the way from the parts up by single, solitary individual. If, as a theist would naturally argue, that the universe is more complex than a skyscraper, the probability that multiple designers and an equally important construction crew were involved in creating the universe just increased significantly.

            Probability works against the theist in other ways as well. Let’s apply the idea of probability to the chances that any given theist adheres to the one true religion.

            Let’s look at the numbers: There are at least 21 distinct major religions, to say nothing of the number of denominations within those divisions. For example, there are at least 10 different denominations of, say, Christianity. Protestantism is a denomination of Christianity with at least 10 strains within its own division. If there are at least two denominations within each of the other twenty divisions of religion, we’re looking at least 59 religions. Conventional wisdom contends that they can’t all be true. So, what are the odds that any given theist belongs to the one true religion? 59-to-1! Even if we only stick to the major divisions of religion, the probability of someone worshipping the one true god or gods is still 21-to-1. That, I believe, is typically referred to as a long-shot.

            Ultimately, believing in a God-constructed universe comes down to confirmation bias; one has to believe in God first in order to make the numbers work in favor of the teleological argument. Even if the numbers did work, it tells us nothing in particular about which specific god created everything. As before, you have to believe in a particular god first in order to specify who the improbable Creator is. Now we must ask ourselves, what are the chances of any given theist actually giving the teleological argument any thought? Slim to none, given their degree of faith.

10 Signs a Conspiracy Theorist is Full of Shit

I admit to being alarmed by the insistence of conspiracy theorists that the shooting tragedy in Newton, Conn. was staged. I'm not going to go so far as to say conspiracies do not take place, but there is a difference between investigative journalism and talking out of your ass. Thus, I give you the ten signs that a conspiracy theorist is full of shit...

10-Everything they write online is full of grammatical errors and ends with the phrase, “WAKE UP!”

9-If you fail to believe what they believe, you are one of the ‘sheep,’ an insult that in Bizzaro World will convince you that they’re right.

8-They call themselves a ‘truther’ based on unsubstantiated facts.

7-They invite you to do your own research and see for yourself because when you’re serious about convincing people, it’s best not to provide where you got your information.

6-They fail to apply their great skepticism to any of their own beliefs.

5-Any situation in which bad information has been given or that raises multiple questions is automatically a conspiracy to them.

4-They don’t think of any more than one answer to those questions.

3-They don’t give any remotely nuanced solution to the world’s problems.

2-They think the general public would actually be alarmed if they knew the truth about what was going on around them, which happens to be that inter-dimensional reptilian aliens who can shape-shift are running the world.

1-They think that they have the power to expose the plans of the nefarious and nearly unstoppable forces that rule the world.

WWJD? No, Seriously.

Have you ever found yourself in a certain situation and come to the terrifying revelation that, by golly, you just didn’t know what to do? Like the other day, I was in the city and I happened upon Doctor Octopus rampaging through the waterfront district. Having never fought a super villain before, I didn’t know exactly what to do. But what I do know is that Spiderman has fought Doc Ock on many occasions and under many circumstances. So naturally I asked myself, “What would Spiderman do?” The rest as they say is history as Doc Ock is resting comfortably behind bars at this very moment.

There routinely comes those moments in our lives where having never found ourselves in particular situations we seek guidance from sources outside of ourselves. Sometimes we call these people heroes, being that they provide stellar examples of the kind of behavior we ourselves would like to imitate if we were unfortunate enough to find ourselves in scenarios such as those our heroes have faced. We might also call upon the stories of our heroes in situations we are already familiar with in hopes of acting with more grace and dignity then we may have had previously.

            For the Christian, the hero they are supposed to be channeling is Jesus Christ. While they can surely have other heroes besides, their primary source of inspiration is, as they claim, the son of God as characterized in the Bible’s New Testament. Frankly, there is a comedic element involved for many a Republican-lovin’ Evangelical who enjoys claiming this much. That is to say, Evangelical Christians act in a manner that is often inconsistent with the words of their main man, Jesus of Nazareth.

