What should reasonable people make of the most recent wrong end of the world prophecy? Since gospel times, there have be predictions of the return of Jesus (Matthew 16: 27-28, 1 John 2:18).
Of course, since Jesus failed to fulfill the Messianic prophecies and usher in a new kingdom of Israel, his followers, in a state of cognitive dissonance, decided he would return and usher in a kingdom of heaven instead. He failed to fulfill the New Testament predictions of his soon return and continues to fail to show up.Why are people not intelligent enough to realize that the magical stories of the Bible are not true? Why do people not abandon the contradictions and false prophesies?
I predict that this is not the last false end of the world prophesy. Despite that Jesus himself supposedly predicted his return before all who were with him had perished, people continue to fall for this superstitious nonsense.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Exorcism
My brother recently liked a link on Facebook that his friend put up. To read the silliness see here.
Priests and other religious folk who perform exorcisms are doing the victim a disservice. There are no such things as demons but there are serious medical conditions that, if left untreated, could kill them. As the article states, the supposed tools to use against a demon are "Faith, prayer and fasting."
Faith is belief without or despite proof. It would be just as valid to believe that the supposed possessed is being tormented by God as by a demon since both demand faith. If we abandon faith in the unseen and use our abilities to reason, we can determine the true causes of a person's problems. There is a larger reason to reject faith that I hope to write about in the future.
Prayer has been shown to have no effect. Studies have shown that intercessory prayer is not effective. See here. The only effects seem to be psychological as shown in the study where those who knew they were being prayed for actual fared worse then either those who were not prayed for or those who were prayed for but did not know.
Fasting is one of the worst crimes exorcists commit against the supposed possessed. Forcing a sick person to starve themselves can be dangerous. Anneliese Michel died during an exorcism and was found to be severely malnourished.
Back to the silly article, the supposed exorcist made it seem like he was asking for help in a battle with demons. God was obviously too busy to prevent the demon from possessing one of his loyal followers and could not make an appearance in the battle himself. However, Pope John Paul II seems to be rather effective in fighting the good fight. Why the late Pope might be better then Jesus or Mary, who surely have been duking it out with demons for a longer period of time, is not made clear.
Priests and other religious folk who perform exorcisms are doing the victim a disservice. There are no such things as demons but there are serious medical conditions that, if left untreated, could kill them. As the article states, the supposed tools to use against a demon are "Faith, prayer and fasting."
Faith is belief without or despite proof. It would be just as valid to believe that the supposed possessed is being tormented by God as by a demon since both demand faith. If we abandon faith in the unseen and use our abilities to reason, we can determine the true causes of a person's problems. There is a larger reason to reject faith that I hope to write about in the future.
Prayer has been shown to have no effect. Studies have shown that intercessory prayer is not effective. See here. The only effects seem to be psychological as shown in the study where those who knew they were being prayed for actual fared worse then either those who were not prayed for or those who were prayed for but did not know.
Fasting is one of the worst crimes exorcists commit against the supposed possessed. Forcing a sick person to starve themselves can be dangerous. Anneliese Michel died during an exorcism and was found to be severely malnourished.
Back to the silly article, the supposed exorcist made it seem like he was asking for help in a battle with demons. God was obviously too busy to prevent the demon from possessing one of his loyal followers and could not make an appearance in the battle himself. However, Pope John Paul II seems to be rather effective in fighting the good fight. Why the late Pope might be better then Jesus or Mary, who surely have been duking it out with demons for a longer period of time, is not made clear.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Origin of Morality
One of the criticisms atheists get for Christians is about morality. If there is no God (Yahweh, Allah, etc.), what is the basis for morality. Where does morality come from?
This is the wrong question.The more important question is, what is the purpose of morality. If the purpose of morality is to be subservient to an angry deity, to abandon one's loved ones as Jesus commanded (Matt. 19:29) or in some other way serves to undermine human dignity, then it matters not where it comes from. If instead the purpose of morality is to improve man, to make him a better person and maximize his well being, then the question become relevant.
If morality is a tool of man, to improve his life, then morality can be determined through reason. It is not perfect, but claiming a perfect origin for morality is to lose the ability to judge right and wrong. To that what God deems is right is, then when confronted with a moral dilemma, such as if to kill in God's name as commanded in the Bible, you may abandon your moral sense.
Recent history is littered with examples of Christian's killing each other, killing abortion doctors, Muslims killing non-believers, the list goes on and on. And rather then using the faculty for reason, they justice clearly immoral actions in God's name.
Whether or not you believe in any god, morality must be founded on something that all mankind can use, even if they choose not to.
This is the wrong question.The more important question is, what is the purpose of morality. If the purpose of morality is to be subservient to an angry deity, to abandon one's loved ones as Jesus commanded (Matt. 19:29) or in some other way serves to undermine human dignity, then it matters not where it comes from. If instead the purpose of morality is to improve man, to make him a better person and maximize his well being, then the question become relevant.
