Blue Hydra

Atheists oppress British Christians

2009-04-20T15:17:00.009-04:00

Every Easter, with the media spotlight on religion, there's always a long line of apologists waiting in the wings to tell their tedious and often melodramatic story about how religion is great and noble, religious people are horribly oppressed by our tyrannical secular society, and that common, god-fearing Brits ought to rise up against these smug, vile atheist elites (BYOP - bring your own pitchforks). This piece by the Daily Mail does the hat trick and brings all three.

After an utterly uninteresting introduction and personal rumination, it finally cuts to the chase:

Like most educated people in Britain and Northern Europe (I was born in 1950), I have grown up in a culture that is overwhelmingly secular and anti-religious. The universities, broadcasters and media generally are not merely non-religious, they are positively anti.

As delicious as that may seem, I heartily doubt the truth of it. Christians in the US are always playing the same game, playing the victim and lamenting our "secular society" but the sad truth is that religion still plays a large role in society (and regrettably, our political policies) and that they disguise their privileged position as one of a downtrodden underdog to garner every drop of sympathy and support that they can get. And I shudder to imagine the rationale for the incessant painting of the secular voices as totalitarian overlords silencing the faithful (who inexplicably, manage to ceaselessly broadcast their tale of secular oppression from all the major media) .

But speaking of secular voices, the article holds nothing back to these atheist jerks (and noticeably fails to support exactly why they are jerks). In argumentum ad adjective fashion, it lamblasts Britain's atheists as "anti-God fanatics", "mockers", "scornful", "smug", "self-satisfied". The hatred just goes on and on, and I'm not entirely sure that it's the atheists who are the actual producers of it.

Apparently, Richard Dawkins thinks that religion is the source of all evil in the world (protip: just reading the titles of people's work isn't the same as knowing the arguments contained therein), Polly Toynbee spends her Sundays sneering at meek pew-sitters, and the tieless, foul-mouthed Jonathan Ross (who for some reason, is wearing a tie in the accompanying picture) is mean to Christians somehow.

Jeez. Even I'm starting to hate atheists!

An observant reader may remark, "Okay, we've had enough two minutes of hate, where's the case for faith?" Well, it turns out that part was mostly ditched in favor of hunting down pics of these vile atheists and the barrage of clever adjectives to demonize them with. It's there, sort of, but it's not really worth commenting on.

As a matter of fact, I am sure the opposite is the case and that materialist atheism is not merely an arid creed, but totally irrational.

Materialist atheism says we are just a collection of chemicals. It has no answer whatsoever to the question of how we should be capable of love or heroism or poetry if we are simply animated pieces of meat.

Take that, materialists!

I mean seriously, how could anything feel emotions or have deep thoughts if it's building blocks are just stupid cells? It's preposterous. It's like saying that a lovely painting could be "just" paint on a canvas or that the Eiffel Tower is "just" a hunk of metal. Obviously, it makes no logical sense to say that a wondrous thing could be made from building blocks that aren't themselves magical in any way.

The rest of the arguments are equally bad, including the not-so-subtle argument from popularity that most of the greatest thinkers of the past 1,500 years believed in Christian dogma.

How'd the thought process get this bad? Well, there's a clue in the author's journey to belief. Apparently, he drifted away from the faith because it struck him as "uncool" and found it again when he made the startling revelation that people often die while still believing in supernatural things.

Seems to me like the journey was merely from one poorly-reasoned position to another.

I'm reminded of this quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind"

If atheists ruled the world

2009-04-08T16:08:00.002-04:00

Hilarious deadpan reenactments of classic FSTDT quotes:

The sad thing is that I saw a couple of those firsthand (truly a milestone in underachievement) at some christian sites. Like the 3 words: "evolution is a lie" LOL!

As a quick stroll through my posts can attest, it's a hobby of mine to collect the paragons of stupidity, frequently with a mocking retort. I guess it just makes me feel good about myself to know that even my tragically mediocre intellect is greatly superior to these ideological wastebaskets. Or maybe I just think it's funny when people do intellectual pratfalls. Either way, these collections of religious craziness are priceless.

Nightline's Satan "debate"

2009-03-28T11:08:00.007-04:00

PZ's initial reaction was right, this piece is utter drek. But don't take my word for it, watch some of it yourself. It's a trainwreck.

The rational side is represented by some Christian bishop and New Ager Deepak Chopra. It's sad, really really sad, when I have to root for Deepak Chopra as the voice of reason; when the people he's arguing against are even more delusional than the guy who says that "consciousness may exist in photons, which seem to be the carrier of all information in the universe." The ex-prostitute he argued with seriously believes that she was held down and raped by demons - beings with red eyes and black faces. Seriously.

I just don't understand why they couldn't get an actual skeptic or two for this stuff.

