Footage from the Epica Concert!

Cry For The Moon

Follow your common sense
You cannot hide yourself behind a fairytale forever and ever
Only by revealing the whole truth can we disclose
The soul of this sick bulwark forever and ever
Forever and ever

Indoctrinated minds so very often
Contain sick thoughts
And commit most of the evil they preach against

Don't try to convince me with messages from God
You accuse us of sins committed by yourselves
It's easy to condemn without looking in the mirror
Behind the scenes opens reality

Eternal silence cries loud for justice
Forgiveness is not for sale
Nor is the will to forget

Follow your common sense
You cannot hide yourself behind a fairytale forever and ever
Only by revealing the whole truth can we disclose
The soul of this sick bulwark forever and ever
Forever and ever

Virginity has been stolen at very young ages
And the extinguisher loses its immunity
Morbid abuse of power in the garden of Eden
Where the apple gets a youthful face

Eternal silence cries loud for justice
Forgiveness is not for sale
Nor is the will to forget

Follow your common sense
You cannot hide yourself behind a fairytale forever and ever
Only by revealing the whole truth can we disclose
The soul of this sick bulwark forever and ever
Forever and ever

You can't go on hiding yourself
Behind old fashioned fairytales
And keep washing your hands in innocence

Seif Al Din (Sword of Faith)

The origin of a dogma
Placed in a new millennium
Vilified demons have been embraced
And given a warm welcome

The Seif al Din
Hasn't got the ghost of a chance to rust
Because it has always been kept in shape
In serving the one Almighty

The rudiments have always been misinterpreted during history,
despite the good intentions of many disciples whose faithful beliefs were strong and unswayed.
Most leaders interpret the old words to their
advantage in the attempt of gaining leadership and power
over those unfortunate enough to fall under their maliciousness and manipulative ways.
This misuse of trust will forever stain the pages of history,
echoing the exploitation and the frailty of decent
men carried away by nurtured rancour...

Perpetual distrust fed by a belief
In the malevolence of the others

When the beautiful unreality holds out its hand
It's better not to lose yourself in blind faith

La Illah Illallah, Mohammed rasul Allah

Why It's So Tricky for Atheists to Debate with Believers

Debates over faith often leave non-believers holding the bag: look like a jerk or leave the debate unfinished and apparently concede defeat.

By Greta Christina

January 16, 2010 |

In conversations between atheists and believers, is there any way atheists can win?

I've been in a lot of discussions and debates with religious believers in the last few years, and I'm beginning to notice a pattern. Believers put atheists in no-win situations, so that no matter what atheists do, we'll be seen as either acting like jerks or conceding defeat.

Like so many rhetorical gambits aimed at atheists, these "damned if you do, damned if you don't" tactics aren't really valid criticisms of atheism. They really only serve to deflect valid questions and criticisms about religion. But they come up often enough that I want to spend a little time pointing them out. I want to spell out the exact ways that these "no-win" situations are both unfair and inaccurate. And I want to point out the general nature of this no-win pattern—in hopes that in future debates with atheists, believers will be more aware of them, and will play a little more fairly.

When atheists focus our critiques on conservative or extremist religions, we get accused of ignoring the tolerant progressive ones and lumping all religions together. But when we do criticize progressive or moderate religions, we're accused of mean-spirited overkill, of alienating people who could be our allies.

Why this is untrue and unfair: It doesn't make much sense to assume that the atheist critique of religion you're reading that moment is the only atheist critique of religion this writer has ever come up with. Most atheist writers who criticize religion do so many times, and from many angles. We critique extremist fundamentalism, and moderate ecumenicalism. We critique specific religious beliefs and practices, and the general belief in the supernatural. It's not "lumping all religions together" to point out the flaws and hypocrisies and evils committed by one in particular.

So if we're writing about the harm done by gay-hating fundamentalism or the pedophile-enabling Catholic Church, please don't complain that we're "lumping all religions together." We're not talking about your religion. We did that last week.

And yes, we can criticize progressive religions and still be their allies on issues we agree on. Just like any movement can be critical of other movements and still work with them as allies.

When atheists criticize Christianity, we get accused of being cowards for not criticizing Islam. But when we criticize Islam, we get accused of cultural insensitivity.

Why this is untrue and unfair: And I say yet again: It's neither fair nor reasonable to assume that the atheist critique you're reading right that second is the only one this atheist has ever written. If an atheist is criticizing Christianity today, it doesn't mean they didn't criticize Islam last week.

Most American atheists do focus our attentions largely on Christianity—mainly because it's the religion that's most in our face on a daily basis. But I don't know of any serious atheist writer who hasn't criticized Islam. I certainly have. I've criticized Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, fundamentalist Christianity, progressive Christianity, Hinduism, Wicca, Baha'i, and that religion that worships a blue peacock. To name but a few.

As for cultural insensitivity in criticizing Islam... well, given how Islam and Islamic theocracies have historically treated women and gays, I'd call it culturally insensitive not to criticize it. I agree that some atheists can be racist, xenophobic jerks (especially on the Internet—the Internet does seem to bring the racist, xenophobic jerks out of the woodwork, from every group). But to slam as "culturally insensitive" any criticism of Islam as it's widely and commonly practiced...that's pretty freaking insensitive to the people who are victimized by it.

When atheists focus our critiques on ordinary religious beliefs held by the majority of people, we are accused of ignoring advanced modern theology and focusing on outdated beliefs that nobody takes seriously anymore. But when atheists do argue against modern theology, we are accused of elitism. What's more, when we argue against Modern Theologian A, we're accused of ignoring Modern Theologian B... and when we argue against Modern Theologian B, we're accused of ignoring Modern Theologian C... in an infinite regress of movable goalposts.

Why this is untrue and unfair: Most atheist activists don't care very much about religion as it's practiced by a handful of modern theology scholars. If all religion were the religion of modern theology scholars... well, we still wouldn't agree with it, but we probably wouldn't bother putting much energy into arguing with it.

