Reality Crowd

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.

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 »