Why I Don't Believe- Pt 1

This could be an evolving post, but I wanted to put down the reasons I went from being a Christian to an Atheist. Let me start with a brief history of my "faith."

I was raised Lutheran and really never had any reason to doubt the belief in God and Jesus, and I can't remember when I really started having doubts, but I think this is partially because my church was very liberal. Thus, I had little reason to doubt the ridiculous stories because the church (and my parents) taught the Bible more as the "inspired" word of God rather than the "literal" word. If I had questioned, they could have easily squirmed out of it.

I hated church growing up, but it was for simple, selfish, understandable reasons. I had to get up early on Sunday and partake in a ceremony that was dull. I think most kids felt the same way but still grew up very religious.

In my teen years, if someone had asked me if I believed in God, I am fairly certain I would have been confused and said "of course," because, due to my indoctrination, I didn't even understand there was an option. It would be like asking if I believed in gravity. When i was ~16, my mother wrangled me into a bible camp called Teens Encounter Christ. While I was very resentful at being forced into going, I was mad at my mom, not religion. However, I treated it like church (enduring everything while daydreaming) and the only thing relevant to my beliefs was from the last day- we had to get up and give little speeches to all the gathered adults and, not wanting to cause any waves but also without misrepresenting myself, I said something along the lines of "I was reminded that Jesus was a real figure who walked the earth, not just someone you read about." I think I meant that, though I am pretty sure I gave it no real thought. More than anything, I think I was just a teen who thought about hooking up with the girls at the camp far more than anything remotely scriptural.

After that, I don't think I really considered religion much until college. I am not sure when it occurred, but my first thought that really triggered doubt (or at least enough for me to remember it for years) was the question "why would a loving God punish someone for eternity? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy." I felt like if the core description of God was so flawed, then there was something very wrong with the doctrine. But I still didn't call myself an atheist and I still believed in God and Jesus for years after this.

Later in College, my mother related a story of an associate who didn't believe in "sin." I was dumbfounded and asked how she couldn't believe in sin. It seemed, again, like saying you don't believe in gravity. Ironically, this lead me to question the value I place on words. After further consideration I realized I was still holding on to words that I didn't actually believe in and this was not only another step in my evolution out of faith, it was also the beginning of a fascination in how the human mind works and how we think. This is one reason I have some hope when I see or talk to a believer who has a similar reaction to the questioning of God. If someone is truly taken off guard and defends their faith in this incredulous tone, I think it often means they have never had a reason to question it and, now that someone has, they might actually start to examine their beliefs.

This is long, so I will break it into two parts. Part 2 will deal with why I don't believe now, which isn't necessarily for the same reasons I began to doubt.

2012 Hysteria- Please off yourself

Speaking as someone who lived thru the lame Y2K scare, which at least had some foundation in reality with the computer programming concern, I really want these 2012 people to make good on their doomsday claims.

what annoys me most about 2012 fears is the fact that i suspect most people don't really believe it. i think they just enjoy the drama it creates. Before 2000, i worked with a fellow who loved to talk about the impending comet strikes or whatever, and he discussed a few leading up to the date, even being a bit smug when i laughed at him, but of course, he continued working and living his life.

So with the people who lend some credence to the 2012 theories, put your guns where your mouth is. You will post and talk about the end times, but I don't think you really believe it. i think it is just a fun diversion for you. if you really even claim to believe it, please explain why so i can look into it. it disgusts me how many people will make claims and not even try to legitimately back them up without admitting it is just for fun. i guess it takes the fun out of it if you admit to yourself or others that it is just a belief that lies in that gray area between where reality and fantasy meet, but I could accept it if you admitted it. But when you don't, it makes me crazy.

the dating system is freaking arbitrary, people. 2012 is a number we created. if it creates a fancy pattern on someone's calendar, it doesn't mean anything in relation to space time. get over.

and may i recommend Mahavishnu Orchestra's Birds of Fire? Great listen.

The Fourth Kind

Saw a trailer for this movie over the weekend (right before the craptastic Paranormal Activity), and they are trying to play up the "based on a true story" aspect to a really ridiculous extent (possibly in line with the popularity of movies like the current Paranormal Activity sensation) by going so far as to show A/B footage of the original interviews and the recreated interviews in the film.

For those who don't know, according to Wikipedia, "the film is purported to be a documentary reenactment set in Nome, Alaska, and deals with alien abductions."

The first thing that sends my skeptical bells screaming is the fact that the "original footage" they are showing is just people being interviewed, apparently under some sort of hypnosis or, at least, relaxed state. This is apparently what the film makers would like us to believe is strong proof of the phenomenon of alien abduction, but it makes me sad that they could even use it in their marketing to imply such to the public- do people really think impassioned accounts of wild tales, especially from people who appear to be in an altered mental state, is good evidence of a phenomenon? I think way too many people really do still believe such anecdotes; the human emotion to believe someone who is so emotional and confident about something is very strong.

