Friday, June 20, 2008

The Bible on Women?

The moderate or liberal Christians will tell you that man and woman are created equal. Of course, the fundy will tell you otherwise. He'll adhere to his good-ol' book verbatim. What does the Bible really have to say on women? Lets find out.

The tenth commandment.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.


This is considered one of the only things in the Bible that is so profound that it had to come from God directly. Let's analyze this a bit further. Thou shalt not covet a house (property), manservant (slave, ergo property), maidservant (slave, ergo property), ox (property), ass (property), nor anything that is thy neighbour's (in the sense of property) and you should not covet his wife. Yes, ladies and gentleman, the big man's words himself put women in the same category as his husband's property. You would think that this omnipotent, omniscient God could have chosen better diction. You would think that he could have set up a better system. But alas, this is not the case. Women, you are hereby commanded to a lifetime of servitude to your husband. Why? Because God said so.

Genesis 3:16

To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."


This would definitely be my favorite quote of the Bible. It gives me complete control of my woman. Yup, this would definitely have to be my favorite quote. If I were a misogynist.

Genesis 19:1-8

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."


The greatest part of this story is that Lot is later considered an honorable man. Man, would I love to get my morals from this book. "Here, gang-bang my woman. She's filthy because she's a woman. My, what an honorable guy am I!!"

Exodus 22:16-17

16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.


Context? Sure. The preceding verses from Exodus 22 deal with restitution for stealing or damaging someones property. Verses 16 and 17 deal with restitution for defiling one's daughter. Not to the daughter herself. Oh no. This would be far too progressive for a bigoted book such as the Bible. The daughter is, of course, the father's property! Any compensation must go to him! After all, you did defile his daughter! If you aren't going to repay him, then who would you repay?!

Leviticus 12:1-5

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.


So let me get this straight. Bearing a female somehow makes you more unclean than bearing a male??

Leviticus 27:6

"And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver."


Ladies, you're worth exactly 3/5 of me. This sounds vaguely familiar from American History.

Deuteronomy 21:10-13

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.


Sounds like she has plenty of choice in this decision...

Deuteronomy 22:23-24

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.


This passage may be superficially deceptive. It seems as though both man and woman are receiving equal punishment for their crime. But look deeper. What is the reason behind this punishment? Retribution for the adulteress' husband. The adulterer's wife is conveniently not mentioned.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [a] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.


So if a father can't provide proof of his daughter's virginity they stone her to death? Wow, God's chosen people were brute savages. How can anyone have any respect for these people? How can anyone take seriously anything written in this book.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife...."


Well, America you heathen nation -- you're not supposed to punish the rapist, you're supposed to give him a wife!!

Judges 19:16-30

16 That evening an old man from the hill country of Ephraim, who was living in Gibeah (the men of the place were Benjamites), came in from his work in the fields. 17 When he looked and saw the traveler in the city square, the old man asked, "Where are you going? Where did you come from?"

18 He answered, "We are on our way from Bethlehem in Judah to a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim where I live. I have been to Bethlehem in Judah and now I am going to the house of the LORD. No one has taken me into his house. 19 We have both straw and fodder for our donkeys and bread and wine for ourselves your servants—me, your maidservant, and the young man with us. We don't need anything."

20 "You are welcome at my house," the old man said. "Let me supply whatever you need. Only don't spend the night in the square." 21 So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink.

22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it said, "Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Think about it! Consider it! Tell us what to do!"


What. The. Fuck?

1 Corinthians 11:3

3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.


1 Corinthians 14:34-35

34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.


Don't you dare speak in church you hag!

Ephesians 5:22-24

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.


Timothy 2:11-15

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.


And all of this barely scratches the surface! Women, why do you permit such subjugation to continue? Why do you surrender yourself to these antiquated, perverse ideas. You are not any less than I, or any man. Rise up. Let them hear your voice. Don't defend this sick, misogynistic religion.

By the way, you can find far more atrocities in the Bible and www.skepticsannotatedbible.com.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Pro-Creationist Bill Approved by Louisiana House

Unfortunately the not-so-wise house in Louisiana approved bill SB733, a pro-creationism bill. The bill is now headed to the senate for minor revisions and then will be sent to the conservative governor for approval. Barbara Forrest, and other people who are pro-good-science-education have started a group to counter these measures. Here's there take on it:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New group stands up for sound science education in Louisiana

LA Coalition for Science decries House support for SB 733, calls for Senate to reject bill

Baton Rouge, LA, June 11, 2008 – In response to numerous attacks on science education in the Bayou State, concerned parents, teachers and scientists are getting organized. The new group Louisiana Coalition for Science calls upon the Senate to oppose SB 733, a bill which will open the door to creationism in public schools.

Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and a founding member of the Louisiana Coalition for Science (LCFS), says, "The legislature shouldn't be allowing creationists to undermine Louisiana public schools. The House of Representatives just gave the Religious Right a green light to use other people's children for their own agenda." Forrest is the author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design and has served as an expert witness on the issue of intelligent design creationism. "The Louisiana legislature tried to force creationism into public schools in 1981, and they lost in the U. S. Supreme Court. The Discovery Institute, a national creationist organization, and the Louisiana Family Forum are using the same old tricks, but with new labels. In Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District in 2005, I showed that intelligent design was cooked up as a new name for the same old creationist arguments, and the strategy behind this bill is no different. Despite their denials, even the bill's backers know that SB 733 is a creationist bill written in creationist code language." The 1987 Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard overturned a Louisiana law requiring teachers to "balance" the teaching of evolution with creationism. In the Kitzmiller case, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that intelligent design is a form of creationism and that teaching it is an unconstitutional entanglement of religion with the state.