Atheists are brainless

2009-03-27T16:12:00.005-04:00

Via Triabolgue

I have to admit, this is one of the more clever putdowns of atheists I've read. And yet, it fails miserably at understanding even basic atheists arguments.

Atheists often argue that they don't "deny" or "reject" gods, they simply don't believe in them, just like most Christians simply don't believe in Zeus or Vishnu or Amun-Ra, etc. It's an attempt to counter strawman arguments about atheism as well as communicating to theists that the burden of proof is on them to explain why people should believe in their god, rather than on atheists to make the case that every god concept is false.

It's not complicated. It's not difficult. Any reasonably intelligent person could understand these concepts.

Yet, theists (and more specifically, Christian apologists) either genuinely don't understand this or are simply being dishonest and are intentionally mischaracterizing the position in order to curry Amens from their flocks. (which of course would be tantamount to lying and prohibited by their Ten Commandments)

They do things like quibble about whether or not babies are atheists, sometimes even going so far as to consider inanimate objects as atheists in the vain attempt to construe a simple, straightforward statement of disbelief into some absurd (and therefore false) conclusion. They often times don't realize that their logic inevitably caves in on itself. One could also argue about whether or not one's chair is an undecided voter or a neutral party in some war, but all that does is reveal the intellectual confusion of the author - it never negates the meaning of terms like undecided voter or neutral party.

Instead of pwning atheism, it's self-pwnage. It's declaring to the world that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and encouraging people not to take you seriously.

Future Weapons: Zen Buddhism

2009-03-26T13:31:00.004-04:00

Like most Americans, I love guns and I love explosions. Personally, I'd never actually use a gun on anything living, of course, but I can't get enough of watching inanimate objects get blown up in increasingly effective and creative ways. (even though I'm pretty sure that the only reasonable use for some of the more sci-fi weapons would be interstellar war, which I don't see as likely any time soon) It naturally follows that I love watching shows about all the futuristic weapons and military-related technologies being developed.

Stuff like:
MOAB
Railguns
Anti-missile lasers (USA Air hehe)
Zen Buddhism

Okay, which one of these things is not like the others? The juxtaposition is just so absurd, it makes the segment sort of bizarre to watch.

Islamic Examiner needs his head examined, part 2

2009-03-25T01:43:00.011-04:00

Part 5

It's mostly a rehashing of his previous claims as if no one ever demolished them in the comments.

He claims that atheists aren't really atheists, atheists never criticize "pagan creeds and other ridiculous mythologies" (I suppose it would be futile explaining to him that many atheists oppose all sorts of wacky cults like Scientology), etc. The ignorance is just exasperating.

A good analogy of Atheist opposition to the Law and Authority of religion is the way anarchists resist law and order in civil society.

So now atheists are equated with anarchists. I'm sure that in his warped mind, that actually makes sense, but over here in Reality Land that is a complete and utter non-sequitur.

And here's the double-whammy.

There is no guarantee or statistic which proves that in the absence of a central government an Atheist is more likely to obey civil and criminal laws than a Monotheist. Ouch.

Okayy...let's say that that's true and that in some sort of post-apocalyptic scenario where law enforcement has collapsed, atheists aren't any more likely than theists to follow the law. So what?

This guy acts like it's some devastating argument against atheism and practically does a victory dance in the margins. I don't get it.

As for the morality part, Atheists giving charity and all that stuff, I have a simple question. Where did you get these teachings from? You don't believe either in God or in revealed Texts, remember?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe *gasp* atheists feel sympathy for other human beings and want to help them.

He ends with a bizarre assertion that the above sort of reasoning is "pathetic" and ends with another self-congratulatory declaration of victory. But he never really clarifies why that it is so. He seems infatuated with delusions of pwnage and uninterested in making a coherent argument.

Part 6

Got the Tuesday morning blues? Have no fear, simple arguments against Atheism is here!

Uggh. Make it stop.

You know it's rather entertaining reading the colorful comments from some readers. Somewhere in there is a rather grave accusation that I would order the execution of Atheists if I could. Yikes!

That sort of thing would be strange if he didn't assert that his morality comes directly from the Quran and the Quran mentions just that. Personally, I'd rather not find out.

Seriously buddy, should you expect mass executions and genocide from a Muslim? Nope.

From one of your own secular, freethinking ilk like Josef Stalin? Maybe.

Case closed.

Uggh. I can't believe he said that. Because when I think of secular, freethinking atheists in places like the United States and Europe, people who adamantly oppose totalitarianism, my first thought is to consider them friends of Stalin, one of the most brutal totalitarian dictators to ever exist. Makes perfect sense.

However this is exactly the point. On many, many occasions blanket accusations of intolerance have routinely been made against Religion.

Probably unintentionally, he actually makes a good point here. You shouldn't make blanket assertions about large groups of people - not every atheist is like Stalin, not every Christian is like Fred Phelps, and not every Muslim is like Osama bin Laden. That kind of message I could support. Too bad he's too busy making hateful and piteously inept condemnations of atheists to notice.

