Axis of Jared

Religion.

2012-01-18T09:44:00.000-08:00

Not mine, but very post-worthy.

From the "This shouldn't be happening in modern times" file

2011-11-28T13:49:00.000-08:00

Hey ladies, guess what? In the second decade of the 21st century, a group of 271 befrocked virgin men in funny hats think that their belief in a magical substance that somehow gets injected into an ovary at the very moment of fertilization allows them to have a say in how you plan your family.

Will Obama's Thanksgiving Gift to Female Voters Be a Tax on Women's Healthcare?

Albert Mohler's good news

2011-11-09T16:15:00.000-08:00

In an essay titled A Tale of Two Colleges, Albert Mohler decries the increasing acceptance of homosexuality by historically Baptist colleges and universities. Here he helpfully points out the consequences of this progress.

1. As time goes on, colleges and universities that choose to identify with the ethos and standards of the secular academy will inevitably increase the distance from their founding churches and theological commitments.

In other words, bigotry will increasingly reside in the fringes, where it belongs.

2. Colleges and universities attempting to maintain accountability to churches and Christian denominations will discover that specificity and clarity in terms of worldview commitment and lifestyle expectations is required, and not optional.

Institutions that want to remain bigoted will have to advertise said bigotry, voluntarily racing towards irrelevancy.

3. The issue of homosexuality now presents an unavoidable test of conviction for Christian institutions of higher learning. The pressure to normalize homosexual relationships and behaviors will be strong, and the cost of resisting this pressure will be steep.

As human enlightenment grows, little room is left for the fear and hatred motivated by religion, and this is a good thing. Just take a look at how most of society views racists and misogynists. This is exactly how faith-fueled homophobia will be viewed in only a few decades from now. It does indeed get better.

Do as I say, not as I do

2011-11-09T15:13:00.000-08:00

The majority of atheists and skeptics of religion would agree with the accusation that the Christian god is a hypocrite. After all, he commands us not to kill, but has no problem with the snuffing out of human life at his own hand. He even gets all up in the betrothed Mary, if you know what I mean, despite outlawing adultery a mere millennium-and-a-half ago.

The blogger(s) over at PleaseConvinceMe attempt a defense of this behavior by asserting that the creator of laws has every right to disobey said laws. While this does nothing to dissuade that this particular deity is not a hypocrite, it instead makes the argument that he can be a hypocrite if he wants, and there's nothing we can do about it.

I'm pretty sure the author(s) at PCM would take issue with this, but they did post the above image, so presumably they endorse the definitions contained therein. Most notably:

2. a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

If this god imposes a law that forbids killing, then I believe we can be reasonably sure how he feels about killing. He believes killing is bad, yet he kills - that's hypocrisy. Don't get me wrong, he has the right to be hypocritical, he is god after all. But let's call a spade a spade. I, for one, don't believe a flagrantly hypocritical being is worthy of any sort of worship.

Let us assume he believes there is no moral transgression when he kills, but there is a moral transgression when one human kills another. I'm fine with dropping the hypocrisy accusation at this point, but I still don't believe a god that kills innocent human beings is worth my adulation and prostration.

2011-11-04T11:48:00.000-07:00

This needs to be spread far and wide, taught in schools K-12, printed on stickers and placed on every Bible, Torah, and Koran. This should be a disclaimer the FCC places before every 700 club broadcast.

It's so important, I need to link to it more than once in one post.

The Twelve Reasons I Don’t Believe in Supernatural Claims, Part I
The Twelve Reasons I Don’t Believe in Supernatural Claims, Part II

More on the Inevitability of Religious Violence

2011-11-01T13:33:00.000-07:00

Happened across this juicy little tidbit, and I love it because it completely supports the assertion in my previous post.

In Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence, Dr. Avalos did a careful analysis of the fundamental texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and shows how four 'scarce' resources have figured repeatedly in creating religious violence: sacred space (churches, temples, holy cities); the creation of holy scriptures (exclusive revelations); group privilege (chosen people, the predestined select few); and salvation (only some are saved).

In other words, these scarce resources contribute heavily to the divisiveness between in-groups and out-groups inherent in organized religion. The sacred space, the holy scriptures, the privilege, the salvation - all of them play a role in making exclusive some absolute "Truth". When such a concept is threatened in any way, violence is inevitable. No monotheistic religion can be a religion of peace.

Gotta get that book!

No Monotheistic Religion Can Be A Religion Of Peace

2011-02-17T16:58:00.000-08:00

These are the words of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, spoken during a debate at NYU. She went on to elucidate in her naturally engrossing way, of course, but covered only the historical events of the Islamic world that buttress this claim. I say “but” only to express my dismay at the missed opportunity to cover the philosophical aspect of this claim, which I believe to be far more convincing, if properly explained. Here is my “stab at it”.

Truth, or our pursuit of it, is undeniably part of what defines humanity. Surprisingly enough, the exact definition of truth is not germane to this idea, and therefore one need not get bogged down in the viscous swamp of defining precisely the meaning of truth. What I believe can be agreed upon by all, and thus a crucial component of this argument, is that it doesn't matter whether one believes that truth can be measured by science or, for those who are into theology, that its entire authority apparently derives from capitalizing the T. Grasping and comprehending what is and what isn't is the most significant goal any organism armed with self awareness and reason can possibly attain. It is our desire for omniscience, and this desire has been omnipresent, in some form or another, surely since the birth of homo sapien’s first coherent thought. And I emphasize this because I want a thorough digestion of the significance of this fact. Even the most banal aspects of our everyday lives must be guided by a knowledge and pursuit of what is and what isn't. It is true that I will soon feel weak and shaky if I stop eating, therefore knowing that food provides the nourishment to prevent this is unequivocally better for me than not knowing this fact or believing the opposite. Is it certain that I will wake up in someone else's body the next time I fall asleep? It may seem obvious that I will be resting easy tonight knowing this won't happen, but imagine a person who is unable to grasp even these banal trivialities. If a mind cannot separate fact from fiction a hundred thousand times on a daily basis, the chaos that would be their waking life is almost unimaginable. There is literally nothing more important to a conscious mind, and more importantly, a collective consciousness, than knowing truth from untruth.

Humanity, organizational and hierarchical creatures that we are, creates disciplines equipped with the means and methods of pursuing any definition of truth that enjoys popularity in the intellectual landscape. However, there is one certain type of discipline, and, I might add, the only type of discipline, that has the shameless audacity to claim actual possession of the ultimate truth!

Religion’s exact definition is mercifully exempt from informing the crux of this argument as well, because the claim of exclusive truth-ownership appears to be a universal commonality to the majority of religions throughout history. This argument will focus exclusively on this obnoxious claim shared among the three major monotheisms, for the sake of precision and, like any atheistic criticism, because of their ubiquitous encroachments on enlightened society.

Religion has always been and always will be a divisive force for humanity. Its hierarchical structure, its customs, its rituals, its profane symbols, its core tenets - all of these things help establish a sense of commonality among its followers. I don’t believe there is any other idea that can create communities and strengthen the bond therein quite like religion, and I admire that. However, when you have a number of individuals belonging to a community, the inescapable fact is that you have an even greater number of individuals who do not belong to this community. We are a tribal species, with an inherent built-in caution regarding anything not belonging to our respective “tribes”. This social exclusion without a doubt engendered our survival as a species, but unfortunately remains with us today. Any organization imaginable, by definition, will separate those that belong and those that do not, and it is inescapable that there will exist some sort of level of distrust or other negative feeling towards “others”, or those on the outside. It is also true that the degree of antipathy tends to increase with how fervently a member holds an organization’s ideals and values, and at a certain level, violence is inevitable.

Combine this tribalism with the claim that your particular tribe is in possession of a form of truth so important, so critical, that all of humanity's eternity is in peril without it. With so much at stake, it's no wonder that violence will inevitably be a part of the monotheistic religions.

Test

2011-02-17T14:28:00.001-08:00

Feeling the urge to start blogging again

Let's see if my hometown can compete with that last post

2008-08-25T18:30:00.003-07:00

Link. My hometown can bring the crazy as well (scroll down to find the comment)

Everything in this life is based on good or evil (moral or immoral). If you do not believe in a Supreme Being (God) then how do you make judgments on right and wrong (good and evil)? Think about it...if we all evolved and came from nonlife (HA!) then it is all about survival and who cares what happens to the little guy?? Who cares if people get raped? Hey...doesn't the rapist have rights? He has the urge to to satisfy his desires; so why can't he? Wait...wait...who said the victim has been violated? Who determined the rules of society?
And if an atheist...I would feel so cheated with Evolution, as why cannot the male have babies??!! Not fair....where are my rights...cannot the scientist figure a way for the male to carry a baby? What...man is not all powerful?? Man Darwin....why did you have to die? Wait wait...why did he die? Shouldn't he just have evolved into a better species??

Bottom line: Things really are impossible to explain in life without God...if you take God completely away then it would be disasterous...as you are seeing our society turn today!

Live a good moral life and you are slammed but live a evil immoral life and you are praised. Wait...praised? Hmmm...if we came from nothing???...where did we learn to praise anything? The more I think as an Evolutionist the more confused I get....hmmmm

What say all? Is this one as dumb as letter-writer in my previous post?

A Simple "Wrong" would have done just fine

2008-08-25T18:01:00.002-07:00

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may the FSM have mercy on your soul."

Warning, stupidity ahead:

CotG FTW

2008-08-18T21:19:00.003-07:00

Do me a favor, visit the latest Carnival of the Godless, then click on the second featured submission. Why, it's a post from me! Welcome back! Now go back and read the rest of the great godless writing.

Christian Persecution - Ur Doin it Wrong

2008-08-14T13:19:00.001-07:00

Something's fishy here:

A Presbyterian minister who officiated the union of a lesbian couple will face a regional church court on two charges later this year.

The Rev. Janet Edwards will go before the Permanent Judicial Commission of Pittsburgh Presbytery on Oct. 1, facing charges of knowingly acting in defiance of her ordination vows and of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)'s Constitution when she performed the same-sex ceremony, according to the Presbyterian News Service.

Wait a second, listening to the standard Christian objections, I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. I thought that if gays were allowed to marry, then soon ministers would be facing prosecution for not marrying them. You guys had it backwards the whole time!

Link

Alvin and the Debunks

2008-08-14T11:58:00.002-07:00

I'm hoping Mr. Tom Gilson doesn't think of me as some sort of blog stalker, because the majority of my posts as of late have come from reading something he has written or linked to. It's just that I can hear the gears in my head crank a lot louder when I read his stuff more than any other religious blog, and I sincerely hope he takes that as a compliment.

So once again, I've found a tasty morsel on Tom's blog. He links to an article in Christianity Today by Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga entitled Evolution vs. Naturalism. As described by Tom, the essay states that "[I]f you’re a believer in evolution, you have no warrant for believing in naturalism".

"No warrant for buh guh wha...?"

Try to wrap your mind around this. Evolution is the natural explanation of life's diversity here on Earth. Naturalism is the belief that everything can be explained through natural causes. And Plantinga is telling us that they're incompatible?

Well, color me interested!

I have to admit, I was struck with both great intrigue and and a little concern. I mean, as crazy as the claim that the belief in evolution and naturalism are incompatible is, this was coming from a friggin philosopher from Notre Dame! I had taken on a nuclear physicist before, but he was just talking philosophy. But this time it was a philosopher talking philosophy! This guy has the homefield advantage. Boots quaking, I clicked the link and began to read.

Plantinga begins with the token, prerequisite bashing of the "New Atheists™". Everyone knows how this goes - "...blah blah blah, their books are incoherent hateful screeds, blah blah blah, illogical and full of righteous indignation, blah blah blah, I refuse to provide any examples of their errors right now, blah blah blah..."

Is there some sort of contract that Christian apologists must sign that states that they must begin any essay about atheism by tossing empty criticisms at the "New Atheists™", or is this just an agreed upon formality?

Moving forth, it takes a few paragraphs for Plantinga to get to the meat of the essay - his explanation as to how evolution and naturalism are "belligerent combatants" is as follows:

- A naturalist believes that all cognition (including beliefs) is determined by neurophysiology.
- A naturalist believes that all behavior is ultimately determined by neurophysiology.
- Evolution states that our behavior must have been adaptive for us to survive.
- That means that our neurophysiology is adaptive as well.
- Evolution rewards adaptive behavior, and punishes maladaptive behavior.
- As long as the behavior is adaptive, evolution cares not whether your beliefs are true.

I agree with all of this so far. Kudos, good sir! And I did love Platinga's example that demonstrates that last point - a frog's false belief that catching the right fly will turn him into a prince does not matter to evolution, so long as this belief continues to encourage the beneficial behavior of, you know, feeding himself. So far so good?

Nope.

Plantinga launches into a hypothetical world consisting of an evolved race of cognitive creatures with their own beliefs. I will let him do the flopping on this next point:

So consider any particular belief on the part of one of those creatures: what is the probability that it is true? Well, what we know is that the belief in question was produced by adaptive neurophysiology, neurophysiology that produces adaptive behavior. But as we've seen, that gives us no reason to think the belief true (and none to think it false). We must suppose, therefore, that the belief in question is about as likely to be false as to be true; the probability of any particular belief's being true is in the neighborhood of 1/2. But then it is massively unlikely that the cognitive faculties of these creatures produce the preponderance of true beliefs over false required by reliability. If I have 1,000 independent beliefs, for example, and the probability of any particular belief's being true is 1/2, then the probability that 3/4 or more of these beliefs are true (certainly a modest enough requirement for reliability) will be less than 10-58. And even if I am running a modest epistemic establishment of only 100 beliefs, the probability that 3/4 of them are true, given that the probability of any one's being true is 1/2, is very low, something like .000001.7 So the chances that these creatures' true beliefs substantially outnumber their false beliefs (even in a particular area) are small. The conclusion to be drawn is that it is exceedingly unlikely that their cognitive faculties are reliable.

Whoa there! Wait just a second! Since when was the split between a belief's likelihood of being true or false a perfect 50/50? Mr. Plantinga has some serious thinking to do about the nature of beliefs, because he completely ignored several odds-changing factors.

First of all, has Plantinga ever heard of Ockham's razor? Let's say I believe in the miraculous healing powers emanating from the love child of Rubius Haggrid and Chewbacca. I'd say the true/false chances skew just a tiny bit from 50/50. Does he realize that if you pit a belief that violates the laws of physics against one that doesn't, then the belief that doesn't require postulating an entirely new paradigm beyond the physical and natural is going to be helluva lot more likely?

And what about beliefs that come from evidence collected by those before us? What if the frog snatching flies out of the air simply believed that they provided nourishment, based on the observation that when his cousin stopped eating them he (forgive me) croaked? Is Plantinga seriously asserting that this belief is 50/50, just like the belief that catching the right fly will turn you into a prince is 50/50? What if I told him, without providing evidence, that his job at Notre Dame was a sham and the reality was that Notre Dame's education was a front for the Keebler elves, who have recently relocated their factory of deliciousness inside the Golden Dome? Would he consider that with a flip of a coin?

The chances of a belief being true is not 50/50. And this is where Plantinga's argument completely falls apart. He goes on to address what he sees as the main objection to his argument - but this is a straw man, in my case, so whatever.

And of course, he can't conclude an essay without smugly declaring Christianity to be superior.

"The obvious conclusion, so it seems to me, is that evolutionary naturalism can't sensibly be accepted. The high priests of evolutionary naturalism loudly proclaim that Christian and even theistic belief is bankrupt and foolish. The fact, however, is that the shoe is on the other foot. It is evolutionary naturalism, not Christian belief, that can't rationally be accepted."

Or in other words:

"If you believe in evolution and naturalism, then chances are those beliefs are false. But if, like me, you believe in a god whose existence would force a complete overhaul on everything we know about the universe and all of its laws, then your belief is obviously superior!"

It's the simple things in life...

2008-08-10T20:14:00.000-07:00

An Eternal Atheist Strawman

2008-08-03T09:29:00.001-07:00

So, Christians. Here's some advice: if you can eventually come around to the fact that atheism is neither a religion, philosophy, or worldview, then perhaps you will stop embarassing yourselves by asking questions like:

"What has atheism ever done for science?"

What has the lack of belief in magical elves ever done for science? What has the lack of belief in unicorns ever done for science? What has the lack of belief in the Loch Ness monster ever done for science?

Although, one might argue that the only way science can produce results is by observing and testing the natural world, therefore making science itself an atheistic enterprise. So then the question becomes even more ridiculous because it's tantamount to asking: "What has science ever done for science?"

Via Tom

You won't regret it

2008-07-19T16:51:00.000-07:00

Where I Work

2008-07-10T11:51:00.002-07:00

A Group That Organizes Mass Marriage Renewals - Almost A Great Idea

2008-07-09T14:59:00.001-07:00

Hundreds Vow Recommitment to Marriages in Anniversary Event

Ah, that's nice! What a great way to - wait . . . hold on a second . . .

In an era where rising divorce rates and marital infidelity are rapidly becoming societal norms, hundreds of couples met together last month to buck the secular trends of the world with a renewed commitment to God and the sanctity of biblical marriage.

Is it just me or is the article implying that divorce and infidelity are secular trends? Need we break out the divorce statistics again?

And of course, this lovely group wouldn't allow a gay married couple to renew their vows. Because of course that would weaken all of the hetero marriages . . . somehow.

A True-False Test for Theistic Moral Relativists

2008-07-02T11:44:00.000-07:00

Tom has an nice little True/False quiz for moral relativists. What I can't figure out is whether it's aimed at theists or not.

1. (T/F) All moral values are entirely constructed or produced out of persons’ or cultures’ beliefs.

This is false for a theist who believes in morals that originate from a supernatural deity. But since they can not definitely prove the existence of their deity, much less this deity's moral demands, then the morality they lay claim to cannot be differentiated from the moral relativism to which they criticize atheists, agnostics, and the irreligious of subscribing.

2. (T/F) Let us assume that everybody in some cultural grouping G believes that some behavior B expresses a good and valid moral value. (It doesn’t really matter what B is.) For that culture, at that time and in those conditions, B is good.

True. Old Testament laws, if enacted today by a society, would be a moral abomination. We would react in horror as outed homosexuals would instantly be murdered, as well as insubordinate children, and a host of other atrocities. This was considered moral back then to theists who believe morals come from their god of choice, and similar horrors are visited upon gays and women today in the name of Allah. Gosh, so many different views of morality by these theists who claim to follow a being with perfect, absolute morality, is it not? Why, you might even say it's quite relativistic.

3. (T/F) Another cultural group H may disagree with G on this, but nevertheless for GB is still good; for cultures may validly hold different opinions on moral values. H’s disagreement with G does not make B bad or wrong in itself, it only makes it bad or wrong for H.

True. The hideously immoral codes portrayed in the Old Testament were OK for that society back then, but the New Testament provides us with a new or different morality for us today. Huh. So much for absolute, objective, god-given morals.