We care about religion as it's believed and practiced by the overwhelming majority of people who believe it. By definition, those beliefs are not outdated. A belief in a personal interventionist creator god who answers prayers and doles out punishment and reward in the afterlife...that is not an outdated belief. It's what most believers believe in. Even belief in faith healing, demonic possession, magical objects and substances...these are still widespread, around the country and around the world. Heck, nearly half of all Americans believe in young-earth Creationism. When atheists battle these beliefs, we are not fighting straw men. We are fighting real beliefs and practices, with real effects on people's lives. And as it happens, many atheists are familiar with modern theology. And we're really not impressed. How much of it do we have to read before we're allowed to conclude that it makes no sense?

When atheists attempt to present an organized, unified front, we are accused of being Stalinist group-think robots. But when we're honest about disagreements among us, we are derided and dismissed for the supposed 'schisms' that are supposedly dooming our movement to failure.

Why this is untrue and unfair: I am so tired of hearing about the "schisms" in the atheist movement, I could plotz. Look. We don't have a central dogma or organization to split away from. We're a diverse movement with lots of differences among us...and we don't view that as a weakness. We view it as a great strength.

Besides...how does this make us different from any other movement for social change? In all of history, I can't think of any other social change movement that hasn't had internal disagreements; disagreements large and small, disagreements over minor tactics and over major values and goals. Sometimes movements set aside these differences to focus on what everyone agrees on; sometimes they focus on these differences and try to hammer them out. And sure, sometimes that hammering-out process results in pointless in-fighting...but sometimes it results in real progress.

And in particular, the difference between firebrand confrontationalists and polite diplomacists (the supposed "schism" in the atheist movement that the news media has been pissing itself over) has existed in every single social change movement I can think of. And while it can be a source of tension, it can also very much work in our favor—for the same reasons that every other social change movement in history has been able to play "good cop, bad cop" to its advantage.

When atheists say we don't believe in God, we're told we can't possibly be moral people. But when we make our morality clear in word and deed, many believers insist that we must be spiritual or religious or following God unconsciously—even if we deny it.

Why this is untrue and unfair: Talk about an unfalsifiable hypothesis! If any act of morality is seen as an act of spirituality by definition, is there any possible way atheists can prove we genuinely don't believe in God? Do we have to eat babies or push little old ladies in front of buses to prove that we're not religious?

To say that ethical atheists must be motivated by religion is a classic case of assuming the thing you're trying to prove. And it's completely unfalsifiable: no possible evidence could show that it's wrong. If atheists behave ethically, that somehow proves that we're really religious; if we behave badly, it somehow proves that atheism is inherently bad and leads people away from morality. It couldn't possibly be that atheists are just human beings—a mix of good and bad, some tilted more in one direction than others. And it couldn't possibly be that our lack of belief in any sort of god is entirely sincere.

As long as we don't know exactly how organic life began from non-life, then atheists' conclusion that life almost certainly began as physical cause and effect will be called blind faith in materialism. But if we can replicate abiogenesis (the origins of life from non-life) in the laboratory—something that's expected to happen in the next few years—this will be seen as proof that life had to be intentionally created. After all, it required people working in a lab for decades to make it happen!

Why this is untrue and unfair: This one drives me up a tree. The conclusion that life almost certainly began as a chemical process is not blind faith. It's a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. The overwhelming body of evidence supports the conclusion that life is a physical, biochemical process, developed into its current state of complexity and diversity by the natural process of evolution. It is reasonable to conclude that this phenomenon began as a physical, proto-biochemical process.

And when/if abiogenesis does get replicated in the lab, that's hardly proof that life had to be designed. I'm sorry, but that's just silly. Natural processes get replicated in the lab all the time. We grow mold in Petri dishes—does that mean mold can't occur naturally?

If atheists don't offer specific arguments and evidence supporting atheism, we are told, 'See? Atheism is just as much a matter of faith as religion.' But when we do provide evidence and arguments for our position, we are accused of proselytizing.

Why this is untrue and unfair: Sometimes when atheists write about atheism, we take God's non-existence as a given. Like pretty much everyone else in the world, we don't always want to discuss first principles; we sometimes want to move on to other topics, such as movement strategy, or the dissemination of critical thinking skills, or who's the sexiest atheist. We've made the "God doesn't exist" argument elsewhere, and we don't want to recap it every single time. That doesn't make atheism an article of faith. It makes it a conclusion that we've reached and are moving on from. (If you really want to know what our evidence and our arguments are for our non-belief, we can usually point you toward something.)

As for the accusation that we're proselytizing: All too often, the word "proselytizing" gets tossed around when what's really meant is, "Attempted persuasion by people I don't agree with." Persuasion is not proselytizing. And if you insist that it is, you'll have a hard time explaining what's so bad about it.

Religion is a hypothesis about the world: the hypothesis that things are the way they are, at least in part, because of supernatural entities or forces acting on the natural world. And there's no good reason to treat it any differently from any other hypothesis. Which includes pointing out its flaws and inconsistencies, asking its adherents to back it up with solid evidence, making jokes about it when it's just being silly, offering arguments and evidence for our own competing hypotheses...and trying to persuade people out of it if we think it's mistaken. It's persuasion. It's the marketplace of ideas. Why should religion get a free ride?

If atheists admit they can't be 100 percent certain of God's non-existence, believers pounce on that fragment of uncertainty, and atheism is accused of being as much a matter of faith as religion. But if atheists insist they are 100 percent certain that God does not exist (or as close to 100 percent certain as anyone can be), then believers pounce on that certainty...and atheism is accused of being as much a matter of faith as religion.

Why this is untrue and unfair: This is one of my pet peeves. It's just so transparently unfair. We don't apply the "absolute 100 percent certainty" standard to any other type of conclusion. If we conclude that the cat is somewhere in the house even though we can't see it, or that there isn't a pink pony behind our sofa that teleports to Guam the minute we look back there, or that the earth is orbiting the sun, nobody insists that these conclusions are articles of faith just because there's an infinitesimal hypothetical possibility we might be wrong. These are seen as reasonable conclusions, based on the available evidence.

So when atheists say, "No, I'm not 100 percent sure that there is no God, there's almost nothing that we can be 100 percent sure of—but so what, we can still make reasonable conclusions about what's probable and plausible based on the available evidence, and all the evidence we have now points to God not existing, so I feel confident in rejecting the God hypothesis unless I see better evidence"... that doesn't make our atheism an article of faith. And when other atheists say, "Yes, I'm 100 percent sure that there is no God: the fragment of hypothetical possibility that God exists is so insignificant that it's not even worth considering, I'm 100 percent certain that there are no leprechauns or unicorns—or as close to 100 percent as anyone could reasonably expect—and I see no reason to treat God any differently"... then again, that doesn't make their atheism an article of faith.