Instead, he goes the No True Scotsman route and declares to a co-worker that it's not religions that cause wars but the misinterpretation of religion. Her blank stare speaks for my reaction as well.

Oh, and then he implies that WWII, a completely secular conflict in his estimation, is somehow connected to godlessness.

Part 7

Don't you just love propaganda?

I'm reading your column, so apparently I do.

He complains about atheist intellectuals and scientists, derides the apparent common wisdom that most smart people are atheists while "the simpletons seem to gravitate toward Monotheism". It's certainly an apt assertion in this case.

Here are a couple of quotes, albeit unsourced:

“There is too much order in the universe for it all to have been created by accident.”

“To allege that the universe and everything in it accidentally created itself is to claim that a tornado tore through a junk yard and left behind a Mercedes Benz.”

Is it really too much to ask for you too get real quotes that people have actually said rather than just pull them out of nowhere?

The first one is a common argument from design, and the second is a paraphrase of Fred Hoyle's argument against evolution, comparing the emergence of simple cells to "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." It's mainly used by Christian creationists.

So he goes from there to assert that most scientists are not atheists. So let's take a look at some data and judge for ourselves:

Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively.

Source

Other polls get different results. But the facts of the matter remains the same: scientists tend to be less religious than the general public, and certainly far more say that they don't believe in a God than the general public.

Next, he brings actually sourced quotes to the table - Isaac Newton and Louis Pasteur believed in God. Shocking stuff. Apparently, us atheists were under the impression that no scientists were religious at all. Thanks for clearing that up.

Islamic Examiner needs his head examined, part 1

2009-03-21T11:35:00.014-04:00

In his now 7-part series criticizing atheism, Yusuf Khan's arguments still come up far short, not just horribly wrong, but also lacking a grounding in even the basics of common sense, logic, and the fine art of knowing what you're talking about.

In part 1, he wrangles with understanding even the most basic definitions of atheism in an incredibly condescending and patronizing way (which by the way, is my job).

He starts out with calling atheism a "belief system" and can't figure out why atheists would object to that (or at least, feigns that he can't). Looks like someone needs to take Atheism 101.

Have it your way. Because if that's the case then I don't know why Atheist propaganda is always found in the Religion section of most publications, including this one.

That was, by the way, a classy reference to the website's Atheism examiner.

Okay, so he doesn't understand why atheist books could possibly be categorized in the religion section of a bookstore. I have a wild idea about that: maybe because they're about religion. It's not hard to figure out.

Next, he makes the brilliant assertion that atheists (people who don't believe in a god) believe in a god, it's just that they oppose God's authority. The whole argument is just pure, unadulterated genius. (And possibly a copyright violation. Last time I checked, Dinesh D'Souza had a lifetime patent on that incredibly ridiculous claim)

In part 2, he kicks it up a notch. The stupidity, that is.

He repeats the bookstore claim and suggests that all atheist books ought to go in the philosophy section. My local Barnes and Noble does just that - the philosophy section is a single bookshelf, waist-high at its height and consists almost entirely of Aristotle, Plato, and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer and philosophy"-type books with a small smattering of old and unpopular atheistic books. Plus, it's at the very back of the store. Meanwhile, there's a bewildering array of religion, Christianity, Christian fiction, and Bible bookshelves. These sections combined make up a large chunk of the store. They added a small display near it with some of the Four Horsemen books (Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, and Hitches) and this guy practically has a heart attack. Heaven forbid such aggression!

Next, he says Buddha mentions God so Buddhism must be theistic, not atheistic. Again, genius logic. And once again, he's wrong. Buddhism itself is by and large about eliminating suffering and achieving enlightenment and not about worship of a supreme creator.

When this topic comes up, many buddhists respond with the arrow parable:

A man lies dying with a poisoned arrow in his side, but rather than removing the arrow immediately before he dies, he wants to know who shot the arrow, whether the person was tall or short, where they are from, what kind of bow was used, the kind of string used for the bow etc.

The arrow represents our present state of suffering, and while we trouble ourselves with endless questions about this and that, our life slips away and we get no nearer to solving the problem of our suffering.

The moral of the story: wrangling about whether or not a god exists is pointless and merely distracts from the more pressing concern of human suffering. Once again, a quick google could have saved Yusuf much embarrassment.

In part 3, he explores common atheist arguments against traditional religion and almost has a salient point. Almost.

First, he complains that atheists always attack Christianity and occasionally, Islam. There are pretty good reasons for this: Christianity and Islam are the two largest religions in the world, atheists tend to live in countries that are predominately Christian, Christianity and Islam tend to be politically mobilized much more than other religions - attempting to force their views on society at large. And obviously, the specter of Islamic terrorism certainly doesn't help the public image of Islam one bit. Plus, I do have this nagging impression that Muslims and Christians as a whole (especially the more conservative-mined believers) really are more aggressive and ill-mannered than their fellow coreligionists. Maybe I'm just leading a sheltered life, but I simply don't see the same sort of pushy and domineering behavior from Jainists, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, or Deists.