4. (T/F) Suppose there is no group H that disagrees that B is good. Then everyone would be in group G, and would agree that B is good. For that time and in those conditions at least, B is therefore good for everybody. It is a universal good in the sense that it is universally shared by all persons then living, though not in the sense that its value comes from somewhere beyond the persons who have made it a value.

Let's suppose that everyone on the planet were good, solid, fundamentalist, conservative Christians. Then everyone would be in this group, and therefore would all agree Old Testament punishments of certains sins are good. For that time and in those conditions at least, stoning sinners to death is therefore good for everybody. It is a universal good in the sense that it is universally shared by all persons who share the same beliefs about a type of deity. The missing objective verification of this deity's existence, as well as the requisite proof the deity's moral commands, goes blissfully ignored.

5. (T/F) In most cultures of the world, the Holocaust of WW II is regarded as having been a severe moral evil.

True, except for this small part:
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
--Hitler, Mein Kampf
You see, Hitler wouldn't be able to prove the existence of his version of god, nor what his god's actual will was. But then again, any Christian who denounces Hitler's actions and beliefs as being contrary to their particular god's will and moral authority can't prove it's existence either. It's a moral relativistic he said she said.

6. (T/F) If, however, Hitler had won the war, and if he (and his followers) had been able to exterminate or brainwash everyone who thought the Holocaust was evil, then the situation would be like that of (4), where every person in the world agreed that the Holocaust was morally good. (This example also follows one given by W.L. Craig.)

True, because all of these brainwashed people would be following Hitler's faith in an unprovable, unverifiable god.

7. (T/F) In that case, the Holocaust would be correctly regarded by the remaining population as having been morally good.
Self-check: compare your answers to (4) and (7).

True. Are you seeing what this theistic moral relativism is capable of? Horrifying, isn't it?

8. (T/F) Some remaining persons (call them Group H again) may think it was morally evil to massacre and/or brainwash the dissenters. Those persons themselves (the members of Group H) could conceivably be brainwashed and/or killed by the others (Group G), so that every remaining person would then be a member of group G and would believe the following:
(a) To exterminate the Jews was a morally good goal.
(b) To kill and/or brainwash those who disagreed with (a) was morally good.
(c) To kill and/or brainwash those who dissented from (b) was also morally good.

Yeah, I can see all three happening. We're talking about a like-minded majority who are basing their morals off the demands of a supreme being that nobody can prove or disprove. (a) is actually a big part of Christian history, and we find (b) and (c) happening all the time between opposing religions. That's the problem with the relativism inherent in theistic morals: they all follow the true god, and everyone else is wrong. Can a single one of them empirically prove it? Nope.

9. (T/F) With no Group H, and with every person alive believing that 8(a), 8(b), and 8(c) were morally good, then those moral beliefs would indeed be universally good, taking “universal” as described in (4).

We're getting really repetitive right now, but yes, group H would definitely answer "True" to this.

10 (T/F) In other words, relativism could coherently lead to a possible world, as philosophers term it, in which the Holocaust was morally good, and where brainwashing or killing off all possible dissent was also morally good–universally so, in fact. This moral good, as suggested in (9), would rest on a much stronger social foundation than, say, the current common Western belief that slavery is wrong. It would in fact be more clearly good than current beliefs that slavery is wrong.

Self-check: compare your answers to (9) and (10) with your answer to (4)

The moral relativism inherent in theism would say yes, repeat ad nauseum. Same goes for question 11.

From this you see one reason I am not a moral relativist.

I understand that you see yourself as shunning moral relativism, Tom, but when you base your morals off of a being that you can't objectively prove exists, then you can't claim that this being's moral laws are absolute. Your moral code, to an outside observer, is indistinguishable from moral relativism. Without proof of your god, then your moral code is nothing but your relative interpretation of your god's moral code.

Not a choice

2008-06-27T18:58:00.001-07:00

The argument from Christians that being gay is a choice has sort of a N/A effect on me. I personally don't see why that is relevant. I mean I get why they have to argue that, if being gay isn't a choice then it sort of helps show that it is a natural phenomenon. The evidence so far does lean towards it being a natural cause. And besides, what person in their right mind willingly invites the inevitable onslaught of verbal and possibly physical abuse by religious thugs? Hmm, I don't get beat up as often as I'd like, why don't I become gay?

I just shrug my shoulders. You think it's a choice? Huh. OK. So what? If it's a personal decision, it's still a decision that hurts neither you or me. It's a personal decision that doesn't somehow downgrade their status as a human being and a citizen of this country. Therefore, they deserve the same rights as you and I. Then I might follow that up with a "...so f*ck off", depending on the situation.

All this, via Tom via an interesting blog on the subject.

Beware the Badge and Gun...and Religion

2008-06-25T20:37:00.001-07:00

This is pretty outrageous. The Sheriff of a town in Ohio endorsed his Muslim beliefs to a group of children while in uniform. He's quoted as saying, "If you follow Allah's Commandments, you're going to have this covered, doing the right thing with other people, I'd rather learn Allah's Commandments than this book {referring to Ohio's Revised Code}."

Ha ha, just kidding! He was, of course, a Christian and was referring to the 10 Commandments. Sometimes, pulling that little switcheroo can be effective in getting an opponent with theocratic preferences to realize what they're actually arguing for. Does this sheriff realize what he's talking about? Does he actually think it would be great if he could pull someone over and hand them a ticket for worshiping a false idol? Has he been told lately that he lives in the United States and not Iran?

The Sheriff's actions are unacceptable, and he should be reprimanded. Personally, I think he should have to pay an outrageous fine and a Constitution violation should be placed on his permanent recored - that is unless he spends 8 hours in Constitution school watching film reels of people dying horrible deaths because they weren't wearing their Constitution belts!

Oh and isn't this just the cutest? He told the children "there are rules, and then there are Rules." What is the deal with Christian Capitalization? Apparently they have Rules, the Truth, the Book, they even get to capitalize God - let's not even get into the arrogance of using the generic term for a deity. It's almost as if they think they're copyrighting those words, and that the capitalization makes their argument stronger.

(Hat tip Ed)

I Can Now Legitimately Quote "Swingers"

2008-06-18T22:12:00.002-07:00

Because I live in Las Vegas!

A couple months ago, my girlfriend and I came down to Vegas in order to act as pit crew for her dad's Baja race. From what I can piece together, I apparently had a good time. My buddy, who had already moved down several months earlier offered me a job. It didn't take long for me to decide that I've had enough of sitting on my rear all day working for Dell. So we squared the financial stuff away (well, my girlfriend did), and I moved down!

My girlfriend is working up in Stanley for the summer at Meadow Creek Spa, and she's the best damn masseuse in the biz. We've done the long-distance thing before, but never this far apart. I miss her something fierce, but everything's going good.

I'll still be stalking the Times News reader comment section, plus I'm sure there will be more than enough crazy wingnut blog postings for me to chew up and spit out. Just wanted to throw out this little update. My one or two readers must be kept informed, after all!

A Tendency to Exaggerate

2008-06-17T23:37:00.002-07:00

OK, OK, I'll blog some more!

So I've been meaning to respond to something that was linked to by Tom at Thinking Christian. It's a duo of posts by another blog called Gladio Mentis - The Sword Of The Mind. The posts are here and here and they address the question: Is atheism required for science?

I find the posts to be a typical mischaracterization of an aspect of scientific philosophy - and that is that science only works and progresses when utilizing methodological naturalism. The assumption that there is a natural mechanism behind whatever phenomena you are studying is the only assumption you can test. This isn't a difficult concept. Just how in the hell are you going to test your hypothesis that an intangible demon is causing that weird sound coming from your car?

The two posts, in that predictable Christian persecution complex modus operandi, are assuming that the target of their ire is actually claiming "that those who profess belief in God, even those who doubt atheistic assumptions, are sub-standard in their scientific thought; that the idea of God is anathema to scientific progress."

Umm, no. We're simply saying that doing away with methodological naturalism is a science stopper. If I assume a demon is preventing my car from starting, I have no path whatsoever in even gathering a modicum of evidence in favor of this hypothesis. At a much higher level, when you take a look at the sheer complexity of a single cell and say "God did it", you have no path whatsoever in testing to see if your god actually did that.

I have some other minor quibbles with their posts, like the fact that they provide no link to the quote by Marshall Brain that supposedly represents what all atheists say/think about religion and science - and when you do the digging yourself, guess what? It's taken out of context!

They also claim that we hold up Darwinian evolution as the foundation on which all modern science is built. All of science? Try biology, guys. Whatever you can possibly blow out of proportion to make Christians look more persecuted, eh?

Right-Wing Hackery

2008-04-07T10:58:00.002-07:00

I've beginning to think that it would be very easy to make money as a columnist. All I have to do is abandon intellectual honesty. How else do you explain writers like Dinesh D'souza?

In short, D'Souza has a problem with "Darwinism"*, which he says is taught in an atheist way (unlike chemistry or geography, which are of course replete with Old Testament passages). He makes the correct argument that atheism shouldn't be taught in public schools, just like religions should not be taught in public schools. Atheism is not a religion, but it's advocacy in a public school violates the Establishment Clause by telling children to abandon their (parents') faith.

So then all Dinesh needs to do is provide evidence of atheism being taught in a biology class, right? His "evidence" is glossed over in the very first paragraph - "Textbooks by biologists like William Provine and Richard Dawkins routinely assert that evolution has done away with the need for God."

That's it. Nothing else. Now, we know that Dinesh knows how to link to a book (his own), so it would be very simple to link to one of these classroom biology textbooks that "routinely" make these claims.

This could be an honest mistake, but when D'Souza acknowledges this criticism - that is, that there are no classroom textbooks by Provine and Dawkins, let alone any with quotes of that nature, he simply responds by quoting prominent biologists and their opinion that a god is not required to explain life's diversity. Again, no quotes from textbooks used in any public schools - the only thing that would support his argument.

I can confidently say that I'm a bit smarter then an average person. I'm certainly no genius. My ignorance in different academic subjects definitely outweighs my expertise. So when someone like lil' ol' me can spot this glaringly obvious error in reasoning, it leaves me questioning how and why someone like D'Souza, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Darmouth, could possibly have committed it.

My theory is that there's easy money to be made in the field of right-wing hackery. The only pre-requisite is the abandonment of principles like honesty and integrity.

*Darwinism equals Atheism to Right-Wingers, and the usage of this word is sign number one that you're dealing with crankery.

Indoctrination

2008-03-25T06:57:00.004-07:00

Check out a place called Professor Smith's Weblog and you will find a great example of mindless acceptance of creationist talking points. I keep this site in my "Cranks" category of RSS feeds, just in case I feel like being depressed about the state of science and culture today. It is genuinely saddening to see the Discovery Institute's/AiG's propaganda working at Clockwork Orange-esque levels.

Case in point. A short post covering the recent EXPELLED shenanigans. Here it is in its entirety:

I’ve learned that the High Priest of Darwinism and the namesake of Dawkinsism engaged in another recent event of raising his consciousness by crashing a pre-screening of Expelled and then trying to engage the producer in an argument. Apparently, PZ Myers also showed up in order to wreak havoc as well. They are still complaining about the movie as well, with their unfounded and completely insane rhetoric. Why do people hold these two in such high esteem? It boggles the mind.

Childish equating of evolution with religion? "High Priest of Darwinism". "Dawkinsism". Check.
Over-inflated rhetoric without substance? "...their unfounded and completely insane rhetoric." Check.

Lies?

Well, let's see. The two (out of four) links that supposedly support the good Professor's accusation of "Darwinists Behaving Badly" both rely entirely and without hint of scrutinization on the email of a college student. How trustworthy is this college student? In multiple instances he refers to how Myers and Dawkins were not invited to the pre-screening of EXPELLED.

At this point, anyone with a smidgen of intellectual honesty would research that claim, rather than uncritically swallow it whole. That intellectually honest person would soon discover that it's quite easy to make a legitimate, money-free, appearance at an EXPELLED pre-screening.

So this college student is either a liar or is ignorant of Motive Entertainment's methods of getting their propaganda out there. Either way, not a very trustworthy source when it comes to the rest of his claims. Myers didn't need a ticket, he simply RSVP'd his invite. Dawkins was his guest.

Professor Smith, your dutiful repeating of Creationist tactics and lies isn't very classy right there.

Don't delete me from your list, Tina!

2008-03-24T10:42:00.006-07:00

I don't know if I could live with myself if I lost Tina as a reader, so I'm throwing up a quick post.

Who knows how many people have seen these amazing pictures yet, but check them out:

and

These are from an amazing Photoshop artist that goes by the name of Pixeloo. His website is here, where you can find hi-res versions of these pictures.

Anyhoo, I was wicked-inspired by these pictures, and since I like to think of myself as somewhat of a Photoshop artist as well, I decided to try it. I have almost no idea how Pixeloo went about creating these masterpieces, so with nothing but a few clues about his process that he talks about on his website, I decided to try a "real" Eric Cartman.

OK, I don't know what I was thinking, placing my photoshop under Pixeloo's for easy comparison. Anyone can tell by looking at the eyes that I completely ripped off Pixeloo's hard work. But hey, you know what they say, plagiarism is the most sincere form of flattery, right?

Sigh...at least I tried.

Explanation for lack of posts

2008-03-11T10:56:00.001-07:00

Here

CNN - Ocean's "missing link" discovered

2008-02-01T06:39:00.000-08:00

Link

SYDNEY, Australia (Reuters) -- Australian scientists have discovered a giant underwater current that is one of the last missing links of a system that connects the world's oceans and helps govern global climate.

Creationist: "Yeah, well that just created two new gaps in the oceanic current record! I just disproved thermohaline circulation!"

My-Christian-Space

2008-01-31T11:29:00.000-08:00

Check it out

More on why ID is not a science

2008-01-31T10:00:00.001-08:00

Tom Gilson and I were discussing Intelligent Design in the comments section of one of his posts entitled Against One-Dimensional Thinking. To summarize, a commenter by the name of Pantalaimon made this criticism of ID:

Scientific understanding is of no intrinsic interest to ID. Any “research” they may undertake is strictly subservient to the philosophical goal of crushing naturalistic science for religious and philosophical purposes.

Obviously I agree. Tom took issue with that, however, employing a tu quoque by charging evolution advocates with engaging in the same extra-curricular activities (beyond scientific understanding) as ID advocates - they too write books, make public speeches, attempt to influence public education policy, etc.

Although true, this ignores the point that I or Pantalaimon were trying to make. The subject is scientific work - the stuff you would see in scientific journals. Of course everyone has the right to espouse their views and beliefs through the various forums mentioned. But when it comes to the strictly scientific work, our accusation is that ID proponents are in it solely to knock down a scientific theory that - surprise! - they also happen to have a religious objection to.

This by itself is perfectly fine as well. Everyone has the freedom to criticize any scientific theory they want. The problem comes in when these criticisms are passed off as a rival scientific theory. Criticism of evolution represents the entire ID canon, combine that with the fact that ID proponents provide no positive evidence of their own "theory", and it becomes clear that it is not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that me, Pantalaimon, and hundreds upon thousands of scientists have all come to: Scientific understanding is of no intrinsic interest to ID.

Throughout our conversations, Tom has repeatedly claimed the existence of positive evidence for ID, yet consistently refused to produce any, other than pointing me to "the standard websites", where again, none can be found. Why is this?

Science is mechanistic. Every valid form of science explains facts and observations in terms of physical forces. Now if an ID proponent claims to have positive evidence for ID, then it should fall within the boundaries of fixed natural laws. However, ID proponents (Tom included) have gone on record as supporting the inclusion of supernatural mechanisms in science. Ramifications notwithstanding, shouldn't ID proponents refrain from declaring the existence of positive scientific evidence until they actually succeed in changing the definition of science?

They want their cake and to eat it too. They want to claim to have positive scientific evidence, but they also want the definition of science to change - in that order. Until they follow the rules of the former or succeed in the latter, ID will never be considered a science.

Vatican Condemns Harry Potter

2008-01-16T12:09:00.000-08:00

This headline should have read:

"Men in funny hats who believe in magic condemn book about people in funny hats who believe in magic"

And so, the Vatican continues forth on its mission to drive up sales revenue of any entertainment media it disagrees with.

Tom confuses talking the talk with walking the walk

2008-01-15T07:00:00.000-08:00

Tom Gilson has a post defending Intelligent Design as a bona fide science, with the following theme:

Without conceding that ID is merely negative, let’s do some what-if thinking. Suppose ID were nothing but an attack on evolutionary theory–what then?

He doesn't want to concede that ID is merely negative of evolution, but again, I saw no mention of ID's positive assertions of its own merit.

With that, Tom starts by helpfully fleshing out the criticism stated by ID's opponents: Michael denton's book is nothing but an attack on evolution, Behe's Irreducible Complexity asserts that some things are just too complex to have evolved naturally, and some fella named Ralph Seelke (I don't know either) is testing evolution in order to critique it.

Of course there is more. William Dembski's Explanatory Filter has one job, and that is to filter out evolutionary explanations. Stephen Meyer's unethically published paper The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories is more of the same: evolution can't do this, but my god can!

Hell, just head on over to the Discovery Institute's website. Virtually anything with a hypertext reference tag is going to take you somewhere where they talk about anything but a positive scientific assertion for ID. For instance, let's go over their list of "peer-reviewed" publications:

Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation - Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemical evolutionary models for the origin of the information present in large bio-macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. Meyer shows that the term information as applied to DNA connotes not only improbability or complexity but also specificity of function. He then argues that neither chance nor necessity, nor the combination of the two, can explain the origin of information starting from purely physical-chemical antecedents. Instead, he argues that our knowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agency suggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to build a cell in the first place.
Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines - Behe sets forth a central concept of the contemporary design argument, the notion of “irreducible complexity.” Behe argues that the phenomena of his field include systems and mechanisms that display complex, interdependent, and coordinated functions. Such intricacy, Behe argues, defies the causal power of natural selection acting on random variation, the “no end in view” mechanism of neo-Darwinism. Yet he notes that irreducible complexity is a feature of systems that are known to be designed by intelligent agents. He thus concludes that intelligent design provides a better explanation for the presence of irreducible complexity in the molecular machines of the cell.
Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science - Dembski argues that advances in the information sciences have provided a theoretical basis for detecting the prior action of an intelligent agent. Starting from the commonsense observation that we make design inferences all the time, Dembski shows that we do so on the basis of clear criteria. He then shows how those criteria, complexity and specification, reliably indicate intelligent causation. He gives a rational reconstruction of a method by which rational agents decide between competing types of explanation, those based on chance, physical-chemical necessity, or intelligent design. Since he asserts we can detect design by reference to objective criteria, Dembski also argues for the scientific legitimacy of inferences to intelligent design. [Note: The attack on evolution isn't as straightforward here, but what Dembski proposes is that naturalistic causes be ruled out first before assuming design. Again, no positive argument.]
Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” - Meyer argues that competing materialistic models (Neo-Darwinism, Self –Organization Models, Punctuated Equilibrium and Structuralism) are not sufficient to account for origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms present in the Cambrian Explosion. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.