The only thing that would make atheism a true article of faith would be if atheists said, "Nothing you could possibly say, nothing I could possibly see or experience, no evidence you could possibly provide me, could ever convince me that my atheism was wrong. My belief in the non-existence of God is an a priori assumption; it is unshakable, as constant as the Northern Star." And I have yet to encounter an atheist who says that.

Finally—and maybe most crucially of all:

When we speak out in any way about our atheism—and when we continue to organize, and to make ourselves and our ideas more visible and vocal, and to generally turn ourselves into a serious movement for social change—we are accused of being hostile, fanatical, rude, evangelical, bigoted and extremist.

But if we don't speak out, if we don't organize, if we don't forge ourselves into a powerful and visible movement...then the bigotry and misinformation and discrimination against us will continue unabated.

Why this is untrue and unfair: We really can't win on this one. Even the most mild forms of atheist activism and visibility result in believers accusing us of disrespect, intolerance and forcing our beliefs on others. If we do something as mild and unthreatening as putting up bus ads saying "You can be good without God" or "Don't believe in God? You are not alone," you can bet good money that plenty of believers will get worked up about how those terrible atheists are insulting Christians and other believers. The purest act of visibility—the simple act of standing up and saying out loud, "Atheists exist and are good people"—is treated as another example of the offensive, dogmatic, in-your-face extremism of the atheist movement.

But here's the skinny:

There has never once been a marginalized group that has won recognition and rights by sitting back and waiting politely for it to happen. There has never once been a marginalized group that has won recognition and rights by doing anything other than speaking out, organizing, making itself visible and vocal. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

So you'll have to forgive us if we take the accusations of our offensive, dogmatic, in-your-face extremism with something of a grain of salt. You'll have to forgive us if we listen to the concerned advice from believers about how our confrontational tactics are alienating people and we need to dial it back...and respond by giving it the horse laugh, and continuing to do what we've so successfully been doing. You'll have to forgive us if we treat the attempts to quiet us down as attempts to shut us up.

If you have a valid critique of a particular atheist or atheist idea, by all means, speak up. And if you have what you think is a valid critique of the atheist movement as a whole, we'd be interested to hear about it. We're not perfect, and we don't claim to be.

But please make sure your criticisms are fair. Please make sure your criticisms don't just put us into a rhetorical box, where we can't win no matter what we do. Please make sure your criticisms are a genuine attempt to engage with atheists and the atheist movement...and not just an attempt to stop the conversation and make us go away.

I Respond To Arguments (1/27)

The argument:

I could only read thru half of this [sorry guys I thought it was gonna make my head explode] but my response to this is Justin STFU! everyone is entitled to believe what we wanna believe

Its not worth anyone's time trying to change peoples opinions. we are all able to have religious freedom which is granted by the laws of this great nation.
In my personal beliefs it is better to believe now and be wrong in the end than not believe and be wrong. And if some form of religion is able to stop someone from shooting their neighbor or a pain in the ass then the belief in God has had the right effect.

I know my writing is not as intellectual as the rest of those who responded but I tried to get to the point when I finish reading the second half I'll be a more in depth.

My response:

----
@ "Justin STFU! everyone is entitled to believe what we wanna believe"

Why do you say that "everyone is entitled to believe what we wanna believe" when people propose no good reasons for their beliefs?

Should President Obama, Governor Ed Rendell, Vice President Joe Biden, and Father O'Hara be totally unquestioned in their policies, ideas, and propositions simply so they are "entitled to their own beliefs?" Why should religion and religious people get a "get out of jail free card" and not have to provide any justifications?

This is the fallacy of special pleading. Surely you don't go around saying, "Don't say bad things about this movie, song, restaurant, person, class, computer, etc."

"You don’t have a right to an opinion you can’t defend. And we don’t have to agree to disagree – if you were intellectually honest, you’d agree that you’re wrong! … All critical, open-minded thinkers consider objections, weigh evidence, and revise their beliefs even when they are proven wrong."

-DKJ

----

Megan started this thread, Matt responded, Kingsley responded, and we had a long discussion. Should discussions not happen simply because "people should be entitled to believe what they want?" I didn't even hop in until post thirteen.

You seem very enraged by my posting. Please explain why. If you can find any bad arguments or logical fallacies I have presented, please point them out.

Also, why not critique Matt, Kingsley, and Megan for their posts?

----
@ "Its not worth anyone's time trying to change peoples opinions."

Guess what. You should be my butler, give me 50 dollars each day, and wash my feet every morning. Why should you do this? Ahh, don't question me! I'm entitled to believe what I want!

In life, when people make propositions we disagree with, we ask for explanations and have a discussion, lest we move on and ignore.

It's not worth time trying to change peoples' opinions, you say? Do you think the American Civil War, the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, the campaign to end smoking in restaurants, womens' rights movements, and all other social initiatives or discussions to foster change are/were "wastes of time?"

Do you think political debates, advertising campaigns, political races, public opinion polls, surgeon general warnings, and philosophy are a "waste of time?"

----
@ "we are all able to have religious freedom which is granted by the laws of this great nation."

Discussion and debating regarding someone's religious views has nothing whatsoever to do with "religious freedom." I'm not trying to "take away peoples' rights" to be religious, but rather am participating in discussions about religion, the basis for belief, the need for evidence, and everything else.

(Kingsley, Matt, or Megan may choose to do whatever they want, but they ought to have good reasons for their choices, I would argue. If they don't, I'd argue that they are intellectually lazy.)

----

@ "In my personal beliefs it is better to believe now and be wrong in the end than not believe and be wrong"

This is a version of Pascal's Wager.

Why is belief in something better than the absence of a belief when there are no rational justifications for the belief?

Also, we can switch the gods around and apply it to anything. Why don't you believe in Zeus, Amon-Ra, Krishna, Thor, Allah, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Shiva, or Lord Xenu? Surely, bad things might happen if you don't believe in them!

Also, belief is not merely a matter of policy or saving your ass. An all-knowing or at least "decent knowing" god would be able to see through that; you can't just "pretend" to believe in something in the face of a god.

