Two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl.

When I was a young boy, I think I envisioned that driving was going to be like living a video game, and would more often than not, be fun to do. Too much Mach Rider, I guess. I hate driving. I especially hate the drive to Tyler. Partly because I've done it so much, and partly because it takes you through a dozen small towns with their 35mph speed limits. It gets a little maddening, all the slowing down and speeding back up. But alas, we want to see our families, thus we persevere.

Leah, Harper, Darcy, and I had a great weekend in East Texas, all driving aside. On Saturday, my parents had a get together brunch to celebrate Harper's, and my niece, Kya's, birthdays. My uncle was there and somehow, he, Seth, and I, got into a lively discussion about alternative medicine and one's ability to write off a lot of it as bullshit. It felt nice to be on the same side as my brother for the first time in a long time. Seth got frustrated with the conversation and excused himself, but I soldiered on and eventually convinced him of my point (which if you're interested; he was making the relativist/accomodationist assumption that we can't know everything so to say that anything is stupid or ridiculous is arrogant, and my point was that while we don't know everything about anything, we do know a lot about most things, and therefore are capable of using what evidence we do have to inform our logic, and making reasonable assumptions based on said evidence/logic. In other words, it's not arrogant to call a spade a spade).

Later, Leah and my sister in law, Kara, went and shot a wedding in Longview, and Seth and I went and saw Iron Man 2, which is great. The next day we all ate Chinese food for lunch and then went to the park to take pictures. Then we drove some more. I had a great weekend but I did miss the new Dr. Who episode. No worries, it's on the DVR, after all.

Last night, I dreamt that Jesus and I were roommates. He was a cool guy and he wasn't mad at me about anything. My friend Steven was there too, except that he was gay and he insisted that I call him "Steve" from now on.

I don't know if I'm fighting the "good fight," but I'm certainly fighting.

The internet is full of people, this much we know for sure. All kinds of people, really. Just look at this blog! In this one tiny area of cyberspace we have quite the smorgasbord of intellects and ideals. Let's look at religion.

We have people like myself and Green (hope you don't mind being lumped in with me) who've done our time in one sect of Christianity or another and though finding it unfulfilling (to put it very lightly), we're still skeptically open to the possibilities.

We have people like the good Teresa, who is very sure that there is no god, and more power to her.

We have people like Travis, who is completely sure that there is a god, and although he has failed to convince me that the case is concrete, god bless him, he keeps trying.

And then we have people like my wife, Leah, who remain comfortably disinterested in the whole matter. This is the stance I envy the most.

So here we are, this quaint little community. I think everyone is, generally, polite, courteous, and pleasant. Even Travis, who opposes almost every single thing I say about religion, does so in a respectful, even tempered, way. For this, I am very thankful. It's not like this everywhere else, as I've just experienced.

Remember The Naked Pastor? I wrote about him, briefly, a while back. Well, David Hayward (the Naked Pastor), has recently decided to leave his church. He just feels like he doesn't belong there anymore for whatever reason and he is leaving on good terms. Of course, this is met with an outpouring of support from his friends and blog readers. I, personally, sent no note of encouragement because, while I enjoy his blog, I don't really care if he works at a church or not. But he seems like a decent guy and I do wish him all the best.

So then there is a blog called Remonstrans written by a guy named Norm who goes by the alias "Dissidens." I believe the blog is set up to be a critique on the "emerging church" but honestly, I haven't looked at it past the post in question. Dissidens doesn't like Naked Pastor. Seems to have a vendetta against him, to me. So he posted this blog about David's leaving. I didn't really find anything terribly awful in the post. He's entitled to his opinions. I thought calling David a "basket case" was petty, but mild.

The only reason I found the blog was because David linked to it in his response. But it wasn't until I saw the first two comments that I thought I should speak up. Here is the conversation, as it pertains to me, in its entirety.
Team Us is in bold.
Team Them in italics.

Dissidens said:

That’s true: the horror of this hits someone who has read Dave’s jitney creed and the sycophants he’s attracted.

When these people desire a theology that commends itself to their sad intellects, this is what they get and this is the price they pay! Hayward questioned everything but himself, and this is his legacy.

What a grisly soul.

So I said:

Sad intellects? Jesus, you guys clearly know everything. Better a sycophant than an asshole.

It was several comments later before anyone thought that what I said was worth commenting on and it came from someone calling themselves "The Divine Passive."

I can't tell if Taylor is both praying AND cussing, or merely cussing. The NP would be proud either way I suppose.

Well, I couldn't have people think I'm praying so....

The Divine Passive,
I'm just cussing.

Simple enough, right? I really thought that I was done there, but Dissidens couldn't have me leave without a dose of good ol' scripture.

Taylor:

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Do you not fear God, Taylor?