It pretty much goes on and on like this. By now it should be clear. There are no positive arguments for Intelligent Design, and until there is, ID will never be a legitimate science.

Tom argues, however:

That’s enough, though, to illustrate what ought to be obvious: even if one looks only at its negative aspects, ID involves scientists doing scientific investigations. Is Intelligent Design “A Science?” If your definition of “A Science” requires that it include a scientifically describable and testable theory, that’s a debatable question. One could argue that the inference to design is not scientific, that it’s philosophical instead; and that since it’s an argument by analogy, it’s not testable. For my part, I do see that inference on the other side of a line of demarcation between science and philosophy. Separating these disciplines is difficult, though, and answers are debatable.

Just so I have it straight: just because they talk the talk? Listen, anyone can do all sorts of legitimately scientific investigations and find small gaps in an otherwise completely unifying scientific theory. That does not mean that whatever cause they champion is scientific. If I fault geologists for not providing a step by step process of every drag, suction, and pull in the lithosphere does not mean my belief that the Keebler Elves separated the continents has destroyed the theory of Plate Tectonics (damn those ivory tower Wegenerists). You can't build muscle by critiquing Mr. Universe's diet.

Science is a great tool because of its sheer usefulness. This usefulness derives itself from working solely in the physical, material world. Injecting philosophical analogies and supernatural causes into a practical, effective paradigm only serves to inflate it with more questions and fuzziness. So yes, a proper definition of science would include "a scientifically describable and testable theory".

With the negativity of ID established, Tom still thinks mainstream science would object to it, but he has it wrong on why. He thinks scientists would object on the following grounds:

1. Evolution cannot be questioned. Where evolution sits, where no doubts can be voiced, no dissent raised, no questions asked. Evolution must be true.

2. All doubts raised toward evolution are religiously motivated, and religion ought to keep its interfering nose out of science’s business.

3. Evolutionary skeptics are not publishing in peer-reviewed articles; therefore they are not doing science.

1. Evolution is questioned all the time. That's how it has become the unifying theory of all branches of biology. A scientist wants to know why a particular trait has developed, and because he has a positive, testable model to work with, he can answer his questions. When he thinks he has the answers, he submits them to peer-review who also question evolution in order to actively debunk his claims. If they fail, well then the theory is that much more complete. What scientists object to is objections to evolution in favor of transparently religious non-scientific theories by means of nitpicking the science yet refusing to do their own - and then having the sheer cajones to support the teaching of this stuff in public schools. How can any reasonable person argue that any ID/Creationist movement is purely in the interest of science and not politics?

2. I'm sure Tom could find me an example of one or two people who question evolution without being motivated by their religion, but come on. In general, denial of evolution IS religiously motivated. This doesn't mean it's the religion that science objects to, it's the anti-science that science objects to. We'd be just as harsh on, say, Trekkies if they were equally anti-science. When it comes down to the meat and potatos of science - the mechanisms - then yes, religion should mind its own business. Again, all it has to offer are interesting, but physically useless supernatural explanations.

3. Switch the premise and the conclusion. No journal is going to publish anything skeptical of evolution in the near future, unless it has something testable to offer in its stead.

To summarize, even if ID were purely negative science, it would still be science. If evolution were shown to be incapable of what has been claimed of it, that would be a scientific discovery. If ID proponents were the ones to lead in that discovery, they would be doing so as scientists doing scientific work. That would be so regardless of whether they were to propose an alternative scientific explanation. It would be so even if they had religious motivations behind their work.

Yes, disproving evolution would be scientific work, and it matters not if these debunkers were ID proponents. Yet the fact that their own theory has no support remains. Disproving evolution is just that - disproving evolution. No other theory takes the mantle by default.

The Mormons make a tacit admission of B.S.

2008-01-14T21:42:00.000-08:00

There has been a recent change in the wording of the Book of Mormon.

Salt Lake City — The introduction to the 2006 edition of the Book of Mormon has a new word: among.

It sounds trivial, but to some it represents a huge change to teachings that have been passed on for generations within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The new wording comes in a passage about American Indians, who have long been presented by Mormon leaders as direct ancestors of a lost tribe of Israel known as the Lamanites.

"After thousands of years all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians,” the new introduction reads.

In previous editions, the phrase was “are the ancestors."

The article goes on to say that Mormon apologists don't think there is anything important in the change. So why the change then, fellas? "Among" the ancestors is quite different from "are" the ancestors.

In this regard I sort of feel sorry for believers in the literal word of their texts. They either have to stick to their guns and defend ridiculous, demonstrably incorrect claims, or make changes and show the unreliability of "God's word". Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

In Which I Blame the Gays for Slavery with Airtight Logic

2008-01-11T05:26:00.000-08:00

"Isn't it remarkable that atheists, who did virtually nothing to oppose slavery, condemn Christians, who are the ones who abolished it?"

What a strange question. Last I heard, atheists currently make up what, like 6% of the population? That's taking in the fact that I've seen statistics anywhere from 2 to 10%. The godless demographic around the time of the Civil War had to be somewhere around -15%. But seriously, who in their right mind would declare themselves an atheist during these times? Why doesn't D'Souza criticize the homosexuals for doing nothing to oppose slavery? I don't think the Scientologists even lifted a finger in opposition to slavery back then, why not go after them too?

What a contemptible human being.

Anyhoo, Christians may have helped end slavery, but just as many, for a longer period of time supported it. The lesson? If a religious doctrine can be used to both fight and support evil, then it's a pretty useless doctrine. D'Souza's got nothing.

The Fresh Prince of the Galactic Confederacy

2008-01-10T12:35:00.000-08:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22412036/

Urge to kill...rising.

Oh yeah, Idaho can bring the crazy

2008-01-10T04:58:00.001-08:00

HAYDEN, Idaho (AP) — A man who believed he bore the "mark of the beast" used a circular saw to cut off one hand, then he cooked it in the microwave and called 911, authorities said.
The man, in his mid-20s, was calm when Kootenai County sheriff's deputies arrived Saturday in this northern Idaho town. He was in protective custody in the mental health unit of Kootenai Medical Center.
"It had been somewhat cooked by the time the deputy arrived," sheriff's Capt. Ben Wolfinger said. "He put a tourniquet on his arm before, so he didn't bleed to death. That kind of mental illness is just sad."
It was not immediately clear whether the man has a history of mental illness. Hospital spokeswoman Lisa Johnson would not say whether an attempt was made to reattach the hand, citing patient confidentiality.
The Book of Revelation in the New Testament contains a passage in which an angel is quoted as saying: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink the wine of God's fury."
The book of Matthew also contains the passage: "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
Wolfinger said he didn't know which hand was amputated.

1. Let's assume that this man's religious delusions were true. Do you think microwaving your hand is going to stop the devil?
2. He is obviously crazy even if he had no religious delusions piled on top of that. But do you think without them, he would have still hurt himself? I think that even with a crazy person, the chances of harming themselves lessens if Biblical craziness isn't exposed to them. Extra insanity only exacerbates the insanity that's already there.

Carnival of the Godless!

2008-01-05T17:52:00.000-08:00

Welcome, one and all, to the Carnival of the Godless!

Let's jump right into this edition - it's chock-full of Heathen goodness! Take that, Jebus!

Don't you love it when a theist drudges out the tired standby of blaming Communism, Nazis, Stalin, Mao Zedong on atheism? Well, godma slays it with ease in this post: What if Stalin had been a theist?

Who here absolutely loves it when theists accuse us atheists of being fundamentalists? Oh the joy! That's why I loved Richard's short and snarky response to the Welsh Archbishop's comments on "Atheistic Fundamentalism", a.k.a. the Evil Atheist Conspiracy! Hide the kids!

If you're like me, you aren't satisfied with the bashing of just one Archbishop. Break out the popcorn and enjoy the throttling Australian Atheist gives to the Archbishop of Sydney. That oughta piss 'em off somethin' fierce!

Christian goes into some detailed description of some of the so called "proofs" of God, then deftly swats them away. He and I are in complete agreement about the psychological origin of religion. I like it when someone seems to transcribe my thoughts exactly - and I love it when it's more articulate then I could imagine.

A fellow blogger by the name of Thursday had a hilarious thought.

The Holiest Day: March 25th
You'd think that there would be another important day on the Christian calendar, given their predilection that life begins at conception...

Now go read Thursday's even more hilarious script of the "Virgin" Mary's encounter with Yahweh. The best line ever? An unsatisfied Mary says: "Well, I did find a piece of doweling that Joseph had lying around the shop…
Mmmm...sacrilicious.

Archvillain has two entries for us. One is about a certain species of horrible drivers he has classified as "Fish People" - I think you know what he's getting at. The other post barely has a connection with the CotG theme, but I think it would be interesting for everyone to read. It's a rant about environmental extremists, specifically the ones that promote awareness and action of anthropomorphic global warming. Now, I can see a lot of Libertarian-oriented atheists agreeing with this post. Then again, I can also see the much larger horde of pro-science atheists disagreeing with him. I have no idea what a pro-science Libertarian will think of it. So just go read his post entitled Infidel and have at it in the comments. Either way, it'll be good traffic for a good blog.

Christmas (or should I say Winterval?) has come and gone, but we can't let this entry pass. dfly183 presents a wonderfully informative essay on the origins of Christmas Traditions. I sure hope us mean ol' close-minded fundamentalist atheists can look past the fact that this blogger is witch.

And I'm sure no one will mind a quick Christmas poem by Gadfly, right? It uses the phrase "shit-strewn"... I knew you'd like it.

After reading The Ridgers review of The Sparrow by Mary Doria, I'm thinking of starting my own Oprah's Book Club. That is, if Oprah was an atheist - also if she wasn't gullible for utter crap like The Secret. (John from Mind on Fire is, of course, way ahead of me on this one.) With it's theme of Deus vult - God wills it - the book sound hella-interesting, and inspires me to get back to work on my own little graphic novel (yes, I am a comic-book nerd). I think one of the most powerful ways to critique religion (or anything) is by hiding it within entertaining media.

The Ridger also gives us a review of the movie I Am Legend, and comments on the sad fact that Hollywood tends to neuter the original creations and inject religious pablum into to make it bankable. Spoiler warning!

Speaking of entertaining media, the Mormons are going to step up the blogging. See what Eight Hour Lunch has to say about that (and check out his video, too). It's not pretty. And speaking of not pretty, they're building a Mormon Temple in my area. What an eyesore.

While we're on the topic of the good people of the Latter Day Saints, everyone should read about IslaSkye's experience at her church. I won't ruin anything, but it's a great commentary about the Mormon church's double-standard when it comes to respect and tolerance. Isla, you're not alone - your post inspires me to finally write about my own Mormon deconversion. Mine involves litigation, so stay tuned!

After reading The Barefoot Bum's entry, I honestly don't feel the need to blog about atheism anymore. He pretty much covers everything with his post (and covers it well), so there's nothing left to talk about. You Barefoot Bastard! Seriously, in one post he covers a description of "New Atheism" I can actually get behind, secular morality, methodological naturalism, the vacuity of sophisticated theology, the crimes of Christianity, religion as a science and critical thought stopper, religion as a form of child abuse, and probably many more things I missed. Damn his efficiency.

Elaine Vigneault came across a reader commentary on an online newspaper that responded to a letter to the editor in which the writer expressed the desire that children should be "protected against atheism" presumably because they are "possessed by the devil". The response is beautiful, and Elaine provides us with a helpful summary of the delightful rebuttal - Six Ways To Avoid Atheists.

Ever wonder in sheer awe how believers can possibly reject such sound reasoning, airtight logic, or scientific evidence? Did you attribute this jaw-dropping blindness to a mental defect? How about willful ignorance? I think Stefan Monsaureus has the answer. And there's much to discuss afterwards.

This topic segues nicely into what Martin Wagner discusses at his site. An early blogging goal of mine was concentrate a substantial portion of my work not only to debunking religious/creationist/antiscience/crank claims, but to examine the underlying cause or mechanism of the irrationality and proud ignorance behind these claims. Martin nails it here. Religion "provides a vehicle for intellectual poseurdom".

And I'd also like to thank Mr. Wagner for birthing the following line into existence:

Many Christians take to heart the wildly ranty final passages of Romans 1, in which anyone who pursues anything other than the "knowledge of God" is branded as "slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful...senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless" with a degree of overwrought hysteria calculated to make Ann Coulter's G-spot explode.

Can we all chip in and put this on t-shirts or a billboard or something?

Over at Shuffl, Jim kindly anoints us all with a discussion about annoying fundamentalist Christian jargon. I forget what the word was, but thankfully I have anointed this CotG with a link to his post.

Alonzo Fyfe, the Atheist Ethicist, reminds us all of two widely used tactics of the religious: that atheists are mean and should be more respectful, and that many of the prominent atheists have not conducted any serious study of theological arguments. What is missing from both of these complaints? Arguments for the existence of a god, obviously.

I find Enonomi's writing just as entertaining as pronouncing her name. She provides us with her thoughts on the Burka, and its implications with religion and personal freedom.

Of all of the important things I've learned so far the the CotG, the most important by far is that you should not call Shalini a "Darwinist". Seriously, don't do it. You'll be sorry. Judging by the way she absolutely trashes the purveyors of BS called prosperity gospel, I'm thinking one of them made that very mistake.

I happen to be of the Christian fundamentalism is an ever-present and ever-increasing threat persuasion. But Pete makes me feel a little bit better with his thoughts on why Evangelicals and Christianity fail. He was also lucky enough to receive a bookmark that said "4 Questions to Ask an Atheist". Lucky. Why can't I receive stupid religious literature ripe for the debunking?

Since it is Sunday, I think it's appropriate we take some time out for a little Bible Study. Mike untangles himself from all of that blue for a moment to lead the study group in a discussion of Romans 1. Spoiler and immortal soul warning: worldly knowledge will give you Teh Gay.

What, if anything, could possibly unite all of the various religious belief systems into a more peaceful, unified setting? Mike White has a suggestion, and I'll give you a hint: it starts with "atheism".

The identification of Isaiah with Highway I-35 has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard since Virgin Mary appearances in stains and Jesus appearances in tortillas. Themaiden makes fun of it, as well he should, and then engages in a some shameless self-promotion linkage. Nothing wrong with that.

The next type of entry is what originally got me into this "blogging" thing that the kids seem to like. It's a good old fashioned claim by claim knockdown of an ARN creationist. With Bay of Fundie on the offense, the poor guy never had a chance. After reading some of the above posts, the bemused, smug, condescending tone and pseudo-intellectualism emanating from this creationist is even more apparent.

Sinister Ministries has this website you may want to take a look at, if you like migraines brought on by overexposure to stupidity. Francois takes one for the team and trudges through it.

Two aspects of atheism that the religious have a hard time understanding are how we can be moral without the big-bellied sheriff in the sky telling us what do, how life can possibly have any meaning if you're just going to die anyway. I've covered morality a few times here, but I don't think I've talked about death yet. Like atheist morality, the concept is much more simple than theists make it out to be: this is the only life I've got, so it's up to me to make it meaningful. I didn't think there was much more that could be said, but then I read Greta Christina's entry on death. Her take? The aspect of death is potentially one of life's greatest gifts.

Let VJack know if you agree or disagree with his review of the Rational Response Squad. I, for one, agree with him. I like what the RRS is doing and another televised debate with Ray and Kirk is at the top of my wishlist. Yes, the RRS can get mean-spirited, but remember: complaints about rudeness are almost always substituted for actual arguments.

And finally, check this out:

After you get done screaming, see what Mark has to say about it.

Thanks for visiting, sinners! Let me know if you see any mistakes or if I missed you. See you in hell!

Cognitive Dissonance? Really?

2008-01-04T05:32:00.000-08:00

I hate to linger on the subject of Christmas, but I just had to comment on this.

Is Richard Dawkins Suffering from Cognitive Dissonance?
...
Most people in western civilization, I think, are aware Dawkins is an atheist. He does, however, propagate some problematic ideas. Psychiatry might even label him as someone suffering from cognitive dissonance. Decrying Christianity as a delusion, while singing the praises of the cultural benefits derived from it, apparently doesn’t seem to bother Dawkins. I suppose there are millions like him.
...
For someone like Dawkins to say he prefers saying "Happy Christmas" because our culture is impoverished by a lack of Biblical knowledge, while at the same time arguing that religion (including Christianity) is ultimately bad strikes me as a serious defect in thought.

Poor fellas. They must be suffering from the cognitive dissonance of being non-pagans while still putting up Christmas trees, lights, decorations, and wreaths.

Really not the guy for me

2007-12-26T05:34:00.000-08:00

I was thinking that I may have overreacted the news of Ron Paul denying evolution (although the question does serve as a great litmus test for a politician's grasp of logic and reason). After all, it's just one single issue out of many very important ones. Why refuse your vote based on just that?

I'm glad I didn't take it back.

The War on Religion
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Dec 30th, 2003

As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

That's right, folks. All of the crank scare-tactics are there. The "elite, secular left". Oh my! The "war on religion". Eeek! They want religion to be "driven from the public view". You bastards! The "collectivist Left hates religion". Sure, every last one of them. They want a nation that is "legally and culturally biased against Christianity". Whatever shall we do?

Let's not forget all flat-out inaccuracies.

The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few.

Wrong. The justification is that the few do not wish to see the government support one religion above all others.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.

Ignorance at its fullest. Let's expose this ignorance as much as possible. No basis in the writings of the Founding Fathers? Has Ron Paul even read a single thing about them? Take a look, here's James Madison:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

Paul obviously hasn't read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Even more exasperating is Paul's assertion that the Constitution is replete with references to god. Gee, Doc, I searched and searched and I just can't seem to find the word god, Jesus, Jehovah, anything like that anywhere in the Constitution - can you help me out?

And as for the myth that the establishment clause was only meant to establish a state church, what reasonable person could actually believe that was the only intent after reading the above quotes? A law could be passed that forces all businesses to close on the Sabbath, and yet no national church would have been established. Yet we would then have an example of the government denying the rights of private citizens to run their businesses how they see fit. I realize Ron Paul would never vote for this legislation, but that's at the federal level. Would President Ron Paul allow the states to enforce oppressive laws like this? If he's ignorant of the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment, it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to suspect his ignorance of the 14th Amendment - the one that applies the establishment clause to the state level as well.

Is it unreasonable of me to expect that the man or woman who holds the reigns to the most powerful nation on the planet not be so ignorant of it's founding legal document? Am I simply being partisan when I reject a candidate for either cynically and dishonestly leveraging ridiculous Religious Right myths for votes or for credulously repeating them?