For example, I tell you, believe that you should give me five dollars a day or you'll get tortured by JuJu Monsters when you die! It's better to believe in something now than not believe and be wrong.

There may also be a god who rewards people for being skeptical and challenging the claims of all religions that mankind knows.

Asserting this wager also does nothing to prove that this being exists or gives any reason to believe other than reward or punishment in a life that may or may not even exist after this life.

What if the god is a maltheist? What if the god doesn't care? What if there are many gods? etc, etc, etc.

Your chance of being right and casting this wager are one in infinity...it's quite a bad bet to make.

This wager also assumes that there is no cost of belief, but there clearly is. Willing yourself to believe in a supernatural being may lead you to do any of the following things: give up sex, pork, money, food, clothes, time, intellectual honesty, skepticism, critical thinking, people who disagree with you, blood transfusions, exploring the question of god further, investigation into science, a new community, etc.

----

@ "And if some form of religion is able to stop someone from shooting their neighbor or a pain in the ass then the belief in God has had the right effect."

Well, it's interesting and ironic that "some form of religion" has left countless individuals to commit atrocities that would otherwise almost certainly not have been committed if religion were not to exist.

Think about 7/7, 9/11, Danish Cartoon Controversies, constant suicide combing in the Middle East, The Holocaust, general religious strife and wars, Witch Hunts, death of children because parents "didn't believe in medicine," female genital mutilation, the Pope telling Africans that condoms may make AIDS worse, missionaries telling people in third-world coutries that they don't need to use condoms, the Ugandan "kill the gays bill," The Crusades, etc, etc.

Sure, many of these actions still may have been commited for different reasons than religion (very speculative), but even if I grant that, this doesn't change the fact that religion was the exclusive cause for all of this nonsense.

Also, isn't this claim of yours very demeaning toward human beings? Do we really need some sort of celestial dictator to tell us what is right and wrong? Are we not good enough that we need books to tell us how to live an ethical life? If you suddenly didn't believe in god, do you think you'd go out shooting neighbors? Millions of non-believers do no such thing...I challenge you to find me one news story in the last five years (or even longer) where someone killed another person or caused great harm specifically because he/she did not believe in God. The corollary, find one news story...where someone killed another person because he/she believed in God can be found almost instantly.

If believers have some great moral authority or somehow behave better than non-theistic individuals, please name one moral action or statement than a theist can make that a non-theist can't. Think about the corollary, now, name one immoral action or statement that a theist can make that a non-theist can't. You've already thought of one for the second claim...

Religion does not compel people to behave better. A strong correlation between non-theistic nations and theistic nations (in regards to population) shows that non-theistic nations are more peaceful.

""In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18373331/The-Chronic-Dependence-of-Popular-Religiosity-Upon-Dysfunctional-Psycho-Sociological-Conditions

Religion has clearly caused much, much, much more harm than it has done good in this world.

"You Can't Disprove God"

During discussions, theists often say the following, "You can't disprove God or show that he doesn't exist! Prove that God doesn't exist!"

This is a logical fallacy known as attempting to shift the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

Saying that we can't disprove something is no good reason for belief and certainly is not a good argument.

It's impossible to "prove that something doesn't exist." The person making the claim, the claimant, must show evidence to people as to why the claim should be accepted.

Prove that ogres don't exist. Prove that faeries don't exist.

You simply can't do this. Since we see no evidence or good arguments for the existence of ogres and faeries, we should not accept the claim that they exist.

If a theist makes the claim that God exists, it's not up to me to "disprove" God. I may levy objections against their claims or cast doubt on their position, but my stance and my role is not to "disprove God."

The stance that an atheist takes is simply no belief in a god or gods. Atheism is not a stance in favor of a proposition, but rather is a stance that is not in favor of a proposition.

---

Suppose I walk up to you and say, "I can fly." In this situation, I am making a positive claim, thus it is up to me to prove this. It's not up to other people to demonstrate that I can't fly.

Suppose I claim that Elvis came back from the dead. It's up to me to show evidence of this. If I can't provide evidence (good arguments, tangible proof, reason), you shouldn't accept my claim. Just because you say, "I don't believe that Elvis came back from the dead" does not mean that that you have to "disprove" Elvis. Again, it's impossible to disprove something.

---

The atheist, a person who doesn't believe in God simply does not accept claims made by the believer/the person making the claim.

Atheists, no matter on what probablility, don't believe that God exists just like "a-leprechaunists" don't accept the claim that leprechauns exist. I would say that I'm about 99.9% sure that God doesn't exist because I see no good reason to believe that he exists...just like the people who don't believe that leprechauns exist.

This position, though, is not self refuting. To say that you don't believe in something is not a positive claim; you don't accept the claim being made. If you want to assign probabilities, by default, the person who doesn't believe in the claim being made is not less than 50% sure about this or unsure by any means. If it were 50-50, the person obviously isn't sure about the claim being made and would not take a position "I don't believe," but would rather say, "I'm not sure."

----

Here is a wonderful link discussing logic and philosophy regarding the burden of proof:

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/etexts/phil_of_religion_text/chapter_5_arguments_experience/burden-of-proof.htm

----

Carl Sagan's Dragon in my Garage:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

God, Suffering, Pain, Significance

This AMAZING article is written by a former Christian named Paula Kirby. I'd love to repost it here.

Original Link

Question: Many have criticized Pat Robertson's suggestion that the catastrophic earthquake in Haiti was the work of the devil or a form of divine punishment. But if one believes God is good and intervenes in the world, why does God allow innocents to suffer? Why does God allow Haiti to suffer so much? What is the best scriptural text or explanation of that problem you've ever read?

It is the year 2010. Over the last three to four centuries we have amassed a huge amount of knowledge about the Earth and its place in the universe. There is much yet to learn, but the knowledge we have acquired would have astounded our forefathers.