Next, he makes the strange claim that "ancient mythologies and pagan creeds are never attacked by Atheists". Once again, the explanation is fairly obvious: there's really no point in beating a dead religion.

Myth: Established religion is cruel and oppressive.
Fact: The above conclusion is derived from a singular bitter experience: medieval Europe.

Err...no. Christian scandals continued well beyond medieval times (the European Wars of Religion, the Salem Witch trials, etc) extending to present day foibles and missteps like creationism, prop 8, and "sinful" birth control. Plus, I would be remiss to talk about cruel and oppressive religion without including present day Islamic theocracies.

The remarkable progress in science and technology that was sparked in Asia, North Africa, and Eastern Europe was a direct product of Islam, not a pre-Islamic phenomenon.

This historical testimony serves as clear-cut evidence that the presence of monotheism in a society in no way hinders scientific progress. In fact the above example taken from Muslim history proves that in fact it fosters education and encourages development.

This lovely delusion of a universally pro-science Islam is falsified in only two words: Harun Yahya. Turkey is the only country on the list that's actually worse than the United States with regard to accepting evolution. Islamic beliefs can and do spread pseudoscientific beliefs.

Part 4, more confusion about the definition of atheist. Particularly, he's fond of using the dictionary definition of atheism, where it is as synonymous with wickedness, to imply that this is somehow actually true and gets indignant that people pointed out the gaping flaw in that logic.

Then he just flies off to cuckoo land:

Contrary to the dictionary definition, below is a series of quotes made by Atheists that don't deny, rather affirm the existence of God.

He really seems to think that Lucretius quoting Epicirus's famous riddle that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the idea of a benevolent deity somehow indicates theistic belief. He quotes a satirist (a satirist!) saying "thank God I'm an atheist" as proof positive that he believes in God. Holy smokes, this guy is thick! If I said "By Jove, I've got an idea!", he'd think that I worship Jupiter.

And he just goes on and on. I'll cover part 5, 6, and 7 later. Preferably after I stop laughing and banging my head against the wall from the sheer idiocy of it.

They'll really let anyone be an examiner these days, don't they? Apparently, they do. (They changed it from anti-atheist examiner to creationism examiner, but his first choice certainly says a lot about his mentality.)

Pope: condoms make AIDS crisis worse

2009-03-19T20:17:00.006-04:00

Telegraph

While en route from Rome to his first stop, Cameroon, the Pope said that the condition was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems."

So, according to the Pope, condoms (which prevent the transmission of AIDS) make the AIDS problem worse.

How does that logically work?

How?

How?!

On what reality does that make sense? Is it some bizzaro dimension where everything is the opposite of what it is in this dimension? Where toasters freeze bread, soap spreads germs, puppies are vicious man-eating predators, and condoms are laced with HIV?

The Pope's remarks are like something out of the Onion.

We're in for a rough landing

2009-03-16T23:13:00.003-04:00

As an atheist, I often wonder where the we're headed with regards to religion in this country. There are essentially three factions vying for influence: the secularists (atheists and agnostics who support secularism and favor a future where the power of religion over public life is lessened), conservative Christians (who wish to marry government more closely to religion and favor a "traditional" future for America, where the power of religion over public life is increased), and liberal Christians (who have far more moderate views than their conservative peers).

I really did hope for a Soft Landing, but the ARIS poll indicates a mainline decline, liberal Christianity losing power with respect to conservative Christianity.

According to the American Religious Identification Survey, Christianity is losing ground in the United States, but evangelical Christianity is not. Just over a third of Americans are still born-again. Meanwhile, the mainline churches, beacons of progressive, rationalistic faith – the kind that could potentially act as a bridge between religious and non-religious Americans – are shrinking. "These trends … suggest a movement towards more conservative beliefs and particularly to a more 'evangelical' outlook among Christians," write the report's authors.

It seems that we're headed towards a future where liberal Christianity is powerless before their more conservative brethren, leading towards a country polarized between atheism and fundamentalism. I could be wrong about this, and I rather hope I am, because it could have harmful repercussions in the ongoing culture war.

The country as a whole continues to progress towards a more secular future, and I have no doubt that it will eventually be more similar to other western nations, where religiosity is quite low. But instead of making a smooth transition - with more aggressive and fundamentalist religious views dying out to more tolerable and reasonable ones as the country moves closer to secularism, we seem to be headed towards a more rougher transition, with extremist religious views long outlasting moderate religious views, with a death grip on the politics of a country whose populace longs for a more enlightened and less parochial state of affairs. We will indeed eventually achieve such a result, but what damages will the country endure from fundamentalist ideologies on the way out?