I think not. Ron Paul will not get my vote.

The danger posed to Church/State separation

2007-12-26T05:33:00.000-08:00

Thinking Christian on the James Corbett:

Here’s a question asked by Jeff Johannsen on the Orange County Register’s online opinion page, regarding the James Corbett incident.

Do we really want a homogenous Christian theocracy in this country?
The answer is no. The question I have from Mr. Johannsen is how he thinks holding to Constitutional separation of church and state–as it is currently interpreted by the courts–would present that risk. I’m afraid he is making the same mistake made by other Corbett supporters: not thinking through the issue.

Now is it possible that Mr. Johannsen isn't referring to the current interpretation of church/state law as the catalyst for Christian theocracy? If that were my quote, I would be referring to the attempts made by the theocratic people, groups, and organizations who have made it their business to subvert the current interpretation of church/state law. I don't know if Tom realizes how easy it is to find examples of very influential Christians denying even the existence of separation in our legal history. Heck, here's a fun excercise: just Google "worldnetdaily" and "separation". Need I say more? Yes... yes I do.

Not the guy for me

2007-12-24T10:09:00.000-08:00

Why God-of-the-Gaps is doomed to fallacy

2007-12-23T10:52:00.000-08:00

On his blog dangerous idea, author Victor Reppert asks the following:

Is there any theistic argument that can't be accused of being a god-of-the-gaps argument? Is this an all-purpose reply to all natural theology? If so, then it seems that someone who subscribes to these responses would have to say that there couldn't be enough evidence for God's existence--that atheism is unfalsifiable, because anything that might require theistic explanation could be answered by saying that this is just a gap that naturalism hasn't filled quite yet. So if the stars in the sky were to spell out the words "Turn or burn Parsons this means you" (oops I did it again), and Parsons were to turn, he would be guilty of god of the gaps reasoning.

Here is the problem those of us who follow methodological naturalism have with theistic arguments: anything we have thus far labeled as a god-of-the-gaps argument has never been a positive argument on it's own. What I mean is that they have all been arguments that attack the shortcomings of science and have never been comprehensively detailed and defined hypotheses on their own.

So, yes, atheism is unfalsifiable, but it is the theist's fault. As long as they refuse to define their god, how his power works, how it interacts with the natural world, etc, then "goddidit" will always remain an argument from ignorance. "Goddidit" can explain everything - therefore nothing.

(Via Tom Gilson)

Atheism is NOT a Religion*

2007-12-22T07:31:00.000-08:00

*Unless you wish to destroy any useful definition of the word 'religion' in order to score a rhetorical point.

I can tell that the CADRE boys are going to become very good blog fodder. We can see, once again, an example of a Christian determined to label atheism as a religion, and mangling the meaning of the latter as a result. Let's jump right in.

Before addressing BK's argument, I want to go over the nature of belief. I like to think of beliefs as physical objects inside your brain. They are things whose existence depends on a person making a conscious effort to maintain them inside their mind. I'm sure that even the most indifferent believers will occasionally commit some sort of mental activity towards their brand of god's direction, whether it be wondering about the nature of this deity to muttering a quick prayer.

Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in god. I am an atheist - so the belief in a god is not present in my brain. I don't make a mental effort at any time during the day, no matter how brief, to re-affirm that there are no god-beliefs in my brain. Atheism takes no mental effort to hold (and yes, I am aware that the last sentence is ripe for a quote-mine from my religious opponents - think of this as a disclaimer for dishonest theists).

Now some would say that it is possible to maintain a belief in the non-existence of god, and then point to the fact that any atheist who is vocal about atheism is an example of that. I believe this is a straw man. I'm certain that any reasonable person would reject to somebody's claim that when it comes to leprechauns and unicorns, most people maintain a belief in their non-existence. That would be silly. Who in their right mind commits the firing of even a single neural synapse to re-affirming the non-existence of leprechauns or unicorns? Nobody. Every sane person is an aleprechaunist and an a-unicornist.

So why are atheists the only people charged with the silly accusation of having to worry about the non-existence of something? Because most people confuse belief in the non-existence of god with simple criticism of theism. I guarantee that if the Unicornists rose to the majority and political power within the decade, any Christian that criticized the belief in unicorns would be labeled as a "dogmatic believer in the non-existence of unicorns".

Not that I'm saying it is impossible to believe in the non-existence of something. My point is that it is a ridiculous accusation hurled only at people who dare to not carry a belief in a god or gods. It is simply a dishonest tactic used to smear atheists with unflattering dogma. Atheists can be rude, insensitive, irrational, bigoted, and any other negative trait humans can carry. But I reject the claim that this is due to a "dogmatic belief in the non-existence of god".

This finally brings me to BK's "Starting Place".

First, I start at a different place than others typically do. I think that we need to first examine what constitutes a religious belief in order to identify a religion. The reason I start here rather than with religion is because it seems to me that religion is simply what naturally follows from an underlying religious belief. Judaism, for example, is the religion that follows from the religious belief that the monotheistic God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the one and only God. Because that God is believed to exist and is believed to have passed down the Torah as a command to His chosen people, then those who believe in the Jewish God (without accepting that Jesus is also the same God) generally follow the Torah as one of the main components of their religion since God has commanded them to do so. In other words, the actions that constitute the religion and which sociologists study follow naturally from the religious beliefs at the core of the system.

The mistake here is that BK appears to be making the assumption that a religion will always naturally follow from the underlying religious belief. How many people out there live there lives atheistically, yet still hold a belief in some sort of higher power? What religion are these theists and deists following when the only thing you know about them is that they hold a belief in a deity? It becomes quite clear that BK must define religion as something more than just a single religious belief. BK is of course free to label single beliefs like deism, which have nothing else inherently attached to them, as religions; but this goes straight to the point I made at the top: this destroys any useful definition of the word religion.

If all it takes to qualify as a religion is to hold a single religious belief, then doesn't that beg the question of what it takes for a belief to qualify as religious? Apparently to BK, there need not be a distinction between sacred and profane, ritual acts, prophets, moral codes sanctioned by gods, prayers, holy books, social organizations, places of worship, etc. If we follow BK's reasoning, the definition of a religion is both the belief in a god and the lack of belief in a god. I don't know about you, but doesn't this seem like a poor way to identify a religion?

I'm in the Christmas spirit, so for right now, let's allow BK's tenuous definition of religious belief pass through. Let's assume for a moment that all atheists do indeed participate in actively believing in the non-existence of god, and that this belief alone qualifies as a religious belief. I'm afraid we still have to go back to an earlier point I made: that religion doesn't necessarily flow from a religious belief. And since the BK Broiler's only identification of religion was a religious belief, it leaves us requiring a better definition of religion.

And because we know BK and every other anti-atheist are all too glad to apply the label of religion to something as simple as atheism, we know that pretty much any belief or lack of belief can qualify as a religion. As long as it informs some sort of aspect of your worldview, it's a religion. Do you think baseball is the greatest sport? Congratulations, you've discovered a new religion. Don't believe in UFO's? Join the a-UFO-ists, they've got a large congregation. Every philosopher out there, from Plato to Popper, have started a new religion. Every political party in the world is now a religion.

Guys, why don't we just keep it simple? I know you want to to score this cheap rhetorical point ever so badly, but it's just not worth it. Atheism, since it is just a lack of a belief, can only be a component of a worldview. It cannot be a worldview by itself.

Axis of the Carnival of the Godless!

2007-12-21T09:23:00.000-08:00

I'm hosting the Carnival of the Godless on January 6th! If you want to be featured in this guaranteed awesome CotG, then here's where you can submit your godless, hellbound posts:

Blog Carnival Submission Form

See you there!

Johannesclimacus and Separation

2007-12-15T06:55:00.000-08:00

Johannesclimacus provided a characteristically long comment on my post about Romney's speech. I'm responding to it in this post not only to rebut his points, but to make my own point about the way many religious people view and fear secularism.

In my post I pointed out the tendency of religious conservatives to purposely conflate two different meanings of "public domain". The first involves a private individual expressing their beliefs in public, the second involves a government entity expressing religious support in defiance of the 1st Amendment. I threw out a challenge to all those who fear the "impending secular religion/forced atheism/daily puppy-kickings" state to come up with an example of Mitt Romney's mysterious group only referred to as "they" blatantly committing the removal of religion from the former definition of "public domain".

Johanne started out, bafflingly, with a quote from the dissent of Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in this year's Gonzales v. Carhart in which the Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Regarding abortion, I quote Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg (someone in the
government) on the Cahart case against partial-birth abortions:

Ultimately, the Court admits that "moral concerns" are at work, concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortion. See ante, at 28 ("Congress could ... conclude that the type of abortion proscribed by the Act requires specific regulation because it implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition."). Notably, the concerns expressed are untethered to any ground genuinely serving the Government's interest in preserving life.

If you do not think that Justice Ginsburg is referencing (and not too subtly) the majority opinion's Justices' religious beliefs (you will recall the slew of pundits and bloggers protesting that it was a giant theocratic catholic conspiracy), You would be guileless indeed. But I'll be blunt: she thinks they are "tethered" to moral concerns that are linked to religious belief.
Alright, if Ginsberg is concerned about the possiblility that the Justices ruling in favor of Gonzalez are using their religious beliefs to do so, then isn't that an example of the second definition of public domain I provided? A Supreme Court Justice, as an acting member of our government, should not be using religious edicts to decide public policy. Would you want a Muslim judge making a ruling on an indecent exposure case based on what his Koran says? Would you want a Catholic judge ruling on a contraceptive case based on what Pope Ratzi says?

Remember, we want examples of the first definition of public domain - a private person's religious expressions in public.

Now when we get to the topic of public universities, it seems more complex, but I don't think it is. A public institution is, by law, prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, natural origin, ethnicity, color, age, gender, marital status, citizenship, sexual orientation, or disability. When a student group wishes to obtain charter membership at an institution they know full well is reigned in by this law, they have to follow the law as well. You can check any of the similar cases Johanne referred to on the FIRE site. None of them will talk about how the student group was barred from forming, only that they were denied official charter membership. So, were they barred from practicing their private beliefs in a public place? No. The school simply denied their ability to use my tax money for their discriminitory policies.

Now when Johanne complains about professors in higher education "indoctrinating" students, we still don't have an example of someone being prevented from expressing their religious view. Last I checked, college courses are elective, and many times there is more than one professor to choose from when deciding on a class to take. I'm quite sure there are numerous religious classes a student can choose from as well.

And what of the National Endowment for the Arts and exhibits like "Piss Christ?" Should these exhibits be thrown away since they use tax-payer money for the display of relgious images?
I don't really see how this is an example of my definition either. This is a private individual's religious expression in a open public forum. If the National Endowment for the Arts also showed an exhibit called Piss Atheist, you wouldn't see me complaining.

I think these examples given by Johannes give a clear message that what he is really complaining about is a trend has slowly been occurring for decades: and that is the slow process of returning Christianity to the same playing field as all other religions when it comes to influence on the government. He doesn't like the fact that a Supreme Court Justice is cautious about her peers relying on Christian morality to dictate their judgments, he doesn't like the fact that a public university will not allow the tax payers to fund Christianity-based discrimination, and he doesn't like the fact that a public organization allows citizens to express ideas that he disagrees with.

I believe that Christians who see these things happening prefer not to see their religion removed from its pedestal and instead explain it away as some sort of "secular conspiracy". But secularism is the only thing that allows a religious person to freely worship. Religious freedom requires that the government not promote any one religion over the others in any way.

Light posting this week

2007-12-12T12:47:00.000-08:00

I have to be at the site all week (grr!), plus I'm closing on our house (yay!)

The Original Video for "The Ring"

2007-12-08T12:05:00.000-08:00

Health Officials confirm the obvious

2007-12-08T06:26:00.000-08:00

Abstinence only doesn't work.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great idea in theory and honorable if practiced, but c'mon people, doesn't anyone remember being a teenager?

Teenagers are going to have sex, you can't stop it. You might as well teach them how to do it safely.

Tonight

2007-12-08T05:54:00.000-08:00

Inspired by Ed's "Youtube Gems" posts, I thought I'd add a few TOOL videos.

Parabola

Schizm

Stinkfist

Vicarious

Germany really wants to be forgiven for producing Hitler

2007-12-07T12:58:00.000-08:00

Proof

Romney, Religious Tolerance, Atheism

2007-12-07T10:58:00.001-08:00

I normally don't care if a Republican makes a speech about religion. Everyone knows the target demographic of their platform; and everything they say is peppered with pious catchphrases. So really, aren't all Republican speeches religious in nature?

So why should I pay any attention to Romney's? Well, Paul had some interesting things to say about it, and that inspired me to examine the speech in depth. Naturally, I'm not surprised by anything Romney said, but there is plenty to criticize.

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator.

I don't see how a candidate can make this statement, and then hide behind the Constitution (as you will see later) when it comes to expanding on his own religious views. If religion is a serious matter in the context of weighty threats that face us, then it is a serious matter when electing a presidential candidate who will have to face these threats. Religion affects how the U.S. handles foreign policy, civil rights, scientific progress, public education, and many other issues. So while Mr. Romney isn't legally required to discuss his religious beliefs, the American people do have the right to vote based on a candidate's religious beliefs. For all his talk of religious tolerance, it would be interesting to see him finally talk about his beliefs, and see how he feels about the level of tolerance in this country after that.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Wrong. Freedom does not require religion, as evidenced by millions and millions of atheists that get along just fine without religion. And religion is all too often the enemy of freedom - e.g. "Accept Jesus' love or burn in hell".

Romney said that he "will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law". Very admirable, but very soon after that he said "My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs."

So then what happens when President Romney is faced with the issue of gay rights? Will he follow the constitution and treat every citizen equally, or will he commit to the solely religious purpose of discrimination against gays? It falls one way or the other, so he can't have it both ways.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.

Here is where I think the Mittster is just ducking the question. Like I said to Paul, it is against the law to require a candidate to discuss his religion. But it is perfectly fine for him to discuss it if he wants to. He simply doesn't want to.

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

Someone give me a place to bang my head. Who is this "they" that seek to remove God from the public domain? Any conservative Christian can tell you the Mitt is either referring to the ACLU, Liberals, Democrats, the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, all of the above, or they're all the same thing. What none of them tell you though, is that they are pulling the switcheroo on two different definitions of "public domain".

When a conservative mentions the phrase 'public domain', he or she is referring to a private citizen's expression of religion in public. Please, oh please, find me an example of "them" removing God from the public domain in that context. Yeah, I didn't think so.

Now then, when the ACLU litigates on the subject of public domain, they are seeking to stop or prevent a representative body or person from promoting a particular religion above all others. As well they should. It's called the 1st Amendment.

Can a student pray in school? Yes. Can a teacher lead a prayer in school? No. See the difference? Can a federal judge put a monument of the 10 Commandments on his front lawn? Yes. Can he put them in his courthouse? No. Is anyone getting this?

And this notion of a "religion of secularism" is just laughably preposterous. Secularism is defined as being without religion, so how can it be a religion on its own? Like it or not, the Constitution is a secular document, thereby making this a secular nation. But nobody is forcing anyone to abandon their religion, that's what secularism ensures. So when I see statements like "In order to protect the separation of church and state, we must keep religion involved in politics, lest secular humanism becomes the state religion", I can only laugh and shake my head at the sheer paranoia of it all.

The creationists are going to have field day with this one

2007-12-07T06:09:00.000-08:00

Tanya came across this article from Boston.com. Prepare for a deluge whining from the creationists.

Nathaniel Abraham filed a lawsuit earlier this week in US District Court in Boston saying that the Cape Cod research center dismissed him in 2004 because of his Christian belief that the Bible presents a true account of human creation.

Abraham, who is seeking $500,000 in compensation for a violation of his civil rights, says in the suit that he lost his job as a postdoctoral researcher in a biology lab shortly after he told his superior that he did not accept evolution as scientific fact.

Fan, let me introduce you to Shit. This story will, of course, be overblown and exaggerated by the pious crowd. Abraham, if he hasn't already, will most likely make it into the EXPELLED film - which by the way, would automatically discredit his story.

I love how Abraham comes off as the wide-eyed, innocent victim in this; but like the article mentions: this guy signs onto a job that requires the use of evolutionary theories for its success, yet he doesn't want to use evolutionary theories. Do you know anyone that applies for a job at a demolition company, then after he is hired, reveals that he does not believe in demolition and refuses to operate jackhammers and wrecking balls?

I could sympathize with this guy if perhaps he was working with a group that studies the pottery of the Aztec civilization or something, but that's not the case. If you refuse to use the tools required for your job, you should be fired. If I were to start playing guitar strung with invisible Jesus-strings, I should be fired from my cover band. Abraham went in knowing what was required of him, but didn't mention his aversion in the interview. That's tantamount to lying.

Another thing that gets me is his complaint of being subject to a hostile work environment. Why do some Christians think that their beliefs should be exempt from criticism? His beliefs prevented him from doing his job. He is responsible for creating that work environment. His fellow colleagues would be hindering the goals of their research program if they allowed Abraham to continue not doing the work he was hired to do.

This shouldn't be news. This is just a story about a guy who refused fulfill his work requirements and was rightly fired for it. Unfortunately, adding religion to the story attaches a lot of fake persecution baggage.

Thanks for the free publicity, guys!

2007-12-06T04:57:00.000-08:00

Well, that does it. I have now decided to see the Golden Compass solely because of the Christian freak-outs over it.

1. Calm down people, it's just a story.
2. Even if it does espouse atheism, that's a good thing. This country, and especially the next generation, need to learn free-thinking.

Excruciating

2007-12-05T05:43:00.000-08:00

This is the same genius that didn't know if the earth was flat or not. Why isn't she flipping burgers?

Guillermo Gonzalez and Fake Persecution

2007-12-05T04:09:00.000-08:00

Man, this story is like meth to the Intelligent Design crowd - they're the pseudo-masochists wearing lab coats, in case you were wondering. Here's a quick backstory:

Guillermo Gonzalez, an astrophysicist, is an Assistant Professor at Iowa State University. Last April he was denied tenure. It appears that his support for Intelligent Design was a factor in the decision.

This, of course, has the ID supporter community's collective panties in a bunch. Oh, the cries of persecution! You poor pseudo-science pushers! All of this wailing and gnashing of teeth would be hilarious if only this charade wasn't taking place in The United States of Jesusland.

Aside from the Disco Institute's predictable spin, just look at other overreactions. Tom Gilson hyperbolates:

"...[Gonzalez] committed the unforgivable sin of giving aid and comfort to people who [support ID]. And he got whacked for it.

It demonstrates a point that ID proponents have been making for a long time: academic prejudice contributes to ID being squelched, for reasons that have little to do with its academic merits."