Thanks to marvelously sophisticated technology, itself the result of an accurate understanding of the workings of the universe, humans have walked on the moon. We have landed explorer robots on Mars, and have photographed the nucleus of Halley's Comet, the surface of Betelgeuse and new planetary systems forming in Orion. We know the approximate composition of the individual planets and comets, we know the approximate number of stars in our galaxy and of galaxies in our universe. We know the size of the universe, and its age, and the forces that drive its expansion. We know which stars are hot and which are cool, which ones are new and which are ancient beyond all imagining. We have detected planets in other solar systems, and know their size and the shape of their orbit, and whether it is possible that they contain any of the chemical prerequisites for life. Back on our own planet, we know how it was formed, and when. We can read its history, inscribed forever in the rocks. We know what forms its surface and the underlying mantle, and can make an informed guess at what makes up its core. We know how life evolved from its earliest, infinitely primitive forms into the staggering array of species we see around us today. We know what causes night and day, the seasons, and the tides. We can predict to the minute when the next solar eclipse will take place, and from where it will be visible.

And - crucially, in the context of this question - we know exactly what causes earthquakes.

All this knowledge is new to us. Our species, Homo sapiens, has been in existence for at least the last 100,000 years, perhaps more, and for the vast majority of our collective past, we had no proper explanations for any of these things. No wonder, then, that our forefathers imagined that storms and tempests, floods and droughts, famines and disease, volcanoes and earthquakes were caused by demons, or at the hands of divine beings whose wrath they themselves had been so unfortunate as to incur.

Our primitive ancestors - and even our more recent ones - had no knowledge of plate tectonics, of subduction zones or sea-floor spreading. How could they know of the pressures that build up along faults in the Earth's crust, sometimes over hundreds and hundreds of years, but no less inexorably for that? To them earthquakes, when they came, were not just terrifying and devastating - as indeed they still are today - they were utterly mysterious, beyond comprehension, totally inexplicable. And yet humans have minds that seek explanations and so, in the absence of scientific understanding, they resorted to the supernatural. We can forgive them for that: any apparent explanation, no matter how preposterous, no matter how harsh, is comforting compared with the terror of unknowing. The idea of a cosmic battle between Good and Evil, or of natural disasters as the acts of a wrathful deity, must have seemed reasonable enough, in the absence of anything better.

But we have no such excuse today. The physical processes that cause natural disasters are well understood, and we know that they proceed in total blind indifference to us, our wishes, our fears, our hopes, our desires, our virtues or our peccadilloes.

To be fair, even most religious people acknowledge this (how could they not?). Indeed, it is this very realization that underlies the question of how a loving God could permit such suffering, a question that has kept generation after generation of theologians in a living. As ever, instead of looking at the reality of the world around them and drawing their conclusions about the nature - or even existence! - of the god they worship based on what they see, the theologians start with their desired answer - God is good! - and then contort themselves into ever more desperate intellectual non-sequiturs in order to twist the evidence to fit that answer.

The explanations (sic) that they come up with fall into three broad categories:

1. God wanted to create humans, and human life is only possible where there are plate tectonics and, consequently, earthquakes. (That life is only possible on Earth because of plate tectonics may well be true; but how odd that theologians should wish to claim that the all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful creator of the laws of physics could not have created them so as to permit life without the kind of suffering that plate tectonics cause.)

2. That God created the world perfect, and that such suffering was never part of his purpose for us, but that human rebellion opened the door to our suffering.

3. It's a mystery.

The third of these can be dismissed since it just means, 'Yes, you're right, it really doesn't make sense, does it? But I want you to go on believing it anyway.'

The first two are more interesting, because you will note that they put humans well-and-truly center stage. It's all about us! Yippee! We are important! So important that the whole universe was created with us in mind! And so important that our misdeeds are enough to change all the laws of physics!

We humans cannot even survive in the vast majority of the conditions prevailing on our own planet. The Earth's atmosphere extends to about 60 miles above us, but we can only breathe at altitudes lower than roughly one and a quarter miles above sea-level. 70% of the surface of the Earth is covered by water, an element in which we are unable to survive unaided for more than a few hours. The deepest point of the oceans is nearly 36,000 feet; but if we venture unaided more than about 180 feet down, the pressure will crush us. Too hot and we die. Too cold and we die. Too high and we die. Too low and we die. And humans have only been around for less than one-hundredth of one percent of Earth's history. And this, on a planet supposedly created for us!

It gets worse. This tiny planet is not even a pinprick on the scale of the universe, a universe which is something like 40 billion light years in size. What is that in miles? The distance traveled by light in a single year is 5.87 trillion miles, so I'll leave you to multiply that by 40 billion and find space for all the zeroes.

The idea that any of this has anything at all to do with us, that it was created with us in mind, or that our 'sinfulness' has had any effect whatsoever on the majestic, monumental and utterly indifferent laws of physics, is egotism of the highest order. Not bad, for a religion that preaches humility!

It would be comical, hilarious, side-splittingly funny - but for one thing. This obsession with human behavior and the ugly conviction that there is some kind of link between suffering and sin, whether individual, national or original, leads to the kind of repugnant, sickening, disgraceful attitudes voiced by Pat Robertson this last week. Just when the rest of the world is overwhelmed with compassion, with the urgent desire to help those whose suffering is beyond our capacity to imagine it (with initiatives such as Non-Believers Giving Aid, for instance), Pat Robertson and others like him are saying, 'They brought it on themselves'. It is not enough, apparently, that they should be traumatized, grieving and in pain. They should be feeling guilty as well. It is not enough that we should help them. We should judge them too.

Give me the indifference of the laws of physics rather than the hubristic self-righteousness of the religious any day.

I Respond To Arguments (1/23)

"Scripture is a religious invention inextricably linked to God."

Where is the evidence to support the linkage of scripture to God? Where is the evidence that God actually inspired the scripture, actually exists, and has the qualities he is assigned?

"So it makes complete sense that Jesus, being 1/3 God, would follow his own rules."

He makes new rules, changes the old ones...but then says that not a tittle of the law will be changed...but then says...

Again, it's a grave difficulty that God even made these barbaric rules to being with. God and Jesus obviously aren't answering to anyone and just make the rules. God could have easily made an exception to the rules.

"I intend to neither deny nor support his existence"

I'm very happy you're being honest and are willing to critically evaluate the claims.

" and instead portray that sinners of all kinds and extents are free to believe what they want but nothing conclusive can really be determined."

If nothing conclusive can be determined, we should either withhold judgment or not believe in any of the claims (or at least the major ones?).