The coming Evangelical Collapse

2009-03-13T13:09:00.004-04:00

Some people have already taken the ARIS news and run with it. The Christian Science Monitor, apparently using their psychic powers, predicts the imminent downfall of evangelical Christianity and (predictably) the resurgence of Christianity.

The author claims:

within 10 years, half of American Evangelicals will leave the fold.
a wave of Christian persecution will sweep the land (I'm sure it's supposed to sound really ominous, but I can't help but remember that the whinier voices in the religious right claim persecution for everything - these nuts consider even saying Happy Holidays or teaching science to be persecution of Christians)
Conservative Christians will lose the culture war (I could have predicted that!)
Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear (I can't think of it happening to a nicer bunch of people)
And finally, from the ruins, "new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement". (I doubt it)

I do agree with him that Evangelical Christianity has entwined its religious views with political conservatism (and is suffering the consequences of it by sharing in conservatism's unpopularity) and that young people who are "on fire for the Lord" are frequently ignorant about their own religion. But these "predictions" are just an assortment hunches and wishful thinking. It's just not good logic. Assuredly, some of this will come true (indeed, some of it already has), but if you spray and pray enough prophecies, some of them are bound to be true.

Poll: 15% of the US has no religion

2009-03-11T23:57:00.007-04:00

ARIS poll:

The percentage of Christians in America, which declined in the 1990s from 86.2 percent to 76.7 percent, has now edged down to 76 percent. Ninety percent of the decline comes from the non-Catholic segment of the Christian population, largely from the mainline denominations, including Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians/Anglicans, and the United Church of Christ. These groups, whose proportion of the American population shrank from 18.7 percent in 1990 to 17.2 percent in 2001, all experienced sharp numerical declines this decade and now constitute just 12.9 percent.

Christianity as a whole has declined. The mainline churches are collapsing, leaving evangelicals and megachurch members as the dominant form of non-Catholic Christianity in the US. *shudders*

The percentage of Americans claiming no religion, which jumped from 8.2 in 1990 to 14.2 in 2001, has now increased to 15 percent.

I seem to recall a few years back when atheism was allegedly in sharp decline and a "religious resurgence" was happening and/or nigh. How's that working out for them?

The states with the highest increase in the No Religion category are from the Northeast or Western regions. North Carolina trails the pack with +5% no-religion.

There's something interesting about the 15% no-religion category: a large percentage of them have had little/no contact with religion their entire lives.

•40% say they had no childhood religious initiation ceremony such as a baptism, christening, circumcision, bar mitzvah or naming ceremony.
•55% of those who are married had no religious ceremony.

•66% say they do not expect to have a religious funeral.

A great many of them are what I call "natural atheists" - they didn't have religion to begin with and they don't have it now, unlike deconverts, who all had to climb their way to godlessness, which can sometimes be a arduous process for one raised in an extremely religious household.

A Question of Tone

2009-03-08T21:10:00.007-04:00

One issue of continual discussion and debate in atheist circles is how atheists should make their case without causing unnecessary offense (being condescending, belittling people, etc) while simultaneously being assertive about our views and refusing to give deference to religion. Atheists have to walk the fine line of being honest and being civil.

It's made even more problematic by many believers' hypocrisies regarding civil discourse. Everyone says that they believe in freedom of thought and speech and that all ideas should be critically examined, but when it comes down to it, religion is still very much a untouchable issue in America and talking about these things in even the most forthright and civil manner possible is still makes many believers nervous, defensive, and invariably conjures feelings of offense and resentment. Some believers actively exploit this reaction, and employ it as a weapon to short-circuit debate, sometimes even to censor the "offending" party. They take extreme and unreasonable offense to the slightest irreverence, insisting that their views are entitled to respect and equating any criticism of their dogma to an outright attack on the person.

In my own view, such people will never be happy. Atheists should simply speak their minds and if some people can't handle that, that's their problem. But the question remains: how "militant" should atheists be? Should we be like more like Carl Sagan or George Carlin? Ebonmuse or PZ? Certainly, we shouldn't self-censor and should express our views honestly and firmly, but what about civility?

Here's a microcosm of that debate: The Amazing Atheist (TJ) and GoGreen18 (Laci). They're both atheists, but with very different approaches on communicating atheism.

TJ is a bit of a firebrand who isn't afraid at all to be perfectly blunt about what he thinks. He's crass, extremely vulgar, funny, and certainly offensive to many of his Christian viewers. He's great because he gives voice to exactly what people are thinking, but are too polite or too afraid to say.

Laci really tries to take the high road and debunk misconceptions and get her point across without being mean about it. She's great because she's informative and passionate, but also extremely amiable, even in the face of the most contemptible wingnuttery.