Wrong, Tom, academic prejudice contributes to ID being squelched precisely because of its academic merits. Or should I say its non-existent academic merits? Nitpicking small details in the leading scientific theory does not constitute a scientific theory on it's own. Looking at a biological structure, shrugging your shoulders and saying "Goddidit" does not constitute a scientific theory. Go ahead and wave the Disco Institute's dishonest list of peer-reviewed papers in my face all you want. Even if we did count them, it is a laughably pathetic list if you compare it to the list of peer-review articles that support evolution that come out in the span of a few weeks.

What's that? You want more overblown rhetoric? OK, check out what the ever-so-maturely-named Atheism Sucks! blog has to say:

ID proponents are being persecuted for questioning the so-called "authenticity" of Darwinian evolution. Because these spineless low-lifes can't take the truth, they, like evolution, must wipe out their competition by any unscrupulous means necessary. It's a darn shame.

Everyone shed a tear for the poor, persecuted ID proponents. Actually, Frank, the darn shame is that Guillermo Gonzalez chose to support a pseudo-science in favor of, um, you know, things that a University looks for in granting tenure. He could have published peer-reviewed papers, brought in research grants, supervise graduate students. Instead he aligned himself with an outfit that does nothing but dishonest PR work for a pseudoscience.

And let me just say that he actually succeeded on the other merits and had Gonzalez been judged solely on his support for ID, I still wouldn't want to grant him tenure. ID is not science. Would you grant tenure to someone who supported Astrology? Would you grant tenure to a geologist that supported the flat-earth theory?

Guillermo Gonzalez was judged fairly - based on his merits and the merits of ID itself.

An Interesting Criticism of an Atheist Argument

2007-12-04T05:15:00.000-08:00

From one of the CADRE boys, quoting H.H. Farmer's book Revelation and Religion:

[These are] views...which dismiss religion as being merely a means whereby men gain reinforcement in face of the threats, frustrations and disasters which beset them, and as such completely explicable in terms of wishful thinking or other such psychological process...such views...are almost incredibly indifferent to manifest facts. They ignore, that is to say, the presence in living religion of precisely this 'pricking' element of absolute claim...One may note, however, in passing that often the same superficial and confused minds which reject religion as being merely a fantasy-satisfaction of human desires also criticize it, in other contexts, for its puritanical demands upon, and restriction of, those desires. (Revelation and Religion, pp.141-142)

and

[These are] views...which dismiss religion as being merely a means whereby men gain reinforcement in face of the threats, frustrations and disasters which beset them, and as such completely explicable in terms of wishful thinking or other such psychological process...such views...are almost incredibly indifferent to manifest facts. They ignore, that is to say, the presence in living religion of precisely this 'pricking' element of absolute claim...One may note, however, in passing that often the same superficial and confused minds which reject religion as being merely a fantasy-satisfaction of human desires also criticize it, in other contexts, for its puritanical demands upon, and restriction of, those desires. (Revelation and Religion, pp.141-142)

At first glance it does seem inconsistent to criticize Christianity (or religion in general) for two seemingly opposite faults. On one hand, religion is cut down for merely being a manifestation of man's desires: his fear of mortality and wish for continued existence, his aspiration for obtaining justice in a cruel and indifferent universe, and his longing for parental comfort in the face of tragedy or despair.

Yet on the other hand, religion is belittled for suppressing some of man's desires. I, myself, believe that the monotheistic trinity of religions provide a very unhealthy attitude towards sex, sexuality, and even the simple naked body. A major reason I started this blog was in order to point out religion's rampant suppression of free-thought and scientific inquiry in favor of conformity and willful ignorance.

And so H.H. Farmer asks: which is it? Does religion provide man with false desires, or does religion falsely suppress man's desires? And to that I say, why not both?

I see nothing inconsistent in both of these criticisms. After all, there's no conflict between the specifics. For example, nobody criticizes religion for suppressing man's desire for an afterlife. On the other side of the coin, you also never hear anyone blaming Christianity on the promotion of promiscuous sex. There seems to be a distinction between transcendent desires, which religion encourages, and worldly desires, which is discouraged. So why can't both sides be valid? I see no reason.

It's funny how many apologists attempt to undermine atheist criticism by telling us that we underestimate how complex religion is, and yet here we have an apologist doing the very same. Religion is indeed very complex; enough that it is possible for it to be a vehicle for man's primal needs and at the same time a tool for man's suppression.

How is this ostensible contradiction accomplished? Simple. If you follow the suppressive rules of religion, your fundamental necessities will be granted. So it turns out that Farmer is really criticizing one of the most well-established archetypes of the human condition: reward does not come without adversity.

Note that we atheists are not knocking this basic paradigm. Lofty goals should not be reached with smooth sailing whatsoever. Learn from your mistakes, what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger, failure builds character, etc etc and all that jazz. We are simply criticizing a goal that isn't there and a poor means to reach it.

Ugh

2007-12-04T05:05:00.000-08:00

Today is the first day of my new shift. I punch in at 5AM! I didn't think this time in the morning actually existed. I thought it was just an imaginary time made up by people who just want to scare little children. Whoever else is up and about this early: you're sick and you need help.

Happy Holidays, Dinesh!

2007-12-02T11:57:00.000-08:00

Oh poor Dinesh, you and the rest of the overwhelming Christian majority are so persecuted! Why must corporate merchants persecute you so when they say "happy holidays"? Oh, the humanity! Whatever shall Christians do to end this horrible, horrible persecution?

Why would they insist that "Merry Christmas" be replaced by "Happy Holidays"? Why would they rename "Christmas trees" as "friendship trees"? What's so scary about playing "Silent Night" and "O Come All Ye Faithful" and other religious carols?
Short answer: many corporate executives are invertebrates. Not all of them: leading companies like J.C. Penney, Macys, Amazon, and Wal Mart continue to speak unabashedly of Christmas. But other corporate executives are ever-so-worried about giving offense. Over the years they have been convinced, by the usual villains at the ACLU, that any religious references are objectionable to some litigious atheist or some hypothetical Hindu. To appease the feigned outrage of these minorities, the religious sentiments of everyone else must apparently be overridden.

While I admit that calling a Christmas tree a "friendship tree" is pretty dumb, the part that's even dumber is calling the phrase "happy holidays" an example of anti-Christian bigotry and persecution. Oh, and of course the ACLU is behind it all. What social ill isn't the ACLU responsible for in conservative wingnut land?

No, Dinesh and other paranoid Christians, these businesses aren't trying to rid the world of Christianity. They're simply attempting to market to a wider demographic than just Christians. You don't have a monopoly on December holidays. It's not just about your religion. Please remove the tin-foil hats from your heads, and remove yourselves from the crosses you've nailed yourselves to. Nobody with a brain-stem is buying it.

To see how absurd this is, imagine if leading corporations started refusing to celebrate Martin Luther King day. When asked, corporate executives would say, "Well, King was a sort of controversial figure. There are people in America who are offended by what he stood for. In deference to them, we have decided to rename the holiday." You can imagine how the media would react to this!

This is an unsurprisingly dishonest analogy. D'Souza is using this analogy to say that, like the hypothetical businesses that are refusing to celebrate MLK, these businesses are refusing to celebrate Christmas. That's not the case though, is it? When a business says 'Happy Holidays', does that not include Christmas? Also, 'Happy Holidays' is not an example of renaming Christmas. Stop lying, Dinesh, you're making baby Jesus cry.

Christians bear some responsibility of letting this nonsense get so out of hand. The solution: Christians need to stop believing the atheist con. There is nothing in the Constitution or in the founding that mandates a public square monopolized by atheists and secularists. It's time to tell the ACLU to go to hell. Stop patronizing stores that outlaw Christmas, and to make your purchases at stores that aren't afraid to say "Merry Christmas."

Pardon the language, but what a goddamn liar. Outlawing Christmas??? OK, Dinesh, you mentioned Nordstrom, K-Mart, Best Buy and Home Depot as stores that are "outlawing Christmas". Now then, if you weren't such a dirty liar, I wouldn't expect to find the items that I linked to in each of those stores. Unfortunately, you are a dirty liar. Your lies are being swallowed whole by millions of gullible Christians. Your lies are fueling anti-atheist bigotry. Your lies are creating this Red State/Blue State state of mind. Your lies are ruining science education. People like Dinesh D'Souza are ruining this country.

The Cult-like Culture of Atheism Critics

2007-11-29T08:36:00.001-08:00

I found another one of those wacky cult-like critics of atheism again. This time it's a group blog called CADRE Comments. The post in question by someone named Bill Kesatie. I actually don't think critics of atheism like Bill here are cult-like, but if he can use fallacious reasoning to throw around accusations of cultish behavior, then so can I.

And really, I can't think of anything else for the title of this post, so I'm taking the lazy way out and paraphrasing the title of Bill's post.

Apparently Bill thinks he can ascribe cult-like behavior to atheism based on two things: what Sam Harris thinks of some atheists, and what he thinks of some atheists.

Based on the quote that Bill provides, Sam Harris criticized some fellow atheists for lashing out at his ideas with criticism "utterly lacking in content". Also, apparently Sam Harris talks about "a kind of 'religion of reason' with a Sabbath and prayer' ". Nevermind that it's unlikely and even impossible to claim that even a slim majority of atheists support that idea. Bill even agrees with that assessment, noting that Harris can't "maintain control over his 'flock' and run 'every aspect of their lives' ".

So according to Bill, the prerequisites for becoming a bona fide cult are:
A). An unelected/annointed spokesman for the group whose ideas do not necessarily represent that group and, indeed, are met with opposition by a large portion of that group.
B). The criticism by some members of the group must be lacking in content, according to (A)'s opinion.

Doesn't sound too convincing to me. Let's not forget that a "flock" that is out of control needs to have previously been under control in the the first place. This has never been true of atheists.

Now to address some of Bill's arguments sans Sam Harris' opinions. The title of Bill's post is The Cult-like Culture of Atheism. And yet Bill whittles this accusational thesis down a third of the way through with this disclaimer:

"...note that I said "some" -- it is certainly not true of all atheists, and this article is not intended to accuse each and every atheist of acting cult-like..."

Isn't Bill just criticizing some people who happens to be atheists then? If you want to criticize atheism for being cult-like, then why don't you address atheism instead of the character flaws of some people?

When Bill actually does target atheism as being cult-like, he presents reasons why atheism is similar to religion generally, not cults specifically. And I find this to be very revealing.

Atheism has its beliefs about God (i.e, there is no god or gods) and its beliefs that are part of the core understanding of the world. It has a grand metaphysical story which many of the true believers of atheists defend with all of the ardour of the most firm believer of any faith.

A small correction. Atheists have a lack of belief in gods, and that lack of belief is indeed part of the core understanding of the world. That lack of a belief is all that defines atheism, and by itself is not a "core understanding of the world" and does not inform our worldviews "from top-to-bottom". How can it? It only answers the question of whether there's a god or not. Any other question about life, including whether the supernatural exists (e.g. atheistic Buddhism), can and will go into any number of different directions.

And I'd really like to know what this grand metaphysical story is that some of us supposedly defend so ardorously. Hopefully he's not speaking of the physical, scientific evidence we have of human origins. I wouldn't put it past a Young Earth Creationist to sling mud at a hard science like evolution by calling it a metaphysical story, if he indeed is a YEC. Hyperbole like that indicates a fundamental denial of reality and tells me this person can not be reached by reason - conversation over.

Some atheists do indeed defend other metaphysical concepts such as the infinitely present multiverse in order to deflect the First Cause argument from theists. I believe this is a valid counter-argument, but I have no evidence to prove its existence, therefore I currently hold no belief in it. But I would just loooove for Bill to find me an atheist that defends the idea of a multiverse with all of the ardour of the most firm believer of any faith. Where's the multiverse 700 Club and the multiverse Pat Robertson? More hyperbole. I'm beginning to lose my faith in Bill's reasoning.

So, while it is true that atheists don't have a place of worship, i.e, there isn't a "church" of atheism, they prove their religious devotion when they go to places where they share their faith such as the discussion boards at the Internet Infidels website.

So now we have a prerequisite for religion - one must visit websites in order to socialize with people of common interests? Why do so many theists think it's worth destroying any reasonable definition of religion in order to score an insignificant rhetorical point? Is it really that important to abuse the English language just so you can call the single lack of a belief a religion? If so then I'm still not sure what you've won. I mean, if I had a high opinion of religion and a low opinion of atheism, I sure as heck wouldn't want to put them on the same playing field.

Bill then launches into the boring old moral arguments against atheism. No rational basis to believe in morals and yadda yadda *Yawn*. Look Bill, until you conclusively prove the existence of your god and the truth of your Bible, your morality is every bit as relative as mine (I actually don't think my morality is relative, but I've discussed all of that previously). If you're following the Bible, you're just following the relative morality of a bunch of ancient sheep-herders to me.

What is with the crazy in my town?

2007-11-21T11:10:00.000-08:00

Just when I think I'm done destroying the Global Warming denialist hysteria, here comes another reader comment that really brings in the crazy:

"Global warming and a nuclear energy problem are both myths. Paul Ehrlich Robert Thomas Malthus failed big time on there doom and gloom predictions. When failed just pushed deadline back. We did not create this habitat cannot destroy it. WE amazingly know how to use many sources of energy. And hear someone complain about it too when there is no proof of its danger. Most myths of global warming and power plants exist because it gives the perpeteratures empowerment. Many scientists like power and peddling myths gives them power."

Does this kind of foaming-at-the-mouth incoherency ever come from the left? Maybe so, but I just don't see it. At least not at this degree.

I find that most right-wing rants tend to be directed at imaginary opponents or at best, the fringe left that doesn't represent the mainstream left. For example, in the first GW debate I linked to above (and in a previous one), I pretty much whittled down Tom Young's position from flat out science denial to attacking the supposed Chicken Littles on my side. Although the concept is alien to him, I'm sure Tom could do something called research and find some actual people that say GW will destroy the human race in the next few years or so; but is this a view worth attacking? How many people actually take this doomsday view?

I don't think very many do, yet this is the strategy I find many right-wingers taking in a debate. Even my drummer does this (my other drummer, not you, Dave). We'll talk about red vs. blue, Democrat vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative, etc. No matter what, you can count on him railing against this snobbishly elite, America-hating, terrorist-loving, flamboyantly-gay, San Francisco hippie floating around his head. Do people actually believe this cartoon represents progressive America?

I Am So Smrt!

2007-11-13T08:07:00.000-08:00

*By the way, the score for Ben Stein's blog on the EXPELLED site? High School. That's right, read his blog, then come to mine for a little higher education!

The Unicorn God Commands the Impaling of Dinesh D'Souza

2007-11-12T12:50:00.000-08:00

The ever-unthinking D'Souza, in a debate with Christopher Hitchens:

"We live in a very unusual time in which atheism has emerged as a kind of militant phenomenon. On the face of that, it seem a little bit odd, because if you are an unbeliever, why be militant? I don't believe in unicorns; but, I haven't written any books on the subject. I don't spend a lot of time denouncing unicorns; I live my life as though unicorns did not exist. But what we have from the atheist side is a belligerent attack on theism and specifically on Christianity."

I don't know how Hitchens responded, and there's a good chance I wouldn't be satisfied with his rebuttle. IMO, in live debates Hitchens has a knack for not addressing his opponent's main point. He is much more effective in his writing.

But this one is so easy, I'll handle it myself.

If Unicornists wanted to teach how Unicorns magically created the universe and all life on earth during science classes. We atheists would attack them. If Unicornists opposed stem-cell research because the killing of stem cells makes baby Jesucorn cry, we atheists would attack them. If Unicornist politicians attempted to infuse every aspect of government with "In Unicorns We Trust", and displaying the Unicorn Commandments anywhere they thought they could get away with, we atheists would attack them. If Unicornists were fervently in favor of denying basic rights to Centaurs who wanted to marry Minotaurs, based solely on some ancient, violent, bigoted, and useless verses from the Book of Unicornicus, we atheists would attack them.

You get the picture. Unicornists pretty much leave everybody alone. Can the same be said of Christians?

The reason for my paltry postings

2007-11-12T12:00:00.000-08:00

I recently acquired a Wacom Intuos3 6x8 drawing tablet. And oh, how it has devoured my free time. Perhaps I'll post some of my art here, but if I do, let me warn you: if anyone is turned off by my aggressive atheist views, just wait until you see my comic-book-geeky nerditry.

I've got more drawing to do. Huzzah!

Ben Stein's Brain's Day Off

2007-11-01T08:42:00.000-07:00

Read the entire blog post by Ben Stein on the EXPELLED website. Notice anything? It consists entirely of hyperbolic assertion without a lick of evidence backing up the claims. The only part that addresses the actual evidence of evolutionary theory is that no new species have ever been observed, which of course, is wrong. This is nothing new for ID liars: run away from evolutionary theory's actual claims, and instead poison the well with irrelevant attacks. "Darwinism" had very little to do with the Nazi regime, much less than Christian antisemitism did. But even if it was entirely responsible, would that change the facts of evolution? No, and only a lying hack would take this tactic of guilt-by-association.

Ben Stein, you are either a liar or are being duped by liars. Please stop. Address the science, not your own strawman. ID proponents make me sick.

Teaching ID In Public Schools - A Straw Man Argument?

2007-10-26T11:33:00.000-07:00

A commenter named Sam provided a link to a site called Thinking Christian, authored by a Mr. Tom Gilson. I suppose it was in response to my assertion that the banning of ID and Creationism in Europe was a good thing.

While the majority of the post is reserved for an attack on Richard Dawkins, I must assume that Sam thought the portion that bared relevance to my post was this:

One, teaching ID in public schools is a straw man objection that should have been dropped sometime back during the Cambrian Explosion. ID leaders are not arguing for that, and haven't for a long time. I'm not going to bother telling that story over again, it's been told too often with too little effect. The head already hurts from banging against the brick wall of ID opponents who refuse to engage what we're really saying.

Let's contrast that statement to a page on the Discovery Institute's website, dated August 21, 2007. Hell, even the heading of the page is enough to demolish Mr. Gilson's argument.

Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members

'nuff said.

More Whining From The Expelled Producers

2007-10-26T11:22:00.000-07:00

Gaze in sheer amazement at the substanceless rhetoric.

This is real life in America, the land of the free…and the home of the brave. It isn’t about “religious nuts,” it isn’t about politics… and it certainly isn’t only about science.

It is about America, and the unseen silent hand of repression that is taking hold of science, in our public universities and government laboratories.

I suppose it's unfair of me to demand evidence of this supposed repression from a blog whose only job is to promote a movie. But I can tell you with all certainty that the movie will be a shining beacon of dishonest, one-sided hackery.

How can it not be? How damning of the scary atheist establishment can the movie be if Ben Stein disclaims that Richard Sternberg, one of the "victims" of this "repression", blatantly violated the peer-review process when he published a very bad paper on Intelligent Design, and lied about his subsequent treatment? All the details here, courtesy of Ed.