I'd love for people to truly be free to believe what they want, but the monotheisms really aren't fond of that as the non-believers, people of other cultures who are in different religions but don't accept religion "x," or people who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit are apparently doomed according to the Bible. Surely not all theists believe all of these, but the guilt-tripping and fear-mongering, you'd have to admit is horrendous. Jesus really doesn't give you choices, but rather insists that you believe under pain of eternal torture while others invoke Pascal's Wager.

Jesus could have easily said, "Hey, guys, feel free to do what you want, but just be good people. I'm not going to condemn people just for following other paths in life." This, of course, is far from the case.

Imagine, right now, if someone walked into your room and pointed a gun to the back of your head, threatened to stab you, etc, and said the following, "I did so many great things for you, love you so much, and promise you anything you want if you love me in return, but if you don't, I'm going to kidnap and torture you. Now, I'm going to let you make a choice and will give you some time to do it. Choose your option. "

Jesus/God are doing almost exactly the same thing except we can change one bit, "if you don't, I'm going to forsake you for eternity/torture you for eternity/deny you paradise/etc." Where is the free will in that?

Imagine, also, if someone left love letters at your door that contained messages from a person named "K.L.M" who you never met before in your life. He writes a great autobiography of himself and tells you how much he loves you. You never, though, met the person in real life, but only read the stories he wrote. After a few letters of him promising great rewards of money, chocolate, and anything you want, he gives you an ultimatum: "You can choose to love me, but if you don't, I'm going to kidnap you one day and torture you in a basement." Again, here, Jesus is essentially doing the same thing.

How can anyone possibly ever be morally justified in loving a person [being] who does not disclose itself and provide tangible evidence for its existence?

How can anyone possibly ever be morally justified in loving a person or being who doesn't make himself clear, is very dubious, and threatens to do bad things to you fi you don't return a love that you don't even have in the first place?

God claims that he loves you so much, but why should you be, under pain of eternal torture, love him and follow his rules?

In real life, any person may claim to love you so much and do anything for you, but you certainly can not love this person if he never even met you or provided clear evidence of who he is (think, even, of an online stalker). You're not compelled to return the love that this person has for you and you have no moral obligation to. God, though, COMMANDS you to do this and Jesus says to love God with all your heart and more than anyone else.

For example, while this doesn't apply to most (it's merely hypothetical), person x lives in a bubble community his knowledge is limited to language, survival, and observation; he basically can't read or understand complexities such as scripture. Chances are he'll notice that people die and will try to make sense of his life, maybe give it some external/internal purpose. However, one day he suffers a chemical imbalance that causes him to randomly kill lady y, who may or may know about scripture (probably) but is nonetheless--civilized. The legal system responds to the situation and eventual person x understands why he is in a cell block watching maury everyday. Overall, community has laws, x broke them, x's fate is jail. Society regards Scripture similarly; follow Jesus go up; kill lady x go down . An unknowing person like x would not be held accountable since sin is a purposeful wrongdoing. However, the crucial difference is x discovered a concrete fate, or basic knowledge that can be verified without any failure. Hence the word law or rule.

The punishment for breaking the laws in our legal system or the legal system of society x are designed to be fair (except for Sharia Law and other exception). If someone murders another individual and cannot plead insanity, he/she ought to pay the time that suits the offense - it makes sense. Murder should be punishable. This punishment, though, is not infinite, cruel, or unusual.

God makes finite crimes infinite, makes certain actions that are not immoral immoral, and penalizes people for petty things all throughout the Bible. The Bible proposes several impossible and implausible demands such as if you look at a women with lust you've committed adultery, love your enemies, take no thought for the morrow, don't be jealous of your neighbor's stuff, and if you don't forgive the crimes of others (even though you had nothing to do with them) you won't be forgiven.

An infinite punishment for a finite crime simply does not make sense. It also doesn't make sense that an all-loving and all-just being would punish someone for all eternity (even for silly "crimes").
Why even bother to create Hell to begin with...Why not make just punishments and just laws?...

"And just like science, the jesus theory will never become a law"

First, let's define terms:

A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science. (Law of Gravity, Planetary Motion, Boyle's Law, Laws of Thermodynamics)

A scientific theory is a framework for explaining how something works that is backed by considerable evidence that is [almost certainly] true (Germ Theory of Disease, Theory of Evolution, Plate Tectonics, Relativity)

Jesus' existence is a mere hypothesis in this sense. "The Jesus Hypothesis" "The God Hypothesis" We can scientifically examine the claims of theists because these are very specific claims about the nature of our universe that contradict what we know (science and religion are in conflict). For example, Christianity says that the universe is designed with humans in mind. We see no evidence to support this (and much to the contrary) and thus should reject this hypothesis.

The burden is on the theist to show evidence that Jesus is being true. If we have no such evidence/good reason to believe that the claim is true, we should just not believe that it is true. Skeptical people like me analyze the claims, see if they are worthy of consideration, and do our best to refute them. Since we see no evidence supporting the claims of theists, we should not accept their claims.

I could easily say that the idea of unicorns will never or can never be proven or that "The Unicorn Theory will never become a law", but does this mean that we should accept that unicorns exist?

"there may be more evidence to support him, but never anything objectively true."

Please show the evidence. Let's examine the claims.

If the evidence can never be true or is never true, then how is it evidence? This is a very specific claim that a being exists - there is no subjectivity whatsoever. Either the Christian God exists or the Christian God does not exist. It's not different from person to person, but rather is a claim about reality.

Al Gore either exists or he does not. I either exist or I do not. Whether or not someone "believes" in Al Gore or Justin Vacula does nothing to change the truth of the claim in reality. The existence of a being, also, is not contingent on whether or not people "believe" in it. I can say that I don't believe that Bob Barker exists, but we can prove that bob Barker exists. No matter how much I argue or complain, this does not change the fact that Bob Barker exists.

"Theorems and hypotheses describe faith---which is exactly what it is---so maybe the seriousness to which scripture is taken is highly preferential."

The mere admission that something has to be taken on faith immediately greatly diminishes the truth value of the claim and shows that the claim can not be taken on its own merits.

Why is it good to believe in something that is contrary to reality and supported by little or no evidence? In what part of life do we accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence?

Regardless of how we read the Bible or how we want to interpret it, many of my objections still stand and many are very theologically sound (whatever that means). If we're supposed to read the Bible in a certain way, please take four different highlighters (blue, yellow, green, and pink) and highlight passages that are supposed to be taken literally, that are supposed to be taken figuratively, may be literal, may be figurative, are allegorical, many be allegorical, are myths, may be myths, are changed from translations, aren't changed from trnaslations....