            Let’s take a look at, oh I don’t know, George W. Bush. He’s a Christian isn’t he? He claims to be and there’s no arguing that Evangelicals made up the majority of his constituents. Though, I can’t help but get the feeling that good ol’ George never seriously asks himself, “What would Jesus do?” when confronted by difficult choices. I really wonder if, on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, President Bush asked himself, “Would Jesus invade a country that poses less than half the threat than North Korea does?” Even if Iraq or any other country did pose a dire threat to the United States, doesn’t Jesus state in Matthew chapter 5 verses 39-44 to love your enemies and do good by them? A theist partial to the Bible may object and claim that God’s enemies are nonetheless condemned to Hell, but that is a judgment reserved for God (as stated at least twice in the Book of Matthew).

            We’re not done with making an example out of Mr. Bush yet, hero worshippers. It is quite clear as well that the former oil businessman turned leader-of-the-free-world had close ties to the financially well-to-do and multi-billion dollar corporate interests while in office. But doesn’t Jesus say unequivocally in Matthew 19: 23-24 that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven? Why is President Bush hobnobbing with rich people if Jesus is his favorite philosopher? “Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you,” lamented Jesus in James chapter 5 verses 1-5. Why is the Republican Party known for pandering to the upper class if Christians are their constituents?

            To be fair, George W. Bush isn’t the only offender among those who claims to adhere to the words set forth by Jesus and then acts in a radically different manner. Let’s take Rush Limbaugh for example. He’ll tell you he’s a fan of Jesus, just not a very big fan if his actions are any indication. I mean, gee, wasn’t Rush addicted to pain killers for a while there? Yet in Matthew 5:29-30 Jesus tells us that it would be better to pluck out our own eyes and cut off our hands if it meant keeping us from sinning or giving into vice. Should Rush have cut off his hands in order to keep himself from popping pills? While the Bible may have nothing to say about whether or not being addicted to pain medication is good or bad, Limbaugh surely thinks it is a vice as he had routinely criticized drug addicts before his hypocrisy was revealed. [See Luke 6:41 for Jesus’ warning against hypocrisy, Rush.] But maybe Limbaugh was speaking in parables. Oh dear, he was following Jesus’ example after all.

            Okay, well then, what of Jim Bakker, the former leader of the Praise The Lord (PTL) Ministries? Hmm, if history recalls correctly, wasn’t he the guy who tried to buy his press secretary Jessica Hahn’s silence about her sexual services to him? I’m pretty sure that Christians generally agree that, citing Jesus’ supposed celibate lifestyle and Paul the Apostle’s views on sex, what Jim did was a big no-no. And as we all know, Jim Bakker is hardly the only Christian leader guilty of sexual misdeed. Jesse Jackson, cough, cough. Archdiocese of Boston, Portland, and Tucson, ahem, ahem. Damn this sore throat. Why didn’t any of these people ask themselves, when faced with such great temptation, “What would Jesus do?” Would Jesus cheat on his wife? Would Jesus sire a love child? Would Jesus molest little children? Would Jesus try to cover it up?

            There’s also the matter of the Golden rule. In the Book of Luke chapter 6 verse 31 Jesus says, “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” In other words, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, which sounds like decent advice in most instances (sans you crazy sadomasochists out there). Seriously now, when’s the last time Jerry Falwell treated a homosexual or non-Christian with respect? “If you’re not a born again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being,” said Falwell in an attempt to sugarcoat reality. He must’ve skipped the Book of Luke entirely because Jesus also said therein, “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.” Perhaps Jerry Falwell would be best off asking himself whether or not Jesus would read the Bible before claiming to be a Christian.

            On any given day, your typical Evangelical can be seen living in a manner contradictory to the teachings of Jesus. In Matthew 5:5 Jesus says, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” Uh, are we still talking about Evangelicals here, the same people trying to turn America into a Christian version of Israel? In Matthew 5:34 Jesus states, “Swear not at all,” in forbidding the taking of oaths. Okay then, what the heck are Christians doing in the courtrooms?! In Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus gives a new commandment that is second only to the first one of loving God above all else. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” he tells his audience. Well, that’s certainly not advice good Christians like Fox News parrots Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Cal Thomas, and Fox News president and founder Roger Ailes follow. "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity,” replies a demure Ann Coulter about Muslim countries on a typical day. That’s right, nothing says love like a religious conversion at the end of a gun barrel.