Would you still consider the "Darwinian establishment" to be quite as intolerant if EXPELLED first let you know that Guillermo Gonzalez had a sub-par performance on record at Iowa State when his tenure was denied?

Whatever other subjects the producers have in store for this piece of propaganda, there is no doubt they will not reveal the entire story. This movie will be nothing but lies. And that is not a bold statement in any way, it's just par for course for ID proponents.

The post is pretty much nothing but toothless bitching and moaning about this supposed suppression. There are, however, a couple of other details I want to pick at.

They are not – I repeat not – simply throwing up their hands and declaring, “God did it.” The accusation that they are substituting religious explanations for scientific proof is an absurd accusation, and an insult to the intelligence of these highly educated and disciplined men and women.

This movie will focus on the "suppression", so we can be 100% sure there won't be any actual scientific data contained therein. Another reason we know this is because there is no scientific data to support anything leading to "God did it" and anything past "God did it". The ID proponents are indeed halting at that science-stopping phrase. Whether through bad math or bad biology, Discovery Institute prelates have built their careers on conjuring up pseudo-complex methods in coming to the conclusion that supernatural intelligence is behind the existence of life and the universe. Pseudo-scientific as these methods may be, even if they were correct, the science still stops at the conclusion of God did it.

You have just discovered a strange, technological artifact, held for a few millenia in the ancient catacombs beneath the great pyramids. Coming within a few mere yards of the device, the cuts, bruises, aches, and pains you have suffered through to find this device are instantly healed. This technology will no doubt change the world. Through the use of Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity, you have determined that this device was created by space aliens. Are you going to figure out anything past that? Perhaps learn to harness the technology? Maybe you'd like to learn more about the race that created it. It's possible you may be able to contact these beings.

This won't happen if you're an ID proponent. All you care about is the conclusion that Aliens Did It. And for some strange reason, all you care about is getting that conclusion into the public classrooms.

Now – I want you to consider carefully what such repression would have meant to the scientist who said this, in 1941:

“Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion…The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”
–SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, AND RELIGION: A SYMPOSIUM, 1941.

It was Albert Einstein. The “silent hand” of Big Science would today give Albert Einstein the flick. He’d simply be written off as a “religious nut.” No question about it.

1. Nowhere in the four papers of genius called the Annus Mirabilis does Albert Einstein posit an intelligent being as the author of the laws of physics.
2. Einstein's declarations of religion or god come nowhere close to what ID proponents want indoctrinated in the malleable minds of school children, and he would probably vehemently disagree with them.
3. That said, Darwinism was around in 1905, and despite those declarations, was Einstein ever "EXPELLED" for having said them? No.
4. The movie reveals it's true colors in quoting Einstein. I thought this was purely about science and the scientific hypothesis of an intelligent being. Einstein is talking about religion, and by quoting him, the producers have tacitly admitted that they are talking about religion as well.

I can't wait to see Atheistic/Darwinist Cult expose the many lies and shred the stupid arguments when this bomb drops.

Paul Goes After The Council of Europe

2007-10-12T16:11:00.000-07:00

I applaud the Council of Europe in their decision to keep Creationism out of Science Classes. The education of European children is now much better off because of this decision.

Paul, my bloggin' buddy, disagrees:

How does freedom of thought become dangerous? What drives a culture to be closed minded against the pursuit of truth? Oh, I remember this kind of thinking in history books I read about in high school about a dark era in world history called the "Dark Ages". Religion forced thinking, drives a culture into deeper darkness. The religion of Evolution is sliding down this same slippery slope that the Catholic church did just before some of the darkest days in world history.

Au contraire, Paul. Creationism, defined as an explanation of the origin of humanity/earth/the universe that involves a deity and religious stories, represents the anti-thesis of freedom of thought. Schools are supposed to be places where parents of every type of culture and/or religion should be able to send their children for a basic education. If any form of Creationism is taught in a science class (leaving aside for now the fact that the scientific evidence doesn't support it) - even if it isn't Christian creationism - the parents of the attending children would no longer be able to trust that school be free from sectarian teachings.

I'm sure you wouldn't object to Christian creationism in the schools, but I would if I had children, and so would Muslims, Jews, and even other Christians (like Catholics). Let's turn the tables, Paul. Creationism is now taught to children in public schools, but it is Muslim creationism. Are you cool with that? Somehow, I doubt it. The only way to keep freedom of thought in schools (not to mention freedom of conscience and freedom of religion) is to leave religion completely out of science classes altogether and just teach science, which does not address religious claims.

So keeping religiously neutral (respecting everyone's rights) to the wide spectrum of cultures in public schools is a great reason to keep creationism out - and without even addressing the actual scientific aspect of it all! As has been routinely demonstrated laymen like me, by scientists (even religious scientists), indeed the overwhelming scientific majority, and by court of law (even Bush-appointed judges!), Creationism is unscientific. There is such a wide variety of creationist subjects that cover (or attack) many scientific fields. But in a nutshell, Creationism is the opposite of science. Where facts inform conclusions in science, in creationism the conclusion informs the facts. In other words, Charles Darwin didn't already have evolution by natural selection set in stone in mind when spending all that time in the Galápagos Islands. By contrast, a Creationist must find any fact he can in order to support his pre-existing conclusion of God, Jesus, Bible, etc.

Now Paul, I know this position tends to make atheists like me look like they want to eradicate the world of religions entirely, but I'm actually all for religion in public schools under the following conditions: It must be taught comparatively with the other ones, and none should be taught as authoritative. It must be taught under any subject other than science, and if taught in history, the only historical claims it teaches must be corroborated by other, independent, non-sectarian sources. Again, if only one religion is taught, then the question is which one? The Christian will naturally say Christianity, but how would he feel if the one solely taught was Hinduism or Witchcraft? Not too happy, right? That's how any other minority religion feels in this predominately Christian country.

I just want to address one more item you mentioned because it is my pet peeve. I don't want to sound rude or bitter, Paul, but the rhetoric about evolution being a religion absolutely just gets to me. Evolution a religion? Really? I mean seriously, we can do without that dishonest hyperbole. Not to say that you were intentionally being dishonest, but whoever originally started that "evolution is a religion" or "atheism is a religion" meme was being highly unjust. If the recent surge in atheism, or at least attention to atheism accomplishes nothing, I at least would love to see a complete bouleversement of this whopper.

And I've heard all the explanations too. Evolution is a religion because people blindly follow it. No, it's a scientific field backed by physical evidence. Nothing about it informs a person how to live their life, so there's nothing to follow. Just facts about our physical world to learn. Evolution is a religion because it's claims are dogmatic. While the idea of evolution has always been the same (i.e. change in organisms over time), the details about it change rapidly as more and more evidence is collected. Try telling the Catholic church that condoms prevent the spread of HIV or an Evangelical church that Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality and you'll get a good taste of actual dogma.

Sorry for the rant, but the "evolution/atheism equals religion" thing is a pretty good example of why I started this blog in the first place.

Cheers, Paul!

The First '08 Election Post

2007-10-12T07:54:00.000-07:00

I haven't thought too much about the possible choices for president yet. Of course none of the Republicans will get my vote, but it's not really that comforting knowing knowing that I will be voting for one of the current Democrats candidates. If you ask me, the selection to choose from isn't quite complete. I have intentionally avoided studying the candidates in depth (for personal health reasons, probably), I want to wait until it's actually an election year.

That said, one of the Dems is campaigning straight for my heart. I haven't heard any other candidates speak on many scientific issues (for lack of trying), but Hillary Clinton has been saying some great things.

From this ABC article alone we know that:

She will reverse Bush's stem cell research restrictions.
She will stop the blatant politicization of scientific research practically trademarked by Republicans.
She recognizes the Administrations all-out war on science.
Fund other scientific areas including alternative fuels, global warming research, space exploration, etc.
Re-establish the Office of Technology Assessment.

George W. Bush, in the most telling example of his disdain for reality, eliminated the position of assistant to the President for Science and Technology. That is a beautiful metaphor of science's relationship with Republicans and/or the religious right. OK, so you don't believe in evolution or global warming, or you think studying stem cells equals killing babies. Despite this, there are still areas of science you take for granted as being true, right? There are still fields whose continued research would benefit the country, right? Not if you're a Republican, apparently. This is a very sad and very insane state of affairs we have today.

I can imagine that any of the Democrats would stop bleeding our national intelligence and restore at least some scientific integrity, but it's nice to hear one of them actually talk about it.

Too Good Not To Be Repeated

2007-10-10T15:28:00.000-07:00

Via a Pharyngula commenter named Cuttlefish. I LOL'd. Here's the background.

We gather here to eulogize
The Pastor and the Man
Old Gary Aldridge, often wise,
Though not his latest plan.

A member of the Christian nation,
Friend of Jerry Falwell,
His last attempt at masturbation
Didn't go at all well.

For fifteen years, he'd preached the word
A Southern Baptist minister
His death--now, is it just absurd
Or something rather sinister?

How does a person come to wear
Not one wetsuit, but two?
(Although, I know, I should not care
I'm curious--aren't you?)

I tend to think that, years ago,
He spied a rubber glove,
And wondered "Should I--well, you know--
When God and I make love?"

He tried it on, and found a tube,
Half hidden on his shelf,
Of KY--smiled, and murmered "Lube
Thy neighbor as thy self."

And minutes later, hard at work,
He felt a little odd
Was this a sin, or just a quirk?
He talked it out with God.

"Is what I'm doing here a sin?
Or is my pleasure Thine?
Is this as bad as skin on skin?
Lord, please, give me a sign!"

So God produced a pamphlet: "Your
Vacation in Aruba!"
And pointed out--right there, page four--
The wetsuits used for SCUBA

See, God's not really how you think
A deity might be
He's got a wicked bondage kink
(Just ask His son, J. C.)

So Gary died, not steeped in sin
But following God's plan;
So straight to Heaven--come on in!
And bring the wetsuits, man!
A story, sure, but it may yet
Explain what happened then.
The moral is, please don't forget:
Your safeword is "Amen".

Magnifique!

My Latest Paroxysm

2007-10-09T23:20:00.000-07:00

Don't you wish you had the opportunity to personally lobby the members of the U.S. Supreme Court on issues that concern you?

It's rare that anyone gets that chance. The nine members of the court are supposed to be somewhat aloof and to isolate themselves from the pressure groups and high-powered lobbyists who regularly cruise the halls of Congress, seeking to button-hole members of the House of Representatives or Senate.

But once a year, many of the justices sit through a lecture where they are patiently instructed on how to vote on a number of important constitutional issues. This event takes places in the context of a worship service. It is called the "Turban Summit."

The Islamic Center of America, working with the Muslim Public Affairs Council, sponsors this special service, so named for the Muslim vestments the presiding member of the clergy wears. The annual event takes place the Sunday before the first Monday in October, the opening of the Supreme Court's new term.

This year's service at Jamaat Al-Qawiyy took place Sept. 30. It was attended by six members of the high court - Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer. (Members of Congress and other government officials also were present).

Does this frighten or anger you? Think of the important issues that these people are forcing on the members of the highest court in the land. How could this be happening? Now, go read the whole article and pay no attention to the fact that it's actually a Catholic event and not an Islamic event. That changes nothing.

That's What I've Been Saying!

2007-09-30T10:49:00.000-07:00

Wow, this is a good comic.

"Values" Voters Q & A

2007-09-30T09:58:00.000-07:00

Not only did I attend the "Values" Voters debate, I was a participant! Here's how I did.

OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS ROUND 1:
American Family Association, Buddy Smith – MARRIAGE
QUESTION:
Marriage has been a socially protected union between a man and a woman for the physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual reproduction of children in every culture and at nearly every time in history. States have a secular interest, and human beings have a psychological, emotional and spiritual interest in man-woman couples that stay together to rear children. If elected, would you support a Federal Marriage Amendment, and what else will you do to protect the institution of marriage?
Well, that's sort of a loaded question, Buddy. And by "loaded" I mean "loaded with crap". (*waits for boos and hisses to die down*) Marriage, as we know it today, is a union between two people forged by love and commitment and the desire to give and take societal benefits. This isn't even close to how marriage has actually worked for the majority of humanity's history.
First of all, most cultures arranged marriages for their children. This pretty much relegated a marriage out of love to sheer luck. Instead marriage was utilized for political, economical, or financial gain. I would also wager that many cultures didn't even follow the arithmetic of today's marriage for a much longer time. In other words, polygamy wasn't exactly invented by the Mormons; we've seen it historically and/or currently in Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and yes, Christianity (*ducks a thrown tomato*).

We also have historical examples - in China, some African tribes, and naturally ancient Greece - of homosexual marriage (*audience gasps, woman faints*). Could someone get her some water and a Left Behind book?

I realize I've digressed from your question, Buddy, my apologies. However, I can't abide dishonesty. You state correctly that "States have a secular interest, and human beings have a psychological, emotional and spiritual interest in man-woman couples that stay together to rear children." This is true of homosexual couples as well. There is absolutely no benefit of marriage that inherently excludes homosexuals from enjoying them. None. They can contribute to society exactly the same way in every way, they can love each other, and they can love and successfully raise their children. Yes, people, it is possible for gays to have children.

To answer your question at long last, Mr. Smith: I would not support a Marriage Amendment, and I would protect the institution of marriage by legalizing gay marriage. Next question, please.
ROUND 2:
Recently a federal judge ordered the Indiana Legislature to censor their prayers. Specifically, the federal judge ordered the Indiana Legislature to never allow anyone to offer an invocation prayer in Jesus' name. Will you, as president, consider impeachment a possible remedy for this judicial activism?
To be honest, Buddy, I fail to see where "judicial activism" came into play here. If the Indiana Legislature was indeed invoking Jebus' name during there sessions, to the exclusion of all other religions, then i applaud the honorable judge's decision. No government body has the right to promote a religion. (*ducks a high velocity Bible*) It doesn't matter how much of a majority is Christian. After all, just think about it for a moment, would any of you people allow congress to pray to Allah at the start of every session if Islam was the predominant religion? Of course not. You can be religious, that's fine, but for your god's sake, you should be Americans, too, and respect our Constitution. Impeaching the judge is out of the question. Instead, I think I just found my Attorney General.

Janet Folger, Faith2Action – LIFE
ROUND 1: SHOW 4-D ULTRASOUND VIDEO
[As you can see by the ultrasound video], science confirms the undeniable unique human being or "person" in the womb.

In Roe v. Wade, author Harry Blackmun himself stated: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses"

By the author's own words, Roe v. Wade has collapsed. If elected, what will YOU do to make our laws consistent with our science and restore legal protection and full rights of personhood to every American waiting to be born?
I strongly emphasize that an abortion is the very last option one should take. However, it is a personal choice between a woman and her doctor, and I take the rather conservative position that the government should not interfere with personal rights. Criminalizing abortion is not some panacea to society's problems. Not only will it not stop them from occurring, there is a strong argument that it will increase the amount of unsafe, do-it-yourself abortions.

ROUND 2: LIFE/DE-FUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD

The Mexico City Policy states that as a condition for a foreign organization to receive federal funds, they "will neither perform nor actively promote abortion." Would you work to apply this Mexico City policy to organizations WITHIN the United States as well as abroad?

I'm not sure why any non-medical organization would want to promote, much less speak about abortion. If they do, I believe the 1st Amendment has something to say about that. As for medical organizations, it is of utmost importance that they present patients with every possible choice, including abortion, with honesty.

Jewish Action Alliance, Rabbi Aryeh Spero – ISLAM/TERROR

ROUND 1:

There is no question that jihadists have as their goal the harming of America and its citizens. What would your strategy be to protect our streets, our people and our American way of life from the dangerous explosive growth of radical Islam in America and around the world?

One reason I despise the charade of public debates like this is because of excellent questions like these. Constrained by the format of this debate, candidates have no choice but to spout out banal platitudes and 30 second sound-bites carefully refined by focus groups. It all means nothing, and we should abrogate this circus before we go the way of the Romans.

But if I must, I will relegate my response to one particular aspect of the fight against terrorism: religious fundamentalism (who saw that one coming?). The world needs to show in no uncertain terms that our clear-headed, rational majority will always vehemently oppose the destructive beliefs of religious fundamentalists. For example, had I been running things during the time of the Danish newspaper controversy, I would have encouraged every newspaper in the country to go ahead and run the cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet if they so wished. Fascist creatures like Al Qaeda and the Taliban must be shouted down, as well as any other authoritarian group that thinks the religious have a right not to be offended.

ROUND 2:

Do you agree that the excessive and overbearing use by liberals of "multi-culturalism" is weakening the unique American culture that has historically shaped the identity of America, and will lead to a harmful balkanization and unnecessary divisions among the citizenry?

No. The unique American culture we have can be defined by the word "multi-culturalism". The only divisions I see are superficial ones forced on us by conservatives who have their own idea about American culture (i.e. white, Christian).

Calvary Chapel, Ft. Lauderdale, Doug Souter – GOD

My name is Pastor Doug Sauder, of Calvary Chapel Ft. Lauderdale. Thanks so much for coming. Can you tell us a little about your faith in God?

Doug, I don't have a faith in any kind of god. I don't mean to offend you, but I don't think faith is an admirable quality in a person. At least, not the faith in a deity type. This goes back to the previous question - wouldn't we have less "harmful balkanization and unnecessary division" in this country if nobody had an unseen, unprovable deity whose commands they had to follow?

Paul Weyrich, Free Congress (via video) – HOMOSEXUALITY

What do you intend to do to counteract the agenda of the homosexual movement?

Depends on what you mean by "agenda", Paul. If their agenda is to have the same rights as anyone else, then I plan to do nothing to counteract. Homosexuals should have a right to marry, and should have all of the legal benefits of marriage freely available to them. They shouldn't have to worry about discrimination based upon their sexuality. After all, Paul doesn't need to worry about discrimination based on his religion, why would he deny someone else the same rights he enjoys?

Now, if you're talking about that wacko Homosexual Agenda that involves muscular jackbooted thugs wearing only bicycle shorts taking your children and forcibly infecting them with The Gay, all while making sure there is a dildo in every home, then I say, let's try and lower the sheer amount of crazy in the room. All they want is freedom, people.

------

BREAKING NEWS! Candidate Jared Asay was found at the Broward Center for Performing Arts, burned at the stake in the early morning hours after the Values Voters Presidential Debate.

EXPELLED In The NY Times

2007-09-28T08:12:00.000-07:00

The New York Times has an article about the EXPELLED movie that talks about the producers' deceptive shenanigans in attempting to procure interviews. PZ scooped them a while back. It was actually another EXPELLED email update that called my attention to the article. While the main point of the update was to crow about free advertising (even negative publicity is still publicity) in the Times, I did get a little entertainment out of their Luskin-esque complaint.