See, the Bible is very, very problematic. I do, though, take the claims it makes very charitably in many cases when I'm not begin sarcastic and craft very good arguments against them. I also take the claims of theists and the central claims of Christianity to refute them.

Casting Doubt on Christianity

To be a theist, you have to accept that for about 100,000 or 75,000 years Heaven just watched as homo sapiens lived in a terrifying, brutal, and dangerous universe that they were ignorant of. Humans died of childbirth, soon after childbirth, teeth coming in, simple disease, from natural disasters, tribal warfare, bizarre rituals, infanticide, etc.

Until only about 4000 years ago, God finally decided to intervene NOT in China, Egypt, or modern-day civilization, or during a time where we could sufficiently record happenings, but in one of the most illiterate, barbaric, and backward places in the world to goat herders, hysterical people, and ignoramuses who knew nothing about the universe in the Bronze Age.

The best way, apparently, to "fix what God put in motion" was to incarnate himself into a woman and be born of a virgin only to be placed on some suicide mission in a brutal death that claimed to be something akin to love.

Think about that for a few seconds...
Does that sound like a plausible story that is in agreement with reality?

Are we supposed to believe people from the Bronze Age who supposedly saw all of these miracles happening? Are we supposed to believe the word of WOMEN testifying to seeing this? Women's testimony is a very clear indication that the story was fabricated because a woman's word would NEVER be esteemed in a time like this. These goat herders could have easily made a false prophet, attributed all of these miraculous qualities to some individual, and just made the entire story up or at least embellished a human who was not divine.

There's not one passage in the Bible that could not have been written by someone that was not from the Bronze Age. This should bother you tremendously and cast great doubt on the claim that the book was divinely inspired. You can flip through the pages of the Bible and read about 95% nonsense about tribal warfare, injunctions against females, dietary rules, geneolgies, etc, etc. We get rules for slaves and slavery, even.

Where are the passages saying about how all people, regardless of race, gender, origin, or religion should be treated equally?

Where are the passages saying, "Listen, I know you have slaves, but that is wrong. Don't treat your people poorly." Instead, God tells people to take slaves and gives rules for how to treat them. An all-loving being would almost certainly never allow this to happen in his book and in his words to the people.

Where are the passages to tell us information on how to cure the diseases that would eventually happen?

Where is the scientific information about the universe that could have alleviated our ignorance and relieved much calamity?

Instead, we get "kill the other tribes, take their people, and rape their women!"

Instead, we get nothing about medicine, but rather mumbo-jumbo about evil spirits and devils plaguing people.

Apparently, the Ten Commandments were so important that God had to write them down, but 5 of them have almost nothing to do with morality. Besides, do you think that the people on the exodus didn't know that murder was wrong? If they weren't aware of this, they wouldn't even have made it that far. The first four commandments are nothing more than Love God more than anyone or anything else, Don't say bad things about God, set aside a day just for him, and There is no one greater than God. How jealous. How petty. How manmade.

The entire school of Isreali archeology even agree that the entire Exodus story was a huge fabrication. Here, in this case, this group had every chance and motive to find this evidence, but got nothing.

Don't bother with claims such as "God loves us" or "this is God's plan" without actually giving good reason to accept that this being exists and these stories are true.

It's a HUGE leap to say that there is some sort of being who created the universe, but you go so much further and claim to know who he is, who his son is, what qualities he has, and what he told to humans.

Miracle claims should not be taken as sufficient explanations for anything. Even today, millions make miracle claims and these videos are even on Youtube. In a modern society, people still accept these stories from a modern man named Sathya Sai Baba who has about six million followers. Even with eyewitness testimony, videos, followers, and everything else you still should not accept his claims.

What right does God have to forgive other people on behalf of us? What right does God have to tell us that if we don't forgive other people, that we won't be forgiven? Why should I be punished for not forgiving the crimes of others that I had no role in whatsoever?

How can an all-just being condemn people to eternal torture for finite crimes? This creator is even so vein that he'll send people to Hell for not believing in him or loving him or blaspheming the Holy Spirit. How petty.

Even if the "historical Jesus" existed and I accept all of his miracle claims (which I won't accept even one), there is still NOTHING adding truth to his claims. Should we believe people because they say they were born of virgins? The people of his time even didn't know who Jesus was! John the Baptist wasn't even sure! Should we suddenly accept the prepositions that we should take no thought for the morrow, love our enemies, forgive people over 300 times, sell all of our stuff, and pick up snakes and drink poison?

Don't you look at the claim "the scriptures are fulfilled" with a critical eye? It was so easy for the writers of the New Testament to "fufill the prophecies" because they knew what the prophecies were and had full control over what was written in the book.

The most shameless of all of them was Jesus saying that the propechy should be fulfilled in which the savior would ride a donkey. So, what did Jesus do? He bought a donkey and rode it.

It would be like, for example, me writing the first six Harry Potter books and claiming the prophecies would be fulfilled, authoring the final book, and claiming that something miraculous happened when the plot line advanced to confirm the prophecies.

The whole nonsense regarding the movement of Jesus to Bethlehem was a clear and intentional fabrication. There was no census from Caeser that required people to move back into their town. Quirinis was not the governer of Syria. Not even one of the Gospels even agree on the story of Jesus. Not even one of the Gospels even agree on the nativity story.

All of these extraordinary claims from a perfect being leaves NOTHING to confirm that the claims are true. Would you, in any other area of life, accept such grand claims?

Refutation: God Gives Me Meaning

I ask for rational reasons, or at least one good reason, for believing in God when I chat with theists. After theists say that there is no evidence for God (as few actually do), they run an argument very akin to this to warrant belief:

God gives me purpose in my life. He allows communities to unite, work to reach a common goal, and has good advice for us to live. So many people I know have been touched by belief in God and it has changed their lives.

This argument is littered with various issues:

It is a non-sequitur.

Beneficial results from a belief does not mean that the belief is true. Truth value is not substantiated because beneficial results or good feelings are gained from some idea.

A belief is not good just because it's good for some people.

Some people believe that immigrants are inferior to "real Americans" and should not be in the United States. This belief might give purpose, direction, and validity to peoples' claims against foreigners, but this does not mean that the belief is automatically good.