Well, last month, there was a bit of e-drama about that between the two of them. TJ commonly makes ownage videos, where he thoroughly refutes some theist's rant and frequently lets loose with personal attacks, condemning the video's stupidity and the videomaker's stupidity in equal measure. Well, the personal attacks must have really ticked off Laci because her response condemned TJ's video for being too rude, too uncivil, and going to far with the personal attacks.

And this sort of wrangling over the right tone is common among atheists. Some of us have very different ideas about what's appropriate and what's inappropriate and where the line is between them. That's fine.

Personally, I think we need all the voices we can get - we need the firebrands and the friendly atheists. We need the militant" atheists and courteous atheists. We need the Sagans and the Carlins of the world. We need atheists to make their points with a whisper and we need people to make their points with a megaphone. We need to shock people's sacred cows, but we also need to reason with people. Neither technique works well in isolation - an overabundance of politeness is simply boring and fails to excite people's passions, while an overabundance of militancy simply alienates people. By working in tandem, atheists will put out their messages more effectively than working alone.

Egnor drops the ID charade

2009-03-04T23:39:00.008-05:00

Egnor's public tempter tantrum is absolutely hilarious. (ERV has a funny summary about it) It's fun to watch the whole ID movement self-destruct - failing to gain a foothold in either science or the classroom, it has devolved into nothing more substantial than petty, whinny tirades against those evil "Darwinists".

Egnor's rant is no exception, foaming at the mouth about scientists' refusal to hold a conference at a state whose legislature passed an "academic freedom" bill to introduce "supplemental material" into classrooms and encourage teaching "the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories" such as evolution and global warming. Sound familiar? It's the old Teach-the-Controversy tactic (ironically, when creation science was taught in Louisiana, the creationists considered that academic freedom as well). Creationists aren't especially good at coming up with new ideas, only disguising their outright attacks on science education, and even then they're fairly inept - the motivation for singling out evolution for "critical" analysis is obvious and the rank and file membership is notorious for being unable to keep the "Intelligent Designer" anonymous.

So imagine my surprise when Egnor dropped the charade of religion-neutral ID and threatened to unleash the fury of the creationist hordes, stopping just short of threatening, "our arrows will blot out the sun". Not the ID hordes or the academic freedom hordes. Nope. The creationist hordes. The big C-word.

But you misunderstand the people for whom you clearly have such disdain. Most Americans are creationists, in the sense that they believe that God played an important role in creating human beings and they don’t accept a strictly Darwinian explanation for life.

There are a lot of big organizations out there who don’t exactly like you. The National Association of Evangelicals represents 40,000,000 people and represents 40,000 churches.

He goes on and on about how "God-fearing Americans" despise the attacks on their faith and are fed up with darwinism/atheism. The stupidity is cringe-worthy, but the honesty is refreshing.

Finally, we see the true face of Intelligent Design, Christian creationists who not only deny evolution, but are also enraged at the mere mention of Charles Darwin and evolution in schools. They are determined to inject their religious views into the classroom and blot out the theory of evolution in a misguided crusade to safeguard their faith. They don't have a scientific leg to stand on, but they're not interested in science, they're interested only in cultural dominion. If it involves censoring actual science and teaching children factually wrong information, then so be it. And if it involves lying to the press and the public about their motivations, then so be it. But there's one place where they're always honest about what they believe - church.

Supreme Court turns down religious monument

2009-02-26T17:29:00.012-05:00

USA Today

No, not *that* monument - they didn't get infringe on our nation's obsession with plopping down Ten Commandments monuments all over public land as if some public park would spontaneously turn over to heathenism if left to its own devises. They denied some cult no one's ever heard of the ability to dump their Seven Aphorisms (their version of the Ten Commandments) on a public park.

I talked about it before the ruling over here.

This was a good call. Indeed, it was the only reasonable call they could have possibly made. Even the wingnuts didn't want the cult to win because they don't want other religions to get their feet in the door for the church-state entanglement they so desperately desire. So, to both secularists and theocrats alike, there's no earthly reason why public parks should be used as some sort of ideological bulletin board for religious groups. Besides, there's already a place where religious clutter truly belongs - churches.

But I'm a little miffed that they didn't even bother to look at having a religious monument on public land as a separation of church and state issue, instead looking at it as a free speech issue. In fact, in their ruling, they consider the Ten Commandments monument as government speech. "I am the Lord thy God", "have no other gods before me" - that's government speech and it's not a separation of church and state issue?! Seriously, how much more obvious could it possibly be? Thankfully, in their separate opinions, the justices did acknowledge this.

So by what logic did they rule that the Seven Aphorisms cannot be displayed but the Ten Commandments are good to go? Well, it's because monuments can only be relevant to "city history or from groups with long-standing community ties".

See? History not ~~hate~~ government endorsement of a particular religion. The Confederate Flag strategy. Good luck with that.

Even though the Supreme Court ducked the issue this time around, it's only a matter of time before it comes up again. And when it does, I rather doubt that theocratic Christians will be the victors; there's no viable secular rationale for putting up religious monuments on public land. And it's just dishonest to even try to peddle it that way.