From the email:

A couple of the most interesting quotes from the article are:

An assumption on behalf of the columnist that reflects the current bias against Intelligent Design . . . "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth. And while individual scientists may embrace religious faith, the scientific enterprise looks to nature to answer questions about nature. As scientists at Iowa State University put it last year, supernatural explanations are 'not within the scope or abilities of science.'”

We hear this a lot from the ID side. Yet not one of them has the decency to expose our "bias" by actually providing a credible scientific challenge to evolution. They have zero peer-reviewed papers, and their only output is directed at the lay-public in the form of books (debunked by scientists), speeches (held at churches for some reason), and legal advice for Constitutionally-ignorant school boards. If you ask me our bias is completely justified. Especially in light of comments like this from ignoramus Ben Stein:

He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called “From Darwin to Hitler.”

And ID proponents have the massive testicles to demand respect from the scientific community. Go Cheney yourselves.

Win Ben Stein's Consistency

2007-09-27T06:45:00.000-07:00

I just received an email update from the Expelled movie team. Before we dive into the lunacy, let me first present a few choice excerpts from the movie's website, for juxtaposition purposes.

EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial, soon-to-be-released documentary that chronicles my confrontation with the widespread suppression and entrenched discrimination that is spreading in our institutions, laboratories and most importantly, in our classrooms...

And,

Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED. (obnoxious use of caps lock certainly not mine)

Now let's see what the email says.

[We] Wanted to let you know of a HUGE event coming up. It's called "The God Delusion" debate. Richard Dawkins will be debating John Lennox. It's probably the biggest debate on this subject in years. It's at the University of Alabama Birmingham NEXT WED, Oct 3.

Wait a sec. A debate about god will be held at one of those suppressive, discriminative, evil secular universities? One participant in the debate is a believer (and not only that, an apologist) and yet successfully remains employed at another suppressive, discriminative, evil secular university? What's going on here?

Oh, that's right, Creationists are liars.

ACLU Taps Larry Craig's Foot

2007-09-18T13:48:00.000-07:00

Please, oh PLEASE let this be the death knell of the "ACLU hates Christians" crowd. The supposed Anti-Christian Lawyers Union is coming to the aid of Republican party's latest hedonist, Larry Craig.

Anyone who says the ACLU hates Christians is a liar.

Let's Talk Aboot Love, eh?

2007-09-14T09:04:00.000-07:00

According to a 2006 census, there are 45,300 gay couples in Canada, up from 34,200. (source)

OK, quick check. Is heterosexual marriage destroyed? Are straight couples divorcing or refusing to marry now because of this news? Is Jebus pissed off? Has God smited Canada in any way? Are Canadians going to start marrying their dogs?

No? Life goes on as normal in Canada? That's just unsettling. If I can't trust Pat Robertson, the Christian Right, or any Republican, then who can I trust?!?!

John Humphrys - British Biased Corporation

2007-09-12T07:18:00.000-07:00

Take a look at this article and see if you can spot the bias against atheists. A BBC broadcaster named John Humphrys is just steaming mad at militant atheists, so he's coming out with a new book that takes aim at them. Remember the universal rule now: the person who labels atheists as "militant" or "dogmatic" isn't interested in intellectual honesty.

To make matters a bit more confusing, the title of his book is "In God We Doubt: Confessions of a Failed Atheist."

Guess what? I doubt God too! Dear boy, you too are an atheist! You see, belief in a god is a matter of two possibilities. Either you hold a belief in a god or you don't. There is no belief of a god sitting in Mr. Humphrys brain, therefore he is an atheist. I'm tired of everyone abusing the definition of agnosticism. To be agnostic has nothing to do with belief, it has to do with knowledge or the claim to have knowledge. It is not a fence-sitting position between atheism and theism.

So really, John is angry with some of his more outspoken fellow atheists.

In the book, the acerbic broadcaster turns much of his firepower on atheist writers like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, author of the bestseller "The God Delusion."

"Their level of intolerance is unacceptable for somebody who claims to be presenting an intellectual, academic case," he said.

I've read "The God Delusion" and I've read excerpts from "God Is Not Great". Professor Dawkins is the epitome of English manners, and Hitchens is the epitome of biting and acerbic English wit. Where's the intolerance? Usually the cries of intolerance, hatred, and bigotry come from theists who have no substantive response to atheist arguments, and avoiding them is there only recourse.

It makes me wonder how the book will go. Perhaps this is telling:

The book was prompted by interviews he did with Britain's Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Muslim theologian Tariq Ramadan, and the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans.

Hmm, didn't see Dawkins or Hitchens in there. So we have a book that attacks prominent outspoken atheists, researched by interviewing more Godheads who will no doubt whine and cry about how mean the atheists are. I'm not a journalist like Mr. Humphrys is, but I would at least try and hear my opponent's side of the story before publishing a book that attacks them.

And this last bit just floored me.

To suggest that religion is the greatest evil, the greatest danger, the greatest threat the world faces is simply nonsense. There is no historical justification for that claim at all.

Wow.

Anniversary

2007-09-11T06:58:00.000-07:00

Fighting News Bias, (Not News By Us)

2007-09-07T17:06:00.000-07:00

An anti-atheist screed from my home state? Oh joy! This is going to be fun! From the looks of things, the web site in question, NewsByUs (Subtitle: Not News Bias. . . get it?), merely amasses Right-Wing Lunacy rather than issues it. So the author I will be criticizing probably doesn't come from Idaho. I should have known from the onset of this article - the author absolutely loves his thesaurus.

e.g.

Whenever overzealous Atheists affirm their intellectual sovereignty over questions of final causes, they risk engendering the same mistrust from a public that once viewed their theological counterparts as equally suspect, because of their purported claims of pre-eminence over other disciplines of inquiry.

Translation: outspoken atheists turn people off.

Palaverous or epigrammatic, there's no abnegating our philothesaur's paramount motif. It is probably true that outspoken atheists can repel some people, but I think this is a necessary side effect to the more important goals of getting our voices heard, our ideas represented in modern culture, and making closeted atheists feel safer about who they are. I certainly don't mean to compare the atheist situation to the Civil Rights movement or women's suffrage, but I do agree with these group's tactics, which were effective by being very in-your-face and many considered them distasteful.

Most people are almost instinctually suspicious of any discipline in the philosophical or scientific realms that bills itself as the purveyor of absolute truth. Yet many Atheists are often guilty of this sort of intellectual arrogance when they perfunctorily dismiss religious affectations as the scattered residuals of a bygone era in which people were more prone to liberally entertain naïve notions of the supernatural.

Notice how the first sentence doesn't jibe to well with the last sentence. I agree completely with both points: any intelligent person should be and is suspicious of authoritarians who claim to know all the answers, and yes, we atheists do generally consider religion to be nothing but mental cobwebs from a silly, superstitious time. What I fail to see is where Mr. Guanipa provided an example of any atheist claiming to be the "purveyor of absolute truth". So many blowhards condemn atheists for this, and yet none can give you an example of this happening. Accusing atheists of being dogmatic is apparently quite the dogma to religious bloviaters. Ironic, no?

Which is why one has to wonder why so many Atheists today still feel the need to engage as its adversary that which they already consider to be an intellectually vanquished foe; in particular the Christian religion.

While it's true that the existence of a god and any of religion's supernatural claims are indeed intellectually vanquished - there is no solid evidence in favor of anything previously mentioned - the religions themselves, particularly the three major monotheistic religions, and their ill effects on humanity are far from vanquished. Shall we go over a short laundry list?
Terrorism
Creationism
Religion in public schools
Violent Homophobia
Homophobic bigotry
Anti-Science (stem cells, global warming)

Now, can you see why the world needs to hear voices that don't believe they will be rewarded with virgins for killing innocents? Or voices that actually want to see science progress and get something done for humanity? We need people who object to the dehumanization of people solely based on their sexual orientation; and who realize that the government should treat all religions fairly by refusing to promote any religion at all. And yes, Mr. Guanipa, in America you are going to hear more criticism of Christianity. If 85% of the population was Buddhist, and our schools had state-mandated meditation sessions, you would hear us criticizing that instead.

Guanipa goes on to speculate on the personal motivations behind criticism of religion. Blah blah irrelevant blah. What's noticeably missing from this entire piece, and pretty much any other article like this, are actual direct responses to atheist criticism.

Later, we come to the old accusation of moral relativism inherent in atheism. It's a strawman, and I've dealt with that banal minutia before.

But the God that many Atheists sometimes revile is, in essence, such a caricature of the actual God that is presented in the scriptures, the honest Christian has to concur with his adversary that it would be madness to place one’s trust in such a capricious and volatile deity.

In fact, Atheists rarely advance even sufficiently coherent arguments for dismissing the God that is actually revealed in the scriptures. Personally I have yet to come across reasonable grounds for embracing Atheism as a consistent worldview even from those who are lauded as the most erudite minds in the field.

OK, let's use one simple example. Deuteronomy 22:22.

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

It's essentially the same thing no matter which version of the Bible you use. Now then, the act of adultery may be bad, but does a rational, moral society execute adulterers? The answer is no. It matters not that this may have been a rule solely for the Israelites. I do not care about objections that the Old Testament is superseded by the New Testament in terms of moral law. If the OT is true, then this is a god who has deemed it necessary that human beings be killed for adultery.

Is this an incoherent depiction of the Christian god? Is this merely a caricature of him, Mr. Guanipa? Of course not, and I can come up with hundreds more examples, culled directly from the Bible.

Given that the Christian faith has been attacked, maligned and ridiculed since time immemorial, and that is has time and again patiently endured the most severe forms of scrutiny, what is a few more millennia of testing it if will only result in furthering its maturity.

Let's hope so. Let us hope that atheist criticism at the very least rids Christianity and other religions of its many evils.

Hi Kids, I'm Home!

2007-09-05T07:52:00.000-07:00

OK, that was retarded. But I just wanted to drop in and see how things are going. Just got back from having a wicked-bad cold...while I was in Stanley, too! Which of the 2,850 plus gods did I piss off?

Anyway, I noticed a slight up-tick in traffic to my humble little blog (the most humble blog around), and it can only be attributed to my newfound doppleblogger, Jeff Hebert, who has pulled off thee best Carnival of teh Godless I have ever seen!

Almost every CotG has had the format along the lines of:
<a href="[URL of blog]">Some atheist blog </a> has a great post about <a href="[URL of blog post]"> some atheist subject</a>

zzzzzzzzzzzz.

What Sir Hebert has done is nothing like that. I demand everyone check it out now. The bar has been set, and I hope, if I get the chance to host a CotG, that mine is half as creative as his.

K. Gotta go wipe the brown off my nose now.

Jesus Spelled Backwards Sounds Like Sausage

2007-08-28T17:14:00.000-07:00

Me Versus A Nuclear Physicist

2007-08-28T16:49:00.001-07:00

An article by nuclear physicist Edward Remler has been making the rounds. He makes a lot of great points about philosophy, religion, and science, but never really gets around to the title of his article, "Do science and rationality support atheism?" In fact, there's quite a lot of glossing over of some very important points in this discussion.

Remler begins by revealing that the attacks on belief in God and religion by Richard Dawkins and other "militant atheists" are his inspiration for writing this column. Red flag number one. Any time you read or hear the words "militant atheist", you can be sure to find unfair attacks or a little bit of sophistry in the defense of religion or god-belief. Pity, I had high hopes seeing as how this was coming from a nuclear physicist.

While the good professor's entire essay in general has none of the outright dishonesty and mean-spirited tone found in most anti-atheist hit-pieces, the other problems do start right away.

For instance, he starts out by carefully letting us know this distinction:

For simplicity, belief in God will be identified with theism and with the assertion God exists. This ignores the distinction between theism, which usually considers God as an active agent in world history, and deism, which does not.

Alright, then one should expect the person that took the time to make this distinction to actually provide arguments supporting the existence of an intelligent, conscious, entity and its various acts upon our physical world. Nowhere in this article does Remler attempt this!

Instead he goes on to argue for the necessity for a first cause of our universe. Anything you can point your finger at in the physical realm requires a cause, as do each of those causes, all the way back until a first cause. This basic line of logic summarizes the entirety of the first two sections of Remler's argument. I agree with it all. The physical universe as we know it definitely had a beginning, therefore something caused it. Remember though, that I'm supposed to be presented with evidence for a god of theism as opposed to a god of deism. There's nothing about acknowledging the necessity of a first cause that requires a magical, sentient being that interferes in our daily affairs.

Who says our universe wasn't set off by an unconscious physical force operating under radically different laws in separate dimensions, thereby rendering it undetectable by our primitive instruments? It may sound like I'm conjuring hare-brained, post-hoc theories out of my posterior, but I submit that this conjecture remains balanced on Occam's Razor far longer than any religious explanation. My explanation remains safely anchored to the physical world (though not ours), and makes use of known concepts of physics such as other dimensions and different sets of physical laws. Postulating an omniscient, omnipotent being is simply magical, wishful, unnecessary thinking.

As mentioned above, at the end of section two Remler glosses over an argument he should have made pretty blatantly.

That the answer to the FQP (Fundamental Question of Philosophy) cannot be found within the bounds of science and rationality means only that. It does not mean its answer does not exist. If an answer is assumed to exist, in some sense of the word exist, there can be no error in naming it. The traditional name is God. Thus a very important conclusion: within the framework of science, God is unknowable -- and therefore, unknown. Furthermore, the unknowable God must be conceived to be an indivisible unity. For how can one know of parts of that of which nothing can be known? (Emphasis mine)

Whoa! Red flag number two! The traditional name is God? So what? It doesn't matter if it's traditional or if he suddenly made it up just now. What matters is if it's logical. Remler just tried to get away with Argumentum ad Crusty Old Tradition.

And the rest of the essay continues on as if he had proven the existence of consciousness and intelligence in whatever kickstarted our universe. I'm sorry, but I still seem to be stuck on "the traditional name is God", and can't move further than that.

His conclusion:

Finally, it is possible to reach a rational belief in the existence of God. One must have first the mental (and perhaps, emotional) wherewithal to ask the fundamental question. Then one must understand and accept the fact that its answer is unknowable through science. God, the answer, transcends the universe of knowable things.

Substitute "God" with "Super Flying Hedgehog", and I can say the exact same thing - that this mighty hedgehog transcends the universe of knowable things. How do I this? By giving the exact amount of support that Remler gives his flavor of Creator . . . zilch.

GOP - Gay Old Party

2007-08-28T12:59:00.000-07:00

Now our own Larry Craig. Did the Pentagon accidentally drop the Gay Bomb on the Republican Convention?

An Open Letter to the "Atheism Caused Atrocities" Crowd

2007-08-27T13:10:00.002-07:00

Dear, Incipit Vita Nova, Tom Krattenmaker, Laer, Steve Olson, Vox Day, Pope Benedict XVI, Layman, BK, etc.

Just wanted to let you guys know that because you have flogged the ineffective dead horse of "Atheism caused Hitler's/Stalin's/Pol Pot's atrocities", you have outed yourselves as having nothing rational to say about atheism. Sorry!

1. Atheism is the mere lack of one single belief, which cannot, by itself, cause anything. Hitler didn't believe in the Elf Princess. Was this unbelief equally responsible for the Holocaust?

2. "Stalin enforced atheism! It was a dogma to him!" Yes, but is the lack of a belief by itself a dogma? No. It is the lack of a single belief. Pardon the repetition, but this is necessary to counter the sheer volume of god-heads screaming about #1. The minute Stalin enforced a set of rules on the populace (that one of them happened to be atheism was incidental), he created a political system that resembled religion in its dogma.

3. "But the religious evildoers were aberrations of their respective faiths and shouldn't be used to criticize religion as a cause for evil!" At best, I can agree with this and therefore you all should stop being a bunch of flaming hypocrites with regards to atheism and evil deeds. On the other hand, we can find many examples of violence justified in holy texts and from the mouths of holy leaders, and we're not supposed to criticize it or suggest it as an influence? And again, atheism is the mere lack of belief, yet you get to point to that as a cause for early 20th century horrors? Ummm. . . no. Religious leaders and religious texts have people who will do what they say. Let's see you try and tell me that some atheists remain unbelievers simply because Richard Dawkins tells them to.

(note: this is going to turn into a very long post, as I plan to add any link I find that makes this retarded argument and counter any new spin on it)

He Should Have Stayed in Damn Yankees

2007-08-24T12:32:00.001-07:00

Hmmmm . . . OK, let's see here.

Here we have Ted Nugent discussing violent rhetoric from musical act Rage Against The Machine:

"Yes, you know, we disagreed with a lot of administrations in the past, but none of our rhetoric included, you know, threatening lives. These guys are over the top. But they're lunatic fringe that even your average Democrat liberal doesn't agree with. But, unfortunately, nobody is silencing these guys, or not necessarily silencing, but condemning this outrageous violence that they're recommending."

And here we have Ted Nugent during his rock concert:

I was in Chicago last week I said—Hey Obama, you might want to suck on one of these you punk? Obama, he’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on one of my machine guns…Let’s hear it for them. I was in NY and I said hey Hillary—you might want to ride one of these into the sunset you worthless bitch…Since I’m in California, I’m gonna find– she might wanna suck on my machine gun! Hey, Dianne Feinstein, ride one of these you worthless whore. Any questions? Freeeeedom!

See for yourself:

What a washed up hypocrite. I won't hold my breath waiting for FOX News to condemn this outrageous violence that he's recommending.

Another One Bites The Dust

2007-08-24T10:05:00.000-07:00

Ex-Christian Group Leader Pleads Guilty to Solicitation Charges

Yawn...what else is new?

Sonora, CA and the 1st Amendment

2007-08-23T23:16:00.000-07:00

From MercuryNews.com:

Local officials have agreed to display the motto "In God We Trust" on a wall at city hall.

Sonora's city council passed the measure unanimously Monday. Twenty-five other U.S. cities have similar displays.

Supporters say it does not violate the Constitution's ban on separation of Church and State. Although courts have allowed use of the motto at public buildings, critics say it favors Christianity over other religions and atheism.

"We're not going to try to interpret 'whose God,'" Mayor Hank Russell said.

What Mayor Russell does not realize, however, is that the local government is endorsing a particular type of god (monotheism), and the type of relationship to it (one of trust). That in of itself is a violation the 1st Amendment and I hope someone calls the ACLU in on this one.

Honesty Gets Expelled in the Name of Jesus

2007-08-22T15:14:00.000-07:00

Oh man, big news today, and all at once!

First, PZ catches wind of a new movie called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". The official site looks ridiculous, and I can't get the bad taste of the usual feigned Christian-persecution out of my mouth after perusing it. Just look at all the scare words they throw in there, which is typical of pseudo-intellectual Republican apologists like Ben Stein. "Big Science!" "Suppression!" Believing in god is supposedly viewed as a "crime." Sweet Zombie Jesus, Christians, stop being so dramatic! The site is an absolute gold mine of future posts, so more on that later.