On top of all this, Wikipedia also goes on to say "The film's trailer states that the story is based on "actual case studies," but does not specify which cases. As a result, much speculation has arisen regarding the search for documented evidence from the actual cases and whether Dr. Abigail Tyler is a real person or a fictional character for use in an internet viral marketing campaign."

So this might all be BS anyway. I was certainly suspicious that this was supposed to be so compelling but I have never even heard of the cases, and I was a Big Fan of aliens, paranormal, etc when i was growing up and now I am a Big Time skeptic of such things, so I am pretty familiar with any of the mid to large stories of the genre.

On a related note, the fact that the trailer states there are actual case studies but doesn't specify them points to a larger breakdown in our critical thinking as a society- I realize that a trailer is an unrealistic place to look for citations, but I will follow up with a blog at a later date on the problem of lack of citations because it is a huge problem with how people believe nonsense. I have gotten to a point where I call people out at soon as they start an argument that has a specific claim and they can't back it up because I have been in way too many pointless arguments where people make claims they can't even support.

Whether these accounts actually occurred, the bottom line is that the exceedingly gripping testimony of an unlikely claim from people is not compelling in the absence of corroborating evidence. If you are claiming that beings are traveling interstellar distances to sneak up to your window, hang around outside and then take you away and put you back without anyone knowing, then you better have something other than stories if you want me to believe it.

Oh, and if it is marketing hype and Milla is looking right into the camera and telling us it is true, then she is pretty crappy in my book.

H1N1 Scare, the press and Hannity

A week ago I caught part of Sean Hannity's show and was pleasantly surprised that he was discussing the topic of the H1N1 vaccine and the two doctors he had on were actually doctors and they made science based, level-headed remarks and Hannity even stated that he had his own children vaccinated. I almost contacted some skeptic podcasters to let them know.

Well, yesterday, October 28th, I had the misfortune of hearing Hannity again (i typically plug my MP3 player full of podcasts in as soon as i start the car so I don't have to endure any bad talk radio, but I was slow to the draw this time), and Sean had a "follow-up" on H1N1 and vaccines because, of course, he said he got flooded with emails and calls from people berating him for not having "both sides."

i wish i had the energy to look up the doctor he had on, but a quick google search turned up so much depressing fearmongering that i couldn't trudge thru to see if there was any info on yesterday's show. suffice to sy he had one doctor on who was level headed and was (of course) from a large public hospital while the "other side" was the head of a "medical group." this anti-vaxxer brought up autism within the first 30 seconds of his discussion even tho the topic was the H1N1 vaccine.

Aside from the standard bullshit weasel-words relating to "not knowing" enough, the most egregious fallacy he committed was done so very carefully. he attacked the duration and number of participants in studies for the efficacy and safety of the flu and H1N1 vaccines (and vaccines in general by proxy) and then brought up a "new study" of the hep-b (i think) vaccine that showed a "three fold increase" in autism. now, he didn't cite the study, but i can only assume (which is fair since he did not cite the source) that the study he was referring to was the one published in the NeuroToxicology journal which, from my readings, involved something like 13 monkeys. that's right, monkeys. this "doctor" made no mention of this and, since it followed his criticisms of the existing studies on vaccines in general, I would have thought this study was at least somewhat wide and thorough. Oh well. What a POS.

Additionally, this doctor claimed he has seen countless cases of people having long term, debilitating effects from vaccines (chronic soreness and fatigue) and said that these problems are grossly under-reported due to doctors telling the people they were fine or blaming the problems on pre-existing conditions. makes me wonder if people like this are exaggerating, lying or actually on to something. I really doubt the latter, but I am open to evidence.

In Hannity's defense, which is a rare position for me, he did sound a bit skeptical and critical, stating he had and he concluded the piece by saying he had his children vaccinated. It was still annoying to hear this person get such a platform, but at least he had a decent opponent and a host who wasn't altogether suckered.

The "Faith" Double Standard

I get this all the time- arguing for a naturalistic topic that is at odds with dogma (like evolution vs creationism), a religious person will say something along the lines of "it takes faith to believe in evolution because [insert argument here]."

Besides the fact that I have never had an experience where they were correctly using the term "faith," what annoys me is that they trot faith out as a dirty word when many of them (certainly the ones arguing with me) base their salvation on it. I suppose they think they are proving that we are just as guilty of relying on faith above reason as they are, but that still seems to be an admission by them that faith is inferior to reason.

What you are calling faith is totally different than trust in scientific research. Even if my acceptance of evolution turned out to be based on evidence that was interpreted incorrectly by thousands of scientists, it is a huge separation from the religious dogma that asks us to forsake reason and examination in favor of a blind acceptance of assertions about the origins of man.