Well, he asked me a question, so he deserves an honest answer. I've always thought the terminology of "fearing God" is strange, but I've had it explained to me in more ways than I care to remember so I get it. I know what Christians mean when they say it, more or less.

If there is a god, then I'm relatively sure it's not Jehovah, so I would say that I fear your god about as much as I fear Santa Claus.

Also, I guess I should clarify that I don't fear Santa Claus

Now here is where it gets really juicy. Dissidens comes out swinging!

Taylor:

Now see, this is exactly why I think Hell was a brilliant idea. You’re not sure there is a god, but you’re pretty sure it isn’t one particular god, and on the strength of that uncertainty you blaspheme his name when he explicitly told everyone not to.

If you can’t reason with such a person, what more appropriate future could there than eternal confusion?

So not only is this lovely soul glad that there is a hell (or glad he can think there is, anyway) he's particularly pleased that I'm going. Now the concept of hell is a discussion I'm not trying to have right now, but I will say that the idea that god will forgive child molesters, rapists, and murderers but has no room in his heart for people who are not easily convinced of the far fetched, is....weak sauce. Anyway, this was my favorite response because his was so primed for parroting. So I said....

Now see, this is exactly why I think cussing was such a brilliant idea. You've got no empirical evidence that there even is a god, but you're somehow certain that you've picked the right one, and on the strength of that unjustified certainty you belittle and condescend to people who differ from, but are still just as clueless as, you. At least the folks over at Naked Pastor seem to enjoy a sense of self awareness that you're apparently not privy to.

If you can't reason with such a person, what more appropriate future could there be than to be eternally called an asshole?

So he said...

Who says a) that I don’t have empirical evidence for the existence of Yahweh? and b) that only empirical evidence is sufficient for belief? Why couldn’t faith derive from logic and first principles?

You’re as good a philosopher as Dave is a theologian. I can see how you would appreciate his sense of self-awareness.

And then I went home and lived life and Todd and Hollie came over and we played in the park and ate pizza and watched Lost and went to bed. So I didn't have time to respond and in my absence, Mike The Infidel stepped in and said a lot of what I wanted to say...

I'm more than a bit amused by someone who describes hell as 'eternal confusion' in a comment on a post talking about people's attitudes being non-biblical. Where, pray tell, does this conception of hell come from?

As for:
a) Please, provide it.
b) Faith is enough for belief, certainly, but why should faith be valued?

Before Dissidens could get back to him, The Divine Passive was back and he had some questions for Mike and I...

Mike and Taylor

How should I (or any other Christian) understand your hanging around Christian sites if your "spiritual journey" has taken you away from Christianity? And what is it about the NP that you find attractive?

AND THEN I'M BACK AND I'M JABBING AND I'M SWINGING...

Well, I don't recall being much of a philosopher on here, but this is great, I've been looking for someone who has all the answers and here you've been all along. If it weren't for the Naked Pastor, I'd never have found the one person with empirical, testable, verifiable, evidence that not only does god exist but we know his name.
So, although Mike already beat me to the punch here, if you've got such evidence, prove it. My email is taylorglenmuse (at) gmail (dot) com. If you don't mind, write me an email explaining and demonstrating this evidence. If it is truly empirical, then you should be able to prove yourself right, beyond a reasonable doubt. Try to remember my "sad intellect" though and use small, concise words.
However, if you can't really prove it, then all you've proven yourself to be is an unyielding, arrogant, person who puts theology ahead of people. In other words, you're a pharisee, and we all know how Jesus felt about them.

The Divine Passive:
I can't speak for Mike, but I'm only on this blog because NP linked it, and then this guy called people that read NP "sycophants" with "sad intellects" so I called him an "asshole," and so on and so on. I guess the shorter answer is "because I have a lot of free time at work, and I find religion interesting even if I no longer partake."
What I like about the NP, is that he's often pretty funny and/or insightful, and while a lot of Christian blogs tend to sell what I consider unjustified certainty, while being completely unable to understand how anyone could disagree with them, it's refreshing for someone to be the slightest bit humble about their faith while understanding how some can not believe.

AND HERE COMES DISSIDENS...only he doesn't really want to talk...He'd rather talk about talking.

Taylor:

God works in mysterious ways, doesn’t he? I don’t guess we get many readers via nakedpastor.com, but then not many people get to Nineveh via a nasty fish. God appears to have a wicked--if I can use that word--sense of humor.

I can see you’re having trouble focusing here, Taylor. I understand how a steady diet of the assumptions and platitudes one gets from Hayward could encourage a habit of sloppy thinking, but let’s tidy this up a bit. Back while you were scrambling for a spell-checker you said, (comment #28) “You've got no empirical evidence that there even is a god…”. That is the kind of self-serving assumption a lot of skeptics make about my life.