Some people may really love abusing alcohol and taking heroin and claim that it makes them feel good and produce desirable results. The idea may be harmful, many contest, but it makes me feel wanted and relaxed.

Religion is not good for all people and it's often harmful, save, perhaps, moderates who don't do bad things.

If you're going to allow this claim for yourself, you'll have to allow it for everyone else.

Religions make various incompatible claims such as Islam and Christianity: Muslims don't believe Jesus is divine while Christians believe that Jesus is. We can't allow personal experience arguments like this to warrant one belief and not the others. If you allow a claim for yourself as a Christian and then allow it for a Muslim, you have to distinctly incompatible views. They don't can't be true.

I have a diamond in my backyard

Sam Harris masterfully eviscerates the argument I provided with his diamond in backyard example:

Why do we have to believe things on no or insufficient evidence to have these experiences?

Any person, religious or non-religious, can have meaningful experiences that are not contingent on belief.

Placebo Effect

Perhaps it's just that your belief is functioning as a placebo to enable and explain good experiences and it's just all false. I'm not denying that you believe it to be true, but is it really?

Gangster Rap and... Christianity?

Believe it or not, this post might just be the most controversial of all because I'm challenging two things that many people hold dear: gangster rap and religion. There's a great deal if inherent satire in this, so please excuse it. I may be totally off the mark here, but I really don't think that I am. It's surprising how religion can really make anything worse than it is...even gangster rap.

If I'd reccomend any rap whatsoever, I'd certainly reccomend Greydon Square and Baba Brinkman for intelligent and thoughtful music. I don't like rap at all, but these artists are very good and give rap music a different name that popualr artists do on the radio.

http://www.babasword.com/ Listen to the Rap Guide to Evolution and the Rap Canterbury Tales!)

http://www.myspace.com/greydonsquare Say and Extian are very good!

---

At work today, I heard the fusion of two things that I never thought would be possible: gangster rap and Christianity. I was amazed at the lyrics and how ridiculously terrible they were. Of course musical taste is subjective, but I think you'll have good reason to accept my claims of why Young Jeezy is terrible in both lyrics and music.

I'm against gangster rap because I believe that it portrays African-Americans and other minorities in stereotypical and racist roles, demeans women, uses massive double standards on the word "nigger/nigga/niggah/etc," abuses grammar, makes crime sound like a good thing, I believe it is very repetitive, and I simply just don't like it. I don't like the glorification of the "gangster lifestyle" that is being portrayed at all. Why is this an admirable thing that so many people listen to and love so dearly?

We get lyrics like these: The errors are identified by me as [sic], but I gave up after the first two stanzas because it's just so atrocious.

Hypnotized You Are Hypnotized [x4]
Now I Command U[sic] Niggas [sic]

To Get Money [x4]
Hypnotized You Are Hypnotized [x4]
Now I Command You Niggas

[sic] To Get Money [x4]

They Move To [sic] Slow When I Think To [sic] Quick

Thats Why I Flash Like Gordon Im [sic]

Light Years [sic] Ahead Of U [sic] Niggas

Im So Hot You Know Niggas Aint Cool
The Boi Get New Money Like The First Day Of School
Stay Fresh Like The First Day Of Class
20bricks N Three Choppas Sold In One Stash
It'll Cost Ya 40grand And Ya Gotta Pay Cash
Dem Blunts Burn Slow But That Paper Come Fast
The Garbage Man You Fuck Niggas Soo Trash
Im First Place You Fuck Niggas Soo Last

I walk through the fire, gasoline doors
I dun seen everything nigga, and i dun sold it all
New whips every month, nigga i dun drove it all
Pocket full of bread, nigga bet i blow it all
And then we go to jail, and think about it all
Nuthin else to do, so we ball till' we fall
Baby on the way, I'm just waitn on the call
Told her bring her her friends, we gon run through 'em all
Lets get it, she know what it is...

Sold those squares yeah I cooked them o's
Guilty as charged yeah I rock them shows
I can't even lie yeah i fucked them hoes
Trapped all day spent it all on clothes
Shop all day till the mall is clothed
Come back to the trap get my pockets swoll

Enter Jesus. It's quite odd that Young Jeezy talks about God so much, yet says he is going to Hell and then says that he only has one life to live. He then asks and expects forgiveness. Does God really endorse a person who glorifies criminal culture, stereotypes African-Americans as gangsters who love the lifestyle, and treats women as nothing more than whores?

Life is on the ground got my head to the sky
Smoked all day lord knows I stay high
Stay on top, lord knows I'm gonna try
A mill for the moment lord knows I'm gonna die
And when I get to hell lord knows I'm gonna fry
Woke up this morning so I'm still alive
Thirty six Os I sold them all for Five

Fresh out the block yea the work was hard
Ride with the top down so I'm closer to god
My PO telling me I need a nine to five
But I already got a job and that's stayin alive

Woke up this morning, I ain't see this coming
Should I even bust back, you ain't see me running
I hope heaven got a VIP line
Got some partners in hell that'll sneak me in the back door
You know I hate waitin in line

Expect the worst, but hope for the best
But you know how it is, amen god bless
I can't leave now niggas owe me money
My nigga on the westside owe me bout a dub
And my partner with a few, shit he owe a nigga too

It was some Kanye sh*t tryna touch the sky
jesus walks god testify
I'm a legend like John we're ordinary people
you only get one life there's no sequel
So you can't take nothing for granted
and don't take granted for nothing

So i gotta thank god for waking me up this morning
And giving me this air to breath
Jesus lord forgive me for
every Gram i sold
every glock i popped
every rock that i...

Pour out a little liquor, bury me in some Evisu jeans
A USDA top and a throw-away glock
Bury me a G, nothin more nothin less
When I get where I'm goin, I just gotta be fresh

She Addicted To The High
Im Addicted To The Cash
I Almost Put My Hands On Her
When I Caught Her In My Stash
How Could I Do Her Like That
Lord Knows Im Wrong
Why Would I Do Her Like That
Lord Know She Strong

There's Two Types Of Niggas
Preditor And Prey
Im A Preditor
I Pray 3 Times A Day
Mat Lue Once Said
One Day U'll Have Kids
And How U Gon Explain
All That Stuff U Did