Sunday Antisermon

I found a few interesting links at the Godless and Humanist carnivals. The first one discusses problems with the idea of heaven, and goes well with my thought that distance is a problem. Next we have an analysis of the "good ol' days", when bigots could get away with damn near anything. The comparison to racism is apt. But since no matter what happens, "god is responsible", then didn't god destroy those same good ol' days? Contrary to all experience, I actually expect consistency from such arguments. And on the topic of bigots, there's a good analysis of the role of women in various cultures. In essence, as soon as property becomes a big deal in a culture, women tend to lose most of their rights. Marriage laws were less about sexual propriety and more about making sure that property stayed in the male's line.

And while I don't consider myself an atheist, by this definition I am: "One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist." ~George Smith (from one of Pharyngula's random quotes). Whatever deity exists is necessarily part of nature. Otherwise it would not exist. It is disingenuous to call something "supernatural." Whatever happens does so as part of nature. Maybe there are parts of nature we don't understand yet. So what? Calling a poorly understood phenomenon "supernatural" is begging the question; it's saying that there's no way to understand or predict it. It's a (barely) more sophisticated version of "Goddidit. Endofstory." It doesn't lead to anything new.

Closing thought: If intelligent design were really science, they'd be spending lots and lots of lab time trying to "divine" the nature of the designer. That they are not speaks volumes.