If you read my answer more carefully than you read the opinions on NP, you will discover that I never said a) that I ever had empirical evidence, or b) that I could “prove it”—your words. I was challenging your own claim that I had no such empirical evidence; you don’t know if I have or if I haven’t. So here right at the beginning of your gymnastic routine you’ve already fallen slap off the beam.

Make A Note: I didn’t say I had empirical evidence, I said you couldn’t know whether I have or haven’t. That was your first faceplant.

It might—but probably won’t—interest you to know that I believe God is 1) invisible, 2) inscrutable, and 3) ineffable; I cannot see him, I cannot comprehend him, and I cannot explain him—even to myself, let alone to a miseducated skeptic. If God doesn’t want you to see him, he could sit on the bridge of your nose and whistle to you and you still could not detect him, even “empirically”.

Your second faceplant was the assumption that the only way I might come by reliable knowledge (or faith) was empirically. If your Mom could go to the bookstore and bring home an idiot’s guide to flossfy, you could look up the word “empirical” and learn that not all knowledge comes through experience or science. If your Mom won’t do that for you, go here and follow the links.

Read Kant if you can, he’s helped many people all over the world.

"Don't say I don't have evidence!!!" OK, what evidence? "I NEVER said I had evidence, you're stupid. Read Kant."

And then a newcomer joined in, by the name of Warren, and he's got a few assumptions he'd like to make...

Taylor:

I enjoyed the Pharisee slight from someone who believes that Jesus was wrong about Theology and therefore people anyway.

I also like the fact you borrow from Theistic morality to judge. Unless of course you can define morality from naturalism.

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/04/atheist-i-have-honest-questions-dodge.html

I clicked on his link only to be unsurprised by the kind of up-our-own-ass apologetics that are so tiring. "If you want me to believe it I need proof" "You won't believe it no matter what the proof is!!" "Well, we'll never know until you actually show me some, will we?" "First you prove me wrong!" *Facepalm.

While I was drafting my final response, a fella named Joshua Allen joined in. I'm not sure what side he's on but I got a chuckle out of his response, either way...

@Taylor: You're challenging the wrong person. You should demand proof from God Himself. You should challenge God to a game of chess, and publish the challenge details far and wide, so that God cannot fail to hear you. If He shows up and beats you at chess, you'll have a story to tell. But if he doesn't show up, you'll be able to tell everyone that God doesn't exist, or at least that you are a better chess player than God.

Clearly, God would not let a challenge from a mortal like yourself go unanswered, since it would be so damaging to His reputation. Therefore, failure to appear is proof of lack of existence, or else fear of something even worse -- being a bad chess player.

Alas, I already know that I am a horrible, horrible chess player and I'm painfully aware of what a waste of time this has been and would continue to be. I just wanted to throw a little support behind David, call an asshole an asshole and be on my way, so I said...

Well, as fun as semantics and assumptions can be, I don't appear to have been wrong, do I? I said you didn't have evidence, you implied that that was not the case, I asked for it, and now you want to make the argument about whether or not you ever really said you had any. And you want to accuse me of intellectual gymnastics?

I know this is a complete waste of time, but if god is all the things you say he is, how did you come to know so much more about him than everyone else? There doesn't seem to be anything of substance here, just a theological "I know you are but what am I?!"

"...I believe God is 1) invisible, 2) inscrutable, and 3) ineffable; I cannot see him, I cannot comprehend him, and I cannot explain him—even to myself, let alone to a miseducated skeptic."

How convenient. You'd think those beliefs would lend themselves to a more humble approach but I suppose Kant can explain how you should be a dickhead to everyone that disagrees with you. I think we're done now. You talk a lot but don't say very much.

Warren,
Is it not possible to disagree with some things a person says and agree with others? Just because I don't believe that Jesus was god doesn't mean I don't think he said some lovely things. I would ask you to explain how Theists have exclusive rights to morality but I'm probably not going to be around to read it. I would also ask why you assume I'm a naturalist. Naturalists aren't the only thing you can be if you're not a theist, you know.

So that's what I've been doing. It was a good time but I won't be going back to see if anyone responds further, because I don't want to get drawn back in, and I know I could be. But it did make me appreciate the conversations that we have here that much more. I kind of understand them calling me names and saying I'm painfully ignorant or whatever they would say, but I think it's really weird to have that level of animosity towards David, who differs greatly on a lot of issues, to be sure, but still believes the same basic things. Seems theologically cannibalistic.

It's already Friday.

I generally don't think that I am a person with a lot of pet peeves, but today, I discovered one capable of bringing about an immediate and fiery response. While in a political discussion (which I generally try to avoid, being the only Socialist in the office), one of my coworkers said "Ah, you're never going to change."

