Reality Crowd

“People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)”

- Douglas Adams in an interview with American Atheist

University of Sydney scientists have discovered that our galaxy, the Milky Way, is twice as wide as previously thought. It seems very strange that this could be the case, doesn’t it? Scientists have peered billions of light years into the cosmos. They have made observations and calculations of mass and distance of a multitude of celestial objects and even of the universe itself. But right here at home, our own galaxy we calculated to be about 6,000 light-years thick, and these scientists now claim that in reality, it is 12,000 light-years thick. It is fascinating to learn that these scientists did not even make any new observations; they simply used data already collected that was available on the Internet! This surprising result has elicited mixed emotions from the scientific community. From the University of Sidney article:

“Some colleagues have come up to me and have said ‘That wrecks everything!’” says Professor Gaensler. “And others have said ‘Ah! Now everything fits together!’”

Here at RealityCrowd, we often cite ways in which science and religion are opposed. This event is a beautiful example of how in the scientific community, new evidence can change even a long-held belief. If assertions are supported by evidence, then those assertions must be taken seriously. However, religion, as many readers realize, does not change in the light of new evidence, and this is why we incessantly hear unsupported claims from many Christians such as the age of the universe being only about 6,000 years. Not even the mountain of evidence to the contrary will convince a true Bible believer. This unwavering stance may be comfortable for those who need the universe to be predictable and simple, but those of us with open and inquisitive minds will celebrate these times that we can say, “Hey, we were wrong!”

Read the entire University of Sydney article here.

“…it is worthy of remark that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, while the brain is impressionable, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason.”

“It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follows from the advance of science.”

-Charles Darwin

The show “30 days,” a reality TV show on FX, puts people in an unfamiliar lifestyle or culture for a full 30 days and explores the interactions of those put in this juxtaposition. Through stark contrast viewers are able to more plainly see the perceived reality of the groups involved and possible get a closer idea of the actually reality in which we are all involved.

The episode featured in the below video examines the situation of an atheist who agrees to live in the home of a Christian family for 30 days. She attends church with the Christian family as well as Bible study, and she is involved with her hosts daily as a member of the household. As many atheists do, Brenda describes herself as a free thinker: one who builds beliefs based on evidence and logic. The host family immerses Brenda in the community of the faithful.

Highlights of the video are outlined here in minutes and seconds so you can jump to any part of the video you may enjoy:

1:10 - The family and Brenda visit a Christian theme park, The Holy Land Experience where among other events, there is a reenactment of the crucifixion of Christ.

2:40 - Brenda visits the family’s Church for Sunday service.

4:50 - Brenda attends Bible study and is engaged by the members to discuss her views as an atheist. One member asks Brenda, “What did Christ do that was so bad?”

8:10 - Brenda and her host Tracy find some common ground.

9:10 - This last part of the video is especially interesting reporting on general views and attitudes people have about atheists. They cite a University of Minnesota study that showed atheists as being the least trusted minority group in America.

If you were brought up in a Christian tradition, Catholic especially, then you have likely been taught some pretty scary things about sex. Premarital sex is a sin. Gay sex is a sin. Masturbation is a sin. Even sex in the bond of holy wedlock can be considered a sin if any type of contraception is used. In this last case of contraception, some Christians may take issue. However, a quick glance at Genesis, chapter 38, should be convincing enough that God considers even the act of “pulling out” a grave insult to His law.

Then Judah said to Onan, “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also.
-Gen. 38:8-10

This passage, among many other intolerant proclamations of the Bible, are interpreted by fundamentalist Christians to rationalize condemning all forms of contraception, denying emergency contraception to rape victims, denying civil rights to gay couples, attempting to ban pornography, opposing the development of vaccines for STDs--and the list goes on.

The claim that fundamentalists and Catholics make, that God’s “natural laws” govern sex (only acceptable when procreation is the goal) is contrary to a lot of observable evidence that we have. For instance, humans have a surprisingly low fertility rate. Even healthy, young, sexually active newlyweds only have about a 28 per cent chance of conception per menstrual cycle. A cow can be artificially inseminated one time and have a 75 per cent chance of conceiving. It would seem that God had a little trouble “designing” humans’ reproductive organs if 28 per cent chance is all that He could muster for their only purpose! Notice also that human females do not go into heat like other mammals do. If you look at a female chimpanzee, her genitals become bright pink and swollen to show that she is ready to conceive. Human females do not advertise in this way. If that is her only purpose for her reproductive organs, why aren’t they designed better?