While I don’t qualify as an expert on the Bible, I can certainly say that I know the Bible better than 9 out of 10 Christians I come across. If you ask me, no one has been able to logically defend the outrageous positions Evangelicals typically take on everyday living, especially when you consider that they are supposed to be taking the words and gospels of Jesus into account when living their lives, otherwise a person would have no business calling themselves a follower of Christ. Yet call themselves Christians is exactly what they do! Would Jesus call himself the son of God if he really were not? What would Jesus do; would the King of Kings lie? 

I know what I’d do. Whatever life holds in store for me, I will never forget these words: "With great power comes great responsibility." This is my gift, my curse. Who am I? I'm Theory Parker.

What is The Truth?

If there’s one thing I can’t stand, and there are lots of things, it’s when someone says they know ‘the truth.’ Let’s tear a page out of one of Plato’s stupid dialogues and ask, what is ‘the truth?’ According to the nearest dictionary, the truth is the state of affairs being in accordance with facts or reality. Mmm, that definition seems about as helpful as Justin Bieber in a bar fight since what you might consider facts may differ wildly from what you believe about reality. For example, facts about the natural world tell us nothing about those things that are supernatural, existing outside of nature, if anything supernatural in fact exists. Of course, you may disagree with me on this very point, believing that if you have enough facts, these facts tell you something about the overall state of affairs; meaning, reality. That kind of thinking means you’re not drinking enough. Alcohol is the only way to make ‘the truth’ any more understandable. Plus, it dulls the boredom.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." ~ George Bernard Shaw, trying to convince his mother that eating his veggies confers no benefits.

What I’m not going to do is talk about the truth and its relationship to religion since there is none, not beyond self-evident truths, that is, truths obvious to yourself. If you can’t prove other minds exist – and you can’t – then your personal articles of faith do not qualify as facts to anyone other than yourself. So, I’m not going to spend any time talking about so-called religious truths; there’s no such thing beyond the confines of your own mind. Instead, I’m going to do something no one in their supposedly right mind ever does anymore and I’m going to cast a critical eye upon the claims of scientists, because sometimes there’s a legitimate problem with the conclusions scientists make. Here’s what scientists considers to be true – matters of fact; facts being the result of a very particular set of circumstances that are possible for other people – if they exist – to replicate. Now, whatever could be the problem with a scientific fact? Isn’t a matter of fact a matter of fact? Sure, but no one likes a tautology. More importantly, can we not make inferences from the collection of scientific facts, inferences so obvious they too must be factual? This is what scientific theories rest upon. Oh, but inferences from matters of fact are quite a leap if you if you haven’t had enough to drink. When’s the last time you met a scientist who could hold their liquor? Exactly.

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad." ~ Aldous Huxley, hearing about the size of black men’s penises.

There are two philosophical objections to the construction of scientific theories I will address here, although there are more: Underdetermination and The Problem of Induction. I’ll start with Underdetermination while you start drinking. Underdetermination basically says that any scientific theory derived from matters of fact may be suspect on grounds that the matters of fact used to establish a scientific theory are not sufficient enough to prove the theory. For example, if a child watches a cartoon about a cat and mouse behaving violently towards each other, then that child goes outside and acts violently towards another child, the matter of fact that the child watched a violent cartoon is not enough to prove that the cartoon caused the child to act violently towards another child. Perhaps other facts we are not aware of caused the child’s violent behavior, or that the behavior was caused by multiple matters of fact, not all of which we are aware of. Underdetermination can be best summed up by that old methodological adage, “Correlation does not imply causation.”

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." ~ Oscar Wilde, being downright earnest.