Seems simple enough, right? He said this because I made a statement about how I would never vote Republican (again). I've had a two friends say this about me before as well, and it always gets under my skin. While I would normally think that maybe this is a good indication to look at one's self and wonder if, perhaps, they're right about you, I'm just calling bullshit.

First off, what they really mean is "You should agree with me, and I'm unable to convince you to." Your inability to make a concrete case for your position actually says nothing about my inability to change mine. I think it's an even more ridiculous thing to say about me when I think about how much changing I've done over the years and how many people I know that I've never known to change their position on anything.
2000- I was a fundamentalist Christian. I thought it was wrong to intermarry races. I thought homosexuality was a choice and a sin. I thought George W. Bush would be a great president. I thought evolution was a lie. I was convinced that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. Militantly pro-life.
2003- I became a liberal Christian. Realized how ridiculous racism is. Began to understand homosexuality. Thought George Bush mishandled war. Realized there is probably no scientific conspiracy regarding origins of life. Remained convinced of Michael Jackson's guilt. Still pro-life, but not militant.
2009- Realized I could not find a good reason to consider myself Christian at all. Joined Socialist Party. Proponent of equal marriage rights. Evolutionist. Think's Michael Jackson was probably innocent. Not a fan of abortion, but pro-choice.

Those all seem like pretty big changes to me. So when I say I'm never voting Republican again, it's because I have before. If I don't switch to your side, it doesn't mean I'm stubborn, it just means I don't agree with you. I'm very capable of change and before you accuse me of being hard headed, perhaps you should wonder if your case is as solid as you think it is.

Anyway, that's annoying.

Side note: I think it's weird that more Christians aren't Socialists.

Burning Airlines should've made more records.

How often do you stop and think about how different your life could have been if you'd made different decisions? Sometimes when I'm feeling slightly inadequate I'll wonder what kind of career I'd be qualified for if I'd just suffered through two more years of school to get that degree. I didn't though, because I didn't know then, just like I don't know now, what I would've majored in and I didn't want to waste the money or time.

Sometimes I'll stop and wonder what life would've been like if Leah and I had never gotten together. I don't do this in a fantasizing type of way, you see. I do it because I like to take stock of how thankful I am for her. When I imagine that scenario, I can easily and realistically imagine how, without Leah, all the bad things in my life would've stayed bad or gotten worse and all the good things could've/would've eventually soured. It may sound cliche' but Leah can easily claim 95% of the responsibility for my happiness, productivity, and overall emotional growth over the past 6 1/2 years. All that to say, I love my wife and I'm thankful to her. It almost makes me wish I could believe in a personal god just so I could thank him/her/them/it for her.


Speaking of god, if you're reading this then I guess you're not a real Christian. Clearly, you haven't been raptured and according to this well reasoned website, you all should have been pulled up into Heaven two days ago on Rosh Hashanah. I guess we can logically entertain one of three explanations of why you were all left:
1. The first explanation is a real drag. You didn't believe enough or you believed the wrong thing. Man, that sucks.
2. The second explanation is way more fun and certainly the one that most will choose to believe. The people that made that website are either completely bonkers and/or got their crazy conspiracy math wrong. So when and if the real Rapture does take place you're still in the running for a place in the New Jerusalem. Congratulations, friend!
3. The third explanation is pretty neutral, really. There has never been and will, in all probability, never be a Rapture. If this is the case, then all you have to do is worry about the time you spend as a living organism and nothing else. If this is the case, then there's no reward for good behavior and no punishment for bad behavior (at least, in the afterlife). Yay! We're all off the hook!

I kid about the afterlife because its easy to do and because there's no real reason to believe that there is one. I'll continue to do so, I'm sure, but if I'm being honest, there's nothing that scares me more than death. More than anything, I hope I'm wrong about it, but I realize that that fear doesn't give me license to postulate false hope for myself. Its a mystery and one that can only be solved by going where you can never return from. The idea of just not existing is scarier than the idea of burning in Hell, to me. At least in Hell, Leah, Harper, and several of my friends will be there. So if you've ever wondered, religious friends & family, I do sincerely hope that you are right and I am wrong and that there is another side for me to see you on, when that inevitable day comes. But for now, lets just all hope that we live to be incredibly old, that medical miracles keep us lively and functioning long after our bodies should've turned to dust, and that we all love each other for as long as, and as much as, we possibly can.

Guns don't kill people, Chiropractors with guns kill people

Here is an article by Simon Singh. Leah went to a chiropractor once and my impression was that we were meeting the smarmiest snake-oil salesman ever. He actually told Leah that if he didn't adjust her 80 more times she would just become paralized.

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results - and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that "99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae". In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer's first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying - even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: "Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck."

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------