Not even mentioned yet are all the clear and obvious purposes that we use sex for: Pair bonding (or more than a pair), stress release, social currency, pleasure. There have been many scientific studies pursued showing the many health benefits of sex and masturbation. To the contrary, however, you will find many believers saying such things as this quote from catholic.com:

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation.

I would like to ask some questions that devout Catholics may be able to help me with:

Is it as unnatural for animals to have homosexual sex as it is for humans? Should God smite these indulgent chimps and bunnies?

How about the “natural” use of my nose: Should I really be resting my glasses on it?

Lastly, God in his wisdom has provided man with natural forks--his fingers. Therefore, is it an insult to Him to substitute artificial metallic forks for them when eating? (This last question is not meant to be absurd.) The Catholic Church held this opinion of forks in the 1600s. Look it up….or just click here.

“During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man’s own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world… The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes… In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vase power in the hands of priests.”

Albert Einstein, reported in Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium

What is your delusion level? Take this fun quiz to find out!:

Special thanks to The Green Atheist for finding this gem.

What’s your delusion level? Lets hear it in the comments!

Biblical “science” or creation “science” or “intelligent” design all attempt to put forth the same idea. That somehow despite total lack of evidence for their claims and complete disregard for the scientific method that they are somehow more scientific than science itself. We at Reality Crowd intend to examine this issue extensively as it is at the heart of what we are discussing here. Creationists, not content to have everyone accept their claims “on faith” (a rather dubious proposal) have now turned to the language of science to try to promote their ideas. The only problem is they occasionally run into real scientists:

For those who don’t recognize the voice, that is creationist Kent Hovind. The main point that we can get from this exchange is that creationists seem to have no concrete examples of what their “science” is for. It doesn’t make any reliable predictions about anything, nor does it describe in a useful way the way the physical systems of the universe work. Creationist’s version of science is merely attempting to shoehorn biblical passages into compatibility with what we know about the physical universe (but mostly the other way around).

One tactic that has been increasingly used by the religious in debates (both online and out in the “real” world) is to attempt to show that their claims are in fact backed up by science and reason. This has been the tactic of the “Intelligent” design movement and is often used by one of it’s leading proponents Kent Hovind. Essentially, their arguments are stated in a manor that makes them sound scientific. If I as a listener wanted to believe what these people are saying I would come away with the sense that they had somehow proven something to me, through reason and science.

However, when people that make arguments like these come across actual scientists, or even just people who are listening closely, their arguments are usually demonstrated to be much less solid then they would have you believe. Take Shawn (aka VenomFangX) on Youtube. Shawn has posted many videos that try to prove the existence of god, or jesus, or that dinosaurs and people were around at the same time 6000 years ago. If you don’t listen closely you might think that he makes some good points…but luckily for us a lot of people listen closely!

Here is an example of the type of argument Shawn tends to use, as well as some rational responses to it:

Sounds pretty good right? From the comments on YouTube you would think that Shawn had stumbled onto some ultimate line of reasoning that forever ended the Reality / Religion debate. After all, he even states at the end that there is no way to disprove him. I guess we can all go home and prepare for the apocalypse right? But wait:

That would seem to call into question Shawn’s rock solid “proof” of god’s existence. It also pretty much shoots down his (and all creation “scientists”) style of argument. By proclaiming that you are absolutely right without question you leave yourself wide open to being taken down, because if you are then wrong about one thing what does that indicate for everything else?

Or how about this response?

In fact, Youtube is FULL of videos of people debunking Shawn’s argument. Shawn is hiding all the negative comments on his videos (why the need if you are absolutely without question correct?). Read on for more videos addressing Shawn’s claims.

Read the rest of this entry »

When talking to someone about the validity of religion, out of body experiences usually come up at some point. When close to death many people have the experience of floating outside their own body and observing themselves from outside their own skin. Scientology was supposedly inspired from an out of body experience L. Ron Hubbard had while under the influence of Nitrous Oxide. These experiences would seem to lend credibility to the soul / body split that nearly all religions preach. It would seem to indicate that our “self” can be separated from our body. If I can float outside my own body, it must mean that I posses a soul…right?

Well, hold on a second. Now it seems that by using virtual reality equipment, two teams of researchers have been able to induce out of body experiences in healthy test subjects. Wearing virtual reality headsets, subjects were shown a live picture of their own back. Then, two plastic rods were used to stroke the back of the subject as well as their “virtual” back. It seems that the combination of visual and tactile input easily tricked the body into believing it was behind the actual body.

Link to the scientific American Article

Hit the jump for some videos about out of body experiences
Read the rest of this entry »