If morality is a tool of man, to improve his life, then morality can be determined through reason. It is not perfect, but claiming a perfect origin for morality is to lose the ability to judge right and wrong. To that what God deems is right is, then when confronted with a moral dilemma, such as if to kill in God's name as commanded in the Bible, you may abandon your moral sense.
Recent history is littered with examples of Christian's killing each other, killing abortion doctors, Muslims killing non-believers, the list goes on and on. And rather then using the faculty for reason, they justice clearly immoral actions in God's name.
Whether or not you believe in any god, morality must be founded on something that all mankind can use, even if they choose not to.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The Tea Party
Many who know me might think that I favor the Tea Party movement. The first time I heard it, I thought it was a joke. The more I here about them, the more I understand about what they are protesting. One of the few politicians I respect is a big speaker for Tea Party crowds, Ron Paul.
However, I do not agree with everything the Tea Party stands for. It is a conservative movement pushing mostly conservative ideas.
However, I do not agree with everything the Tea Party stands for. It is a conservative movement pushing mostly conservative ideas.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Health care pre-existing conditions
Our new healthcare bill will forbid insurers from denying coverage to an individual who has a pre-existing condition. There is also a mandate that forces those who are better off without health insurance to buy insurance or pay the punishment. These evil people who think of only their own wellbeing will face a punishment of arround $750. This means that if you currently do not have any health issues, you may be better off just paying the punishment for your selfishness. But if you are afflicted with a serious ailment, you can choose to be a good person and pay your fair share and purchase insurance. Since you cannot be denied coverage, there is a bigger incentive to wait until you face a serious health issue before buying insurance.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
New health care bill
We now have a new health care bill passed along party lines and unfavored by the majority of Americans. This health care bill is predicted to raise health care costs and taxes. It mandates coverage for those who have already determined that their money is better spent elsewhere.
What solutions do we have to the increasing costs of health care? First we must ask, why are health care costs rising? There are some reasonable causes of increasing health care costs: increasing reliance on newer technologies, newer treatment techniques that require more highly trained, and therefore more costly, providers, etc. But there are reasons for the higher costs that we can control.
The burden of health care costs has shifted. The majority of health care costs were once primarily paid by the individual. Thanks to government tax policy and government price controls during World War II, much of the cost has been passed on to insurance. The incentives of the tax policy lead to the creation of more comprehensive insurance coverage. While comprehensive coverage benefits the sick and the poor the most, the majority of Americans do not benefits significantly.
We need to move away from a third party system where due to the reduced individual out of pocket costs, people have the incentive to over consume. Over consumption raises prices and therefore insurance costs. The current plan to add more people to the insurance rolls will cause prices to rise even higher as those who now must sacrifice things that gave them utility in order to purchase insurance. To make up for lost utility and due to reduces out of pocket cost for use of medical services, we will see and increase in health care consumption and even higher costs.
What solutions do we have to the increasing costs of health care? First we must ask, why are health care costs rising? There are some reasonable causes of increasing health care costs: increasing reliance on newer technologies, newer treatment techniques that require more highly trained, and therefore more costly, providers, etc. But there are reasons for the higher costs that we can control.
The burden of health care costs has shifted. The majority of health care costs were once primarily paid by the individual. Thanks to government tax policy and government price controls during World War II, much of the cost has been passed on to insurance. The incentives of the tax policy lead to the creation of more comprehensive insurance coverage. While comprehensive coverage benefits the sick and the poor the most, the majority of Americans do not benefits significantly.
We need to move away from a third party system where due to the reduced individual out of pocket costs, people have the incentive to over consume. Over consumption raises prices and therefore insurance costs. The current plan to add more people to the insurance rolls will cause prices to rise even higher as those who now must sacrifice things that gave them utility in order to purchase insurance. To make up for lost utility and due to reduces out of pocket cost for use of medical services, we will see and increase in health care consumption and even higher costs.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Why not government
Why am I opposed to government? I suppose it comes down to the radical idea that certain moral that all people, even in government, should follow. It is wrong to take property that is not your own. It is wrong to kill a person who does not pose a threat to others. It is wrong to threaten aggression against anyone who tries to compete against you.
Some might say that tax, as opposed to being taking someone else's property, is payment for services. But what if we do not want the service the government provides. Often times the government threatens aggression against those who would try to compete against it and other times you can hire competitive services, but you still have to pay for the government services too. Only a government can enjoy that luxury.
Some might say that tax, as opposed to being taking someone else's property, is payment for services. But what if we do not want the service the government provides. Often times the government threatens aggression against those who would try to compete against it and other times you can hire competitive services, but you still have to pay for the government services too. Only a government can enjoy that luxury.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)