But not too much later, because a mere three hours later PZ had another post that is absolutely shocking (well, not too shocking if you're familiar with how ID activists work).

Basically, PZ receives a letter asking for an interview for an upcoming decidedly pro-science documentary called "Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion." PZ says 'yes', and is interviewed by the crew. Then PZ finds out that Crossroads is fake, and was actually duped into an interview for Expelled! No doubt they will mangle his interview for a few precious quote mines.

But ya know, just when you think those God-fearing ID supporters can't sink any lower, they go and pull a stunt like this. The most appalling part is from Expelled's press release, which was quoted by commenter on the Panda's Thumb.

The incredible thing about Expelled is that we don’t resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the ‘shock effect,’ something that has become common in documentary film these days,” said Walt Ruloff, co-founder of Premise Media and co-Executive Producer.

There you have it folks, the producers of Expelled: Liars for Jesus.

---

*Update*
Thanks to Tanya, it looks I didn't read correctly, and Crossroads is an actual upcoming film. However, the sleaziness still stands.

The Mental Gymnastics of Electric Monkey Pants

2007-08-22T14:02:00.001-07:00

No, this isn't the future title of my band's psychedelic concept album, it's the way I describe a blogger who goes by the name of Vemrion who writes in his blog called Electric Monkey Pants. You see, Vermrion here had recently defended the indefensibly stupid post by Scott "Dilbert" Adams. Naturally, he caught hell from the atheist community.

It's Vemrion's response to the criticism that I'd like to call attention to here. Everyone knows how I feel about the Christian Right and their destructive beliefs and practices. The whole point of this blog is to get my complaints about them off my chest. Now, however, would be a good time to show how arguments from the more left-leaning people can be just as hair-yankingly frustrating. Just a cursory glance over Vermrion's blog tells you that he's no gun-totin', fag-hatin', red-state yokel. And yet when it comes to arguments against atheism, I can't tell the difference.

It begins with an analogy. If Atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby. This has always been an elegant response to that oft-repeated prevarication that atheism is a religion. The faithful bewilderingly use this argument, not realizing they are poisoning their own well by making atheists look like themselves. In this context, however, we have the left-leaning Vemrion using this argument, apparently in an attempt to appear as the unbiased reasoner sitting and chortling high above this niggling religious squabble.

I mistakenly labored under the impression that fathoming this analogy was cake. Behold:

I grasp the stamp hobby analogy just fine. It's a poor analogy, though, which you seem unable to grasp. Here's why:

Collecting is an activity. Philately is a hobby. However, you could still be a philatelist and not actually collect anything. How? By knowing a heck of a lot about stamps, that's how. Philately is the study of stamps, not the act of collecting them. You could be an expert in stamp lore without actually having a collection or wanting one.

In the famous words of anyone who doesn't know just what the hell was said..."What the hell did you just say?" Listen, monkey-boy, when someone makes the stamp collecting analogy, it would be nice if you took their word for it. As in, they are talking about the actual action, activity, feat, execution, undertaking of collecting stamps! We have a word for the analogous philately of religion - it's called a theologian; and yes, you can study religion without actually believing in and practicing it.

An extremely simple definition of religion is this: "A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people." Boom. You hold beliefs in common with other atheists (you refuse to worship "known" gods) and your practices are also similar in that you refuse to attend worship services (I assume. Personally, I make exceptions for weddings and funerals, but I don't "worship"). It may be negative, but that doesn't mean you can't group it under religion.

OK, vague as it is, let's still go with that definition. Atheism still doesn't fall under it because the lack of one single belief, no matter how bad at math you are, does not equal a set. I love how Electric Monkey Pants' (EMP from now on, dammit) conceptions of beliefs and practices are defined by what we don't believe and what we don't do. That's a pretty large umbrella there, buddy. Like me, I'm pretty sure this guy doesn't get around town by hopping on one leg, therefore I'm including him including him in my new religion - the Anti-Unipedalists; I'm expecting his tithing any day now. In short, your definition included a "set of common beliefs and practices"; so no, you can not group lacked beliefs and lacked practices under religion.

As for dogma, yes I consider the lack of belief in gods to be a dogma among atheists. If someone claimed to be atheist, but continually made shrines to Buddha would you consider him a "real" atheist?

Well actually, in the case of Buddhism, I'm not so sure. But to go along with the point being made, I would not consider someone who worshiped a god to be an atheist. This isn't dogma, this is simply a matter of definition. The 'A' in 'Atheist' was simply dropped. At the risk of having EMP screw up another analogy, would you consider a bald man as having a head of hair? Of course not. EMP considers a lack of hair to be a hairstyle.

Also, if you knew more about theology you'd know that there are several religions that are nontheist. They generally don't deny the existence of gods, they just aren't concerned with them, and don't take a stance on them either way. Confucianism and other eastern religions are a perfect example. For this reason, many people like to call them philosophies rather than faiths or religions, but this is another semantic argument, one that is caused by the overwhelming prevalence of Christianity in the weltanschauung of westerners.

There's an overwhelming prevalence of schadenfreude in watching EMP flail around like this. Once again, atheism is the lack of one single belief, nothing more. How in the wide world can that possibly be a set of beliefs like Confucianism?

If you consider ritual a necessary part of the definition of religion, consider the scientific method. It's also a dogma of sorts, and it prescribes a methodology for discovering and verifying knowledge in such a way as it will be acceptable to others in the scientific community. In much the same way that a priest prepares to consecrate bread and wine, a dutiful scientist will prepare for an experiment by controlling for variables and making predictions (hypotheses) before the experiment-ritual itself is performed.

OK, now's a good time to chisel EMP's definition of religion into something more recognizable. As it stands now, I'm surprised to find myself subscribing to several religions, including Liberalism, Role-Playing Nerditry, Pittsburgh Steelerism, and the Browncoats. This will not do, because Chaotic Good Clerics can't actually heal me in real life, and I have no desire to be violated by a frocked Pittsburgh linebacker in the confessional room. This definition is going to have to be narrowed down.

I wouldn't define religion as one certain thing over another. Rather, I'd list several traits of religions and say that something has to have two or more of the following traits to qualify as a religion*:

Belief in supernatural beings (gods).
A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.
Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.
A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
A social group bound together by the above.

Notice how atheism, the scientific method, political persuasions, geekdom, unhealthy devotion to sports teams, and an even more unhealthy devotion to Joss Whedon do not fit the criteria. Notice how neatly it does cover your mainstream religions like Christianity and godless religions like Buddhism.

Even as I'm drawing religion and science together, surely you'll concede there is much that separates them. The problem is that the scientific method is not known to work for the business of discovering gods. I believe Scott Adams once compared this folly to using a metal detector to check for unicorns in one's sock drawer. The fact of the matter is, we haven't discovered a "god" (definitively, based on the scientific method) so how can we say we're using the best tools for the job?

Hold on. The problem isn't that the scientific method is not know to work for the business of discovering gods. The problem is that over the last few centuries, mankind has intentionally moved their god(s) outside the realm of the physical and testable. Golly, for some darn reason everyone's god keeps conveniently retreating further and further away from our universally verifiable inquiry. To go along with Adams' analogy, it is people who have purposefully declared that Unicorns exist undetectable in sock drawers. To recognize this fact (i.e. atheism) is not a religion.

A question to ponder: Have your placed your faith in the scientific method?

Yes, but it's a different type of faith. It's based on solid evidence and past experience.

Things would go a lot smoother for atheists if everyone, including liberal theists, would rid themselves of the strawman version plaguing their brains. It seems that people just can't bash atheism without lying about it or misrepresenting it.

* I'm not sure, and I'm too lazy to check, but I think the list of religion traits originally came from Austin Cline, so hat-tip.

Kissing Hank's Ass

2007-08-14T22:28:00.001-07:00

We Hate The Sin, Not The Sinner *

2007-08-14T09:26:00.000-07:00

It's time to put that fable to rest. If they truly hated the sin and not the sinner, then this would never have happened.

ARLINGTON, Texas - A megachurch canceled a memorial service for a Navy veteran 24 hours before it was to start because the deceased was gay.

Gee, you'd think this megachurch would be thankful that this sin they hate so much will no longer be poisoning this poor man's life. You'd think they'd jump at the chance to show that they still love this man; that they would grasp this opportunity to show a display of Christian compassion.

“We did decline to host the service — not based on hatred, not based on discrimination, but based on principle,” Simons told The Associated Press. “Had we known it on the day they first spoke about it — yes, we would have declined then. It’s not that we didn’t love the family.”

You know what? I don't want to hear you excuses about principle. I've read your Book. Your Christian principles are based on hatred and discrimination. Anyone with a cerebral cord can thumb through Leviticus and find out your god's opinion of gay people.

Thank god I'm an atheist.

A Milestone

2007-08-12T14:02:00.000-07:00

You know how some restaurants have the first dollar they ever earned framed and placed on the wall? Well, I recently received my first bat-shit crazy Christian death-threat via God comment on my blog, and that's cause for commemoration.

Idaho Representative Bill Sali - Constitutionally Ignorant Theocrat

2007-08-10T08:47:00.000-07:00

Ugh...Idaho.

It's extraordinarily depressing to know how ignorant of the constitution so many of our elected representatives are. Especially when they come from your state.

Bill Sali, the congressman representing Idaho's 1st district, reacted thusly to the Hindu prayer given during a recent congressional session:

"We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes -- and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers."

Actually, Bill, that's exactly what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they wrote the Constitution. You know, that old piece of paper that governs the laws and structure of this country.

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
-- United States Constitution, Article VI, section 3

That means any U.S. citizen has the right to run for office, regardless of which magical being they worship. Of course, this country is still too small-minded to actually elect an atheist or a witch, but we've come a long way from burning our kind at the stake, something which Bill's kind used to do.

The article I'm quoting him from goes on to say:

Sali says America was built on Christian principles that were derived from scripture. He also says the only way the United States has been allowed to exist in a world that is so hostile to Christian principles is through "the protective hand of God."

No, no, no. The Constitution, whose principles inform America's, come from Enlightenment principles, not Biblical ones. How many times are Jesus, God, and the Bible mentioned in the Constitution? That's right: zero times. Need more? Then read Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the U.S. on June 10, 1797:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Our elected officials seriously need to be able to pass 12th grade Government before being allowed to hold office. I'm afraid that would weed out the whole lot of them, though.

This Really Isn't That Much Different Than A Real Press Conference

2007-08-08T23:35:00.000-07:00

Huh. That's Funny...

2007-08-08T23:24:00.000-07:00

I was just thinking to myself today, "You know, we haven't heard about any Christian Conservative Republicans involved in yet another sex scandal lately. Aren't we about due?"

And Viola! As if by magic...

The latest entry in the GOP sexual hypocrite parade.

Outing Atheists -- Richard Dawkins Lauches New Campaign

2007-08-06T23:36:00.000-07:00

I'm really glad to have a fellow blogger like Paul. He provides me with a lot of blog fodder. Recently he turned my attention to an article on radio pundit Albert Mohler's website. It's about the OUT Campaign spearheaded by Richard Dawkins. I don't know if anyone noticed, but I have already proudly placed the Scarlet 'A' on the side of my page, I think I did that sometime last week.

Mohler's column doesn't say much that you can't already read on Dawkins' page, but it's dismissive tone and promise of future criticism of Dawkins and the campaign means fresh blood for me! I hope Paul keeps me updated

Don't Bring Man Down To God's Moral Level

2007-08-06T22:28:00.000-07:00

Paul brought this letter to my attention, entitled "Don't bring God down to man's moral level". Reversing the two subjects in the title of my post strikes me as a bit immature at first, but it really does cut to the point I want to make. Here is the letter in it's entirety:

The letter on this page on July 28 was based on the premise that if no one else is hurt by someone's actions, then it's not a problem - no sin is committed, apparently. Thus is homosexuality justified, since it is personal conduct.

One characteristic noted in the Bible of mankind's moral decline in these last days is the driving urge to bring God down to man's moral level. Yet, King David, in Psalms 51, confessed his sins of lust, adultery, murder and lying - all against others - in this manner: "Against You (God), You only, have I sinned and done this evil in Your sight" (Verse 4).

Many letters have been written since the parade controversy over the issue of gay rightness or wrongness. Romans 1:18-32 relates God's view on the subject about as plain as anyone can make it - if they want to know the truth about it.

And David's insight tells it like it really is.

GENE LAWLEY
Twin Falls

I agree with the letter Mr. Lawley is attempting to criticize. He refers to a religious opinion letter by Eric Parton that states "...nothing is stolen and no one is hurt by homosexuality except the close-minded..." Well, I partly agree with it. Homosexuality doesn't hurt the close-minded either.

I can hear the counter arguments. Yes, people are offended by it, but this is not pain. Nobody has the right not to be offended. The revelation of homosexuality can tear families apart, but whose fault is this? If my father disowned me because of my left-handedness, would that be my fault? And the HIV virus has been found in higher percentages in the gay community. This isn't because of the "sin" of homosexuality, it is because of sexual promiscuity, a sin committed by persons of any sexual persuasion. Nobody is hurt because I'm straight, and nobody is hurt because someone else is gay.

Mr. Lawley then cites, what else, the Bible to show the immorality of homosexuality. It's unfortunate for him that we live in the United States of America, not Afghanistan. Get it? Democracy, not Theocracy. It doesn't matter what religious source Mr. Lawley wants to throw out, our laws are based on none of them. Our laws are based on the Constitution, not his book of choice. His desire to denounce homosexuality based on the Bible means about as much as my desire to ban the use of magic around Muggles based on. . .I forget which book that was, Wizard's First Rule? To be blunt: I and millions of others could care less what your book says about homosexuality, witches, shellfish, who to kill, or anything else contained therein.

Now, as for the title of my post. I believe what Mr. Lawley would want is for our society to bring man down to god's moral level. Yes, I believe human morality, at least my concept of it, is superior to that of any god's moral level. You see, there is no evidence pointing to the existence of the traditional monotheistic definition of god. As long as that is the case, anyone or anything claiming to know God's will is merely the product of a human being.

Religion is the best example of moral relativism I can think of. Any crime and any atrocity can be and has been justified in the name of some particular deity. And the religious have no basis on which to condemn such acts. If they are followers of that offending religion, who are they to say whether that crime wasn't based on God's will?

It's very nice to hear the Muslim leadership condemning the September 11th attacks, but they worship the exact same god as Mohamed Atta and Co. Allah would never approve the attack? Says who? What makes the condemners correct and the hijackers wrong? Allah has never and will never appear to all to tell us his actual opinion. The same goes with Christian terrorists like the murderer of the abortion doctor and Timothy McVeigh. Some Christians support what they did, and some don't.

Only a humanist can thoroughly and honestly condemn evil. Killing other people is wrong even if they disagree with your religion, or your atheism, or your skin color, or anything else. This is a humanist tenet and aside from self defense, has no exceptions. No excuses based on unprovable ancient texts or authoritarian declarations of revelation.

I am reminded by a song lyric that beautifully demonstrates the superiority of placing humanity's needs over obeying some god's anachronistic edicts. The unlikely source is Anthony Kiedis of the Red Hot Chili Peppers in a song called 21st Century.

Read me your scripture and I'll twist it.
Show me your wrist and I'll kiss it.

Meh - I Never Really Enjoyed Dilbert Anyway

2007-08-06T16:35:00.000-07:00

What? Comic strips with talking animals? Ingenious! The concept of incompetent corporate bosses? How hilariously original! Office work is dull? Why, I never would have guessed! Insightful!

Well, it turns out that Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams' attacks on atheism are about as original as the themes in his comic. PZ Myers has shown Adams his fist of death on several occasions. But the man just doesn't know when to quit. I admit to finding Dilbert witty on occasions, but his clever sense of humor seriously betrays his astonishingly poor philosophical/theological aptitude.

In a recent blog entry, Adams goes on to make a few of the most inane arguments against atheism out there.

This brings me to atheists. In order to be certain that God doesn’t exist, you have to possess a godlike mental capacity – the ability to be 100% certain. A human can’t be 100% certain about anything. Our brains aren’t that reliable. Therefore, to be a true atheist, you have to believe you are the very thing that you argue doesn’t exist: God.

As a general rule, I would like anyone who plans on making attacks against atheism or arguments for the existence of a god first run their argument through the Elf Princess Filter. Just substitute the word Elf Princess in for God and then see if the argument still makes sense. I hereby declare that Scott Adams can't truly be a disbeliever in the Elf Princess because he can't be 100% sure that she exists. I win.

In the real world, all atheism requires - indeed, all the disbelief in anything requires is lack of evidence, or evidence to the contrary. With that we are justified in withholding our belief. I'm not 100% certain that no god exists, but atheism isn't about certainty. It's about evidence.

Perhaps you will argue that being 99.999999% certain God doesn’t exist is just as good as being 100% sure. That strikes me as bad math. As other philosotainers have famously noted, a small chance of spending eternity in Hell has to be taken seriously. Eternity is a long time.

Let me put this in perspective. You might be willing to accept a 10% risk of going skiing and getting hurt, but you wouldn’t accept a 10% risk of a nuclear war. The larger the potential problem, the less risk you are willing to tolerate.

An eternity in Hell is the largest penalty there could ever be. So while you might not worry about a .00000000001% chance of ending up in Hell, you can’t deny the math. .00000000001% of eternity is a lot longer than your entire mortal life. Infinitely longer.

Are you kidding? Pascal's Wager? Seriously, is he kidding? OK, let's dust this one off using Adams' nuclear war analogy. I definitely wouldn't accept a 10% risk of nuclear war. This is because we have real-world evidence and reality-based calculations of this type of risk. We know which countries have the bomb, we know exactly our relationship with each one, and we know which actions we take have more of a chance of retaliation.

Do we have the same situation with God? Every god-head will say "yes" but the reality is the opposite. There is no evidence that any god exists. Every type of god has a different amount of vanity and appetite for vengeance, even within the same religion (see OT and NT). All of this is based on the hearsay of self-proclaimed religious leaders and very old textbooks written by sheep-herding tribesman.

Since none of this is based on hard evidence, then how do we know we're not pissing off the oft-neglected Elf Princess more and more every day? How do we know Jebus won't reward atheists with cookies and send Christians to a hell run by John Waters and the cast of Queer Eye? Just because their human-written Bible doesn't say that? So what?

In the end, Adams isn't even giving us a good reason to believe. He's really giving us a reason to make a specific choice about a deity, post-belief. He has to convince me that a god exists before telling me how I should be appeasing it.

Don't quit your day job, Scott.

My Effing Hero

2007-08-06T09:22:00.000-07:00

This man is doing a great deed for humanity. Watch the fraud whine and squirm!

Ten Reasons Gay Marriage is Un-American

2007-08-05T22:09:00.000-07:00

I stumbled on this just now and it must be on my blog!

Ten Reasons Gay Marriage is Un-American

Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.