Am I better than you?

The question is rhetorical. I honestly do not believe I am better than anyone.

I may be better at some things than someone else, does that make me better overall? No, different, not better.

My train of thought goes to this due to some of the comments I have received here; am I upset or irritated by them? No.

Do they warrant a response? Yes, I think they do.

1. - Do I think Atheists are better than Theists? No, I don't. Do I think that they are different and that there are differences? Yes I do.

2. - Do I think that religious folks are a bit sensitive when I point out obvious flaws in their logic? YES I do! It's funny how when I point out something simple and they fly off the handle accusing me of attacking them when all I did was point out something obvious to everyone BUT them.

3. - Do I find the contradiction in a 'christians' behavior entertaining and hypocritical? Yes, I do. A prime example is some of the comments I have received where someone who purports to be "christian" attacks with curse words and insults rather than simply defending their position. Everyone is welcome to defend their position of course I have only run into a couple people that are actually literate and intelligent enough to attempt a debate. Most of the "defenders of Christianity" or religion that have commented here are of the illiterate variety and resort to throwing insults rather than arguing their point. That probably has more to do with the FACT that their position is untenable and cannot be defended so they resort to playground tactics.

4. - Will I stop voicing my opinion? Nope, sorry all you illiterate morons that throw insults. I won't. I do welcome intelligent debate, sadly you are few and far between.

5. - Do I see anonymous posters as weak? Not necessarily, the only weaklings I see are the anonymous posters that attack and throw insults. Very weak in my book.

6. - Is religion a scam and cult like? Yes, I think it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't think I am; Religion has done nothing to promote the well being of the human mind. Only efforts to retard our growth and intellect.

7. - Does religion have some validity? From the standpoint of teaching good values like being kind to each other, yes it does. Does that mean that I think religion is good? No, I don't think it's good. Religion closes minds to exploration and thought. That is NEVER a good thing.

All in all, I am all about INTELLIGENT discussion and debate. Insults and whining while entertaining don't endear you to me in any way. It only VALIDATES my point that religion breeds hate, closed-mindedness, bigotry and intolerance. Not the qualities I want my child to learn.

Until religion and religious folks in general can see it and themselves for what they are, my opinion won't change.

There is nothing, I repeat, nothing redeeming about a group of people that hate and teach their children to be intolerant of others. Nothing at all.

Mormon group still using discredited 'gay cure' therapy

Mormon group still using discredited 'gay cure' therapy

The initial scientist, who came up with this disavows it as not good science, they are still using it?

Flies in the face of logic I think?

Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.




Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?



Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.



One student, however, wrote the following:



First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.



As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.



With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.



This gives two possibilities:



1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.



2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.



So which is it?



If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I go out with you", and take into account the fact that I went out with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.



The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct . . . leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

I thought we could all use a good laugh today.

Should you leave your church?

A recent comment got me thinking about this;

Should you leave your religion?

Honestly, I don't know if you should or shouldn't. It's not really my call to tell you to leave, it would be extremely arrogant of me to presume that I can tell you what you should or shouldn't do.

Did I leave the LDS faith? Yes I did. Why did I leave? I left simply due to the fact that I could no longer reconcile the contradictions and falsehoods perpetuated by the faith. These falsehoods and the corresponding hypocrisy was more than I could take. I couldn't see how I can call myself a believer in something that I found patently fraudulent.

Am I saying that religion doesn't have it's place? Yes, I am. It is an outdated, set of beliefs founded on the premise that there is a magical being in the sky that created the universe yet refuses to leave any PROOF whatsoever of said beings existence. The only 'proof' that anyone can offer is the ramblings of cave dwelling folks that we would have called lunatics writing in a mystical fashion about current events of their time.

Is that a valid reason to follow the words of the worlds first broadly circulated work of fiction? I didn't think so, so I walked away from religion. I didn't just stop believing in the Mormon way of looking at things, I investigated and researched every religion that I could, Hinduism, Islam, Satanism, Paganism, Mormonism, Christianity, Judaism every 'ism I could find. What did I learn? I learned that they were ALL THE SAME. Same stories, same philosophies, same everything! The only differences? The names and dates and sometimes the locations changed, the stories? They essentially for all intents and purposes were the same, leading me to the logical conclusion that they all come from the same place. That place is IMAGINATION.