The way I see it, it's one down and one to go.

You Can't Handle the Truth

2009-02-24T23:29:00.011-05:00

“Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.”
- Benjamin Franklin

Heh, here's a rather bizarre editorial - one that makes the case for less truth-telling and more secrecy from the Vatican.

The common wisdom is that stuff involving, you know, child molestation should probably be put to light to catch criminals and prevent them from amassing even more victims. Pretty common sense stuff.

Well, as it turns out, that's wrong. Some secrets ought to be kept, if for no other reason than to keep an authority legitimate in the eyes of the people.

Does that sound a little strange to you, too?

Well, it all makes sense if one considers the author's personal experiences - a catholic reporter whose investigation in priestly misdeeds unleashed a maelstrom of religious turmoil and doubt. But rather than embrace the doubt and concede that the institution has flaws and that one's faith may be misplaced, the author took it in the other direction - that secrets are good because the truth brings sorrow and recrimination. Somehow, I rather doubt this conclusion would have been reached if the author and the child-molesting priests were not of the same religion.

Societies cannot survive without authoritative institutions. But which authoritative persons or institutions can withstand constant critical scrutiny? In our culture, we are predisposed to see damage done from failing to question authority. We are far less capable of grasping the destruction that can come from delegitimizing authority with corrosive suspicion. How much reality must we choose to ignore for the greater good of our own souls, and society?

Indeed, which reality should we choose? One of harsh (and politically disadvantageous) truth or one of hidden evil, of vile misdeeds carried under a veil of secrecy?

Is our commitment to truth and honesty so flimsy and half-hearted that we must sacrifice it to protect our beloved institutions from public scrutiny and scandal?

Atheism and Happiness

2009-02-21T23:24:00.008-05:00

The New Republic has a strange piece up entitled, "Atheism and/or Happiness?"

I wasn't aware that the two are incompatible, but to the author gives the distinct impression they are, but coherent thoughts are hard to make out from the lofty incomprehensibility of the piece.

Fortunately, it's about a topic almost everyone is already familiar with - famous atheist Philp Larkin's views on religion, atheism, and happiness. Okay, not really. I have to admit, I have never heard of this guy before, but apparently he was an acclaimed British poet.

How was his poetry?

Okaayyy...not the best I've ever heard and just a tad depressing, but I'm sure the religious views were excellent.

Religion -- "That vast moth-eaten musical brocade / Created to pretend we never die"

Exactly!

And that leaves him -- and us -- with no solace or reassurance, confronting the horrifying prospect of a lonely plunge into infinite nothingness:

Wait...what? Okay, maybe I'm missing the inscrutable cleverness of the article, but on the whole, it seems like nothing more than yet another foray into ye olde "atheism = meaninglessness and existential despair" meme. *sigh*

It's hard to tell what's Larkin's actual views were from what the author extrapolates from his poetry (perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly), but it definitely paints a picture of a forlorn atheism with nothing to look forward to but deathly annihilation and religion as a provider of happiness as well as "cosmological meaning and significance" and although the dogma may be false, their work is commendable because it has real and positive effects on believers' psychological states.

The preacher's love may be a charade, the loving God that appears to act through him may be a fantasy conjured out of a combination of imagination and spiritual yearning, but in that moment faith has demonstrated its unique capacity to heal the human heart.

Yeah, it's so saccharine that I need to get tested for diabetes. But it also illustrates several lamentable misconceptions that theists have about atheists - that atheism is nihilistic, that atheists are tragically bereft of hope/meaning/happiness, etc. This is such well-worn territory that I won't bother with a detailed refutation - others have long since come up with some excellent responses. Suffice it to say that I find systems of worship of imagined gods and spirits to be supremely unsatisfying. Rather than comfort and meaning, they impart superstition with childish egoism and self-importance elevated to a truly cosmic scale.

Many theists take solace in religion. For them, religion is a powerful force in their lives - they're adamant that it gives their lives meaning and them a lift when they're feeling blue. That's fine. But the mistake they make is assuming that atheists lack these things by lacking religion. It's like an avid fisherman scolding passerby for not experiencing the joys of fishing and assuming that they live joyless lives because they don't share his hobby. He never stops to consider that they find joy elsewhere or that some people simply don't enjoy fishing. It's just a poor train of thought and a gross misunderstanding of people, and it's frustrating that this particular misconception comes up as commonly as it does.

20 Feet of Respect

2009-02-19T19:57:00.005-05:00

Interfaith relations have apparently progressed to the point of Christians and Muslims arguing about whether or not the Quran gets the top shelf at libraries. I'm having a hard time imagining how this could really be a pressing issue for any sane person. Even an insane person would have better things to do, like wall-scribbling or knitting. I know people can be petty and concerned with frivolous things, but this is really taking it to a whole new level.