Patsye Peebles, a veteran biology teacher from Baton Rouge and a founding member of the Louisiana Coalition for Science, agrees that the bill should be rejected. "I was a biology teacher for 22 years, and I never needed the legislature to tell me how to present anything. This bill doesn't solve any of the problems classroom teachers face, and it will make it harder for us to keep the focus on accurate science in science classrooms. Evolution isn't scientifically controversial, and we don't need the legislature substituting its judgment for the scientists and science teachers who actually know the subject."

SB 733 lists evolution as an issue deserving of special scrutiny. Scientificorganizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, and the National Association of Biology Teachers have spoken out against this tactic of singling evolution out for criticism.

Betsy Irvine, a Presbyterian minister in Baton Rouge, explains, "Evolution is very strong science, and its place in science class should be uncontroversial. Many Christian traditions, including Catholicism, acknowledge the compatibility of evolution and Christian faith. It is shameful to see people sowing division on this subject. The spirit behind these attacks isn't just bad science, it's bad theology. This bill is an attack on the millions of faithful Christians who accept evolution. The best way both to protect the teaching of science in our public schools and to show respect for the religious freedom of all Louisiana residents is to unequivocally reject SB 733."

Forrest, who testified against the bill before the House Education Committee, calls upon the Senate to reject the bill. "Now that the House has passed the bill, the Senate has one more chance to do the right thing. The entire country is watching. They should reject this bill and let teachers do their jobs. This bill is being pushed by creationist groups and does nothing to help Louisiana, our teachers, or our children. It's heartbreaking to see so few people willing to stand up for Louisiana."

Forrest also commends the three legislators Rep. Patricia Haynes Smith, Rep. Jean-Paul Morrell, and Rep. Karen Carter Peterson who had the courage and integrity to speak out for the children of Louisiana by voting against the bill. "These three legislators put principle over politics. What a shame that 94 others could not do the same thing."

Louisiana Coalition for Science is a grassroots group working to protect the teaching of science in Louisiana. See http://lasciencecoalition.org.

Contacts:

Barbara Forrest barbara.forrest@gmail.com 985-974-4244

Patsye Peebles patsye.peebles@gmail.com 225-336-9023


I hope that this inane decision by the LA house is quickly rectified.

Thanks to Josh Rosenau for bringing this to my attention.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Nim Chimpsky and Animal Cruelty

After reading this review of Num Chimpky: The Chimp Who Would be Human this book has moved to the top of my reading list. Essentially Nim was a chimp raised in a human household in a language-learning experiment. The cruelty he suffered due to the hubris of some is depressing. Anyway, even if I had even a little bit of free time I'd love to read this book.

It's pretty saddening to see the level of animal cruelty today and the indifference to this cruelty. In fact, just the other day my girlfriend and I were walking in the park where four jack-asses were putting weight on a turtle's shell, knocking it upside down, etc. I wish there was something that I could have done. Those people should be flogged.

Thursday, June 5, 2008

My amazing girlfriend

Not that this has anything to do with atheism or anything, but I just wanted anyone who comes across this site to know that I love my girlfriend. Unconditionally. She is the best thing that has ever happened to me, and has made me happier than I have ever been in my life. I love you, J!

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Atheism vs Agnosticism

Even among the more intelligent people in society there is a misconception about what atheism is, what agnosticism is, and what the differences between the two are. People often think about the issue as a religiosity spectrum -- atheists and theists are diametrically opposite, while agnosticism is considered to be a moderate stance somewhere in the middle. Furthermore, an atheist is often considered one who obstinately disbelieves in God. These are both particularly vexatious fallacies.

Theism deals with belief whereas gnosticism, in this context, deals with an epistemic question. These are two entirely different spheres of thought, and are not mutually exclusive. That is the central thesis of this post.

The theist believes in the claim that God exists. The atheist does not believe it. Note that no claims of knowledge have been specified. Also note, that though an atheist does not share the theist's beliefs, this does not mean he believes in the idea that God does not exist. He may very well choose to do so, but this is not a prerequisite for atheism. An atheist is literally "one without theism." Not believing in an idea is not the same thing as rejecting in an idea. It may seem that I am getting agitated over petty semantics, however such implicit fallacies are often insidiously manipulated.

Another way to put this is there are two possible claims about the existence of God:

1. God does exist.
2. God does not exists.

Also, in the context of belief, there are two possible positions to take on each of the claims above:

1. Believing the claim.
2. Not believing the claim.

A theist is one who believes in claim 1 and does not believe in claim 2. An atheist is one who does not believe in claim 1, but can take either position on claim 2.

We can look at gnosticism in a similar way. A gnostic claims absolute knowledge about the existence or nonexistence of God, whereas an agnostic does not claim such knowledge. It is my opinion anyone who claims gnosticism to such an issue is either lying or deluded. However, the lack of absolute knowledge, or perhaps even the inability to ascertain this knowledge, should not prevent scrutiny of unjustifiable beliefs.

It should now be clear that knowledge and belief are distinct from one another, ergo the terms associated with each are not mutually exclusive. We can now describe people using four phrases in respect to their ideas about God: agnostic theists, agnostic atheists, gnostic theists, and gnostic atheists. In my experience, I have never met a truly gnostic atheist.

My speculation on why the initial misconception exists will be the subject of another post.

Monday, May 26, 2008

First image from Phoenix

Here is one of the first images from Phoenix showing the Martian terrain and horizon.



Way cool! More images here

Thursday, May 22, 2008

The Phoenix Has Landed

The Phoenix landed on Mars today. That is good news. Nasa's site lists four main goals for Phoenix:

--Determine whether Life ever arose on Mars

--Characterize the Climate of Mars

--Characterize the Geology of Mars

--Prepare for Human Exploration


Follow the mission here