Since I don't follow the Gingerbread man, I can't in all logical justification follow another fantastic individual like Jesus, Mohamed or Krishna. I just can't do it. I like fantasy stories as much as the next person. I read fiction all the time, I don't follow the philosophies of a fictional character. I don't belong to the First Church of Harry Potter or any other such drivel.

I work from fact, science and logic. Those three things have no place in religion since religion discounts them all as non-essential. Therefore; religion has no place in my life.

If you want to belong to a religion, if it fulfills you. If it gives you purpose, feel free and justified in believing it. All I ask is this; let me and others like me be who we are in peace. I propose the following, don't push your faith on me in public places, government offices or public schools and I won't come into your Churches, synagogues or ward houses and push my logic and science on you.

Fair enough? I think so.

Defending the LDS Church? Only with rhetoric..

Going through the interwebz, I read an article on the Deseret News website that I found entertaining and if the author wasn't serious I would have found it hilarious. As it is, he was serious, so in all reality it's almost sad; no it's disappointing.

In the article, the writer attempts to defend the LDS Church from such terrible slights as:

Claiming that Sunday Services are held in Temples! Yes, that is a slight because EVERYONE in the world knows that Mormons don't go to their temples on Sundays right?

Stating that Sunday services are 3 hours long and consist of sacrament (with water swapped in for wine) and then 2 more hours of preaching and meetings. (ummm. Growing up Mormon, that effectively sounds like Sundays in a Mormon meeting house). I realize the description isn't 100% accurate, it is close though. Not really a need to be condescending to the person who wrote the article though.

Speculating that Mitt Romney would attend the same church house as Harry Reid. OMG, Really? That's an issue? Oops, I forgot EVERYONE in the world would KNOW that Mormons have separate congregations called "wards" that meet at different times and are separated geographically right? Because EVERY other religion in the world is organized that way too...

The author then goes on to attack Callahan for the following: (it's easier for me to put the entire piece here for you to read)
• Callahan wrote about going to the Washington D.C. Temple Visitors Center, talking to young female missionaries who "wear calf-length skirts, flat shoes and an indefatigable air of energized piety." Then she added: "Less than two hours after my visit – despite giving staffers only my first name and filling out no paperwork – I was startled to get a voicemail on my cell phone from someone identifying himself as a prophet, saying that he'd like to 'start interceding for your life' and asking me to call an 800 number to join a prayer circle." Callahan blithely linked the two events, inferring that the phone call came as a result of her visit to the visitor's center. The Newsroom article on the LDS missionary program would have told her that missionaries are referred to as "elder" and sister," not "prophet," and that their work has nothing to do with "interceding for your life" or organizing "prayer circles." And common sense should have told her that there's no way the missionaries could have come up with her cell phone number based only on her first name.




There are other issues within Callahan's column, most of them similarly mixing a little truth with a lot of misunderstanding — most of which could have been avoided with a few clicks on the LDS Newsroom website.

Seriously?!?! If I were Maureen Callahan and got a voice mail shortly after visiting with some Mormon missionaries and got the message she got and knew little to nothing about the Mormons, I would INFER the same thing. Rather than attacking her and subtly calling her lazy and stupid, wouldn't it have been better to maybe, just maybe let her know what you would like her to know. Instead of writing a column damning her for her lack of knowledge, EDUCATE her.
 
Sadly though, this is typical Mormon behavior. Attack someone instead of educate them. After all, you are being persecuted by someone right? WRONG!
 

Apocalypse never: Newly discovered Mayan calendar disproves 2012

Apocalypse never: Newly discovered Mayan calendar disproves 2012

Fun and interesting read. I found it entertaining.

Religious people are LESS Compassionate

In a recent study at The University of California Berkley, researchers found that highly religious people were less compassionate than Atheists or Agnostics.

In three different experiments researches found that Atheists tended to be motivated more to help their fellow human being simply out of compassion. Conversely, highly religious individuals tended to help others out of one of three primary motivations: Doctrine, communal identity and reputational concerns .

It seems to me that even though Atheists are less trusted according to numerous studies and surveys, that Atheists and non-religious people tend to be more generous and compassionate simply out of the desire to help someone.

Maybe, just maybe religious people can take something from this.

Helping for the sake of helping is good. Helping so that you can keep your social standing etc. is just selfish. There is NOTHING altruistic in working to keep your social standing in your individual church etc.

Atheists we are kind and compassionate! Yes, we are it's a fact.

I dare a religious person to come here and tell me different.