Another problem is called the Problem of Induction, popularized by Scottish philosopher David Hume. The problem is that, generally speaking, induction generalizes what will happen in the future based on past events. For example, thinking that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow as they are today because they have always been the same oh look we left out the caveat, “As far as we know.” Hume’s criticism of induction casts doubt on matters of fact, since all matter of fact are ‘proven’ inductively. That is to say, for any cause, multiple effects are conceivable, and the actual effect cannot be determined by reasoning about the cause. For example, if we shoot one billiard ball towards another, there is no way to guarantee that they will collide. In order to make that kind of guarantee, we would have to know and control every last variable, which, when taking quantum mechanics into account, is impossible to do – as far as we know ha ha ha. The Problem of Induction is further complicated by the Sorites Paradox. Exactly how many times does it take for a particular result to take place before we consider the results a fact? 1 out of 2? 2 out of 3? 3 out of 5? More often than not? If that’s not troubling enough, also consider the application of induction to classes of objects: It might be a fact that all rednecks are white because all we’ve even seen are white rednecks, but all it takes is one black redneck to disprove the fact. Disprove the fact and you abolish the truth. Now, it’s not that Hume believe induction wasn’t useful – it appears to predict what will be the case more often than not – he merely wished to say that facts are not justified necessarily.

"The greatest enemy of any one of our truths may be the rest of our truths." ~ William James, caught lying about only taking ONE cookie out of the cookie jar.

Now, while it might be the case that a ball falls to the ground every instance you’ve dropped it and this has led us to the theory of gravity – which is surely an improvement over the previous explanation, intelligent falling – the theory of gravity does seem to accurately explain why a ball falls toward the ground when you drop it and the motion of stars and planets. But scientists still don’t know why gravity is so much weaker than the other three fundamental forces of the universe – the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electro-magnetism. Scientist cannot currently reconcile quantum mechanics and Einstein’s relativity. That said, there is always a certain incompleteness to scientific theories. Evolution, for example, currently does not explain how life began…which is not the same as saying evolution is an incorrect theory, my right-wing nuts friends. There is the possible explanation that there is now or once was a god who was only smart enough to create a single-celled animal capable of replication from which humans eventually evolved, but we don’t currently possess this knowledge. As scientists proceed to collect data about how nature works, theories become revised and more comprehensive to the point it is possible to conceive of a day when future scientists look back upon our modern science and laugh, “Gravity? Oh my, what were they thinking?” Ah, but how much more will our future scientists have figured out about the universe? The collection of data, of ‘facts’, very often seems to lead to more questions. Can science lead us to the point of an ultimate explanation that simply ‘is’ that avoids raising more questions? Even religious explanations raise at least as many questions as they answer, so, what the fuck? What’s that? Somewhere I hear a Taoist laughing. Bastard.

"Like all dreamers, I mistook disenchantment for truth." ~ Jean-Paul Sartre, mistaking nothingness for being.

Philosophically then, when we say we’re talking about the truth, what do we mean by that word? Is it the state of things being in accordance with facts or reality? The word reality feels like a misnomer since the word ‘reality’ is typically value-laden and tainted by cultural and gender specific lenses. But it does seem that when we’re talking about matters of fact, specific events are seemingly caused by a specific set of circumstances. That said, the truth – that is, a ‘fact’ – seems to be closer to what remains consistent even if you don’t believe it. As the saying goes, the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Hmmm, but are crazy people really crazy, or is it that they totally get the Problem of Induction?! To be clear, I’m not saying Induction is invalid any more than Hume did; it sure seems to work, maybe because events must have causes even if we’re not entirely sure what those causes are. After all, it can’t be that events just happen willy-nilly, can it?! If we can’t connect events to causes, there would be no basis for human logic. Hmmm, yes, judging by the way humans act, there appears reason to doubt the existence of logic.

"Truth has very few friends and those few are suicides." ~ Antonio Porchia, poor lonely Antonio Porchia.

The bottom line is this – the truth, or if you like, the facts, are merely approximation for understanding how the world works; there is seemingly no such thing as completely correct knowledge beyond the self-evident truths of internal observations such as “I am seeing yellow” which I could easily dispute but won’t bother because such truths don’t mean anything to anyone other than yourself anyway. Science, though, does get closer to the truth than religion, for science provides a better method for concocting explanations that other minds find plausible, assuming there are other minds. Remember that science as a discipline does not in principle need to comprehend the entire universe; human beings do that out of wanting to manipulate the world around them in their never-ending quest to avoid death, maybe because religious beliefs aren’t quite getting that job done. You are going to die, that’s the truth, so for fuck’s sake get over it. Oops, did I say that out loud?