Fortunately, I have a solution: 20-foot-high bookshelves. Everybody's holy book can go right up top, where they can enjoy all the undisturbed respect they deserve.

Distort, lie, rinse, repeat

2009-02-18T22:43:00.010-05:00

It must be hard being a professional religious apologist. You essentially have swallow an entire belief system whole and defend its every questionable claim, gloss over its troubled history and current difficulties. There can be no doubt. No concession. No change of mind in response to new facts or new perspectives. It's simply you and them. They are wrong and you are right. And not only that, but "they" are vile, sinful people who stubbornly refuse what is so obviously true and good. Debate is not about figuring out truth but about winning, and you frequently have to be able to willfully misrepresent your opponent's position (i.e. lie) to win.

Enter Dinesh D'Souza, the Ann Coulter of religion. That is, if Ann Coulter weren't already the Ann Coulter of religion.

He's was interviewed by Salvo, and a quick glance at their about page ("blasting holes in scientific naturalism, marveling at the intricate design of the universe, and promoting life in a culture of death", published by the St. James fellowship) gives you a little hint about which side of the debate the fall on. So after a shamefully sycophantic introduction (he's the smartest person ever, annihilator of atheists, "intrepid intellect", p.s. did we mention that he's smart?) they stand aside and hand him the mic, which is probably just as well.

At first glance, (aside from the perennial "who has the bigger membership?" spat between Muslims and Christians) he initially comes off as relatively coherent and makes fairly reasonable summaries of positions that many atheists actually do hold - arguments that religion is divisive, that religious zealotry is a potent source of violence, the viral meme idea, the idea that religion may have had in role in social cohesion - including such "noble projects" such as the "crusades" (the dissonance involved in using those words in the same sentence must be formidable).

But it's not long before he drops the charade and starts good ol' fashioned vilifying: Satan, "the atheists' hero". Yeah, that makes sense. And while we're at it, we can talk about Loki, the Christian apologist's BFF.

His idea is that God is interfering with the way he wants to live his life. He simply doesn't like this Christian God with all of his commandments, the demand for complete allegiance, and his divine observance and scrutiny.

By the way, it's a constant theme with this guy that atheists really do believe that God - the Christian God - exists, but they're just too wicked and love the sinful lifestyle too much to be saddled down with piety. I don't get what all the fuss is about, it's not like public piety ever stopped many of the most devout religious men from putting in a little carnality (including the diving-suit variety) on their off time.

Hitchens asks, "If I play by the rules, what's my reward? Well, I basically get to be a servant boy in heaven. I don't want any of that. It sounds terrible."

Indeed, this is a common atheist objection. When you have preachers condemning everything from rock and roll to Dungeons and Dragons to video games, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that their version of paradise, cleansed from the sin of such delightful and utterly harmless activities and replaced with an eternity of mindless religious chanting wouldn't be very appetizing.

What D'Sousa doesn't get is that atheists obviously don't consider such fanciful claims to be probable in the slightest. It's not that we really know that heaven and hell exists and that we're all dying to get into hell to party it up with Darwin, Mark Twain, and George Carlin. It's that we don't believe in such things to begin with and we try to point out that the internal logic of that belief doesn't hold water - you waste so much time pining for a heaven that would be absolutely dreadful if it did exist!

Then he attacks caricatures of Dawkins' claims. Dinesh darts after the religious indoctrination as child abuse angle, chalking it up as evidence of a tyrannical, nigh-totalitarian, attempt to deny parents authority over their own kids even though Dawkins himself long ago dismissed this (deliberate) misunderstanding of his remarks.

Personally, I think that parents forcing religion on their children (complete with all of Johnny's non-Christian playground friends burning eternally in hell, evolution denial, and the imminent rapture) might be a tad harmful on the young tyke and that it would be better to simply teach him about religion and let him make up his own mind when he's older. I guess I'm the next Stalin in Dinesh's mind.

The entirety of his next paragraph is this seething, jealous rant about Dawkins. His pity would be much better spent on himself. Next.

I don't believe in unicorns, so I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You'll notice that I haven't written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion, and I don't spend my time obsessing about unicorns. What I'm getting at is that you have these people out there who don't believe that God exists, but who are actively attempting to eliminate religion from society, setting up atheist video shows, and having atheist conferences. There has to be more going on here than mere unbelief.

Exactly. The atheists doth protest too much! Who, in their right mind, would possibly oppose a belief that isn't true? Some of these same atheists use plenty of ink attacking creationism, homeopathy, and astrology and these are all credible beliefs.

The real reason, of course, is that atheists want tons of immoral sex and oppose God because he frowns of that sort of thing. "To get rid of God, then, is to remove the shadow of moral judgment." He's like a broken record with the whole atheists-are-in-it-for-teh-morality-carte-blanche thing.

If you really look at the motivations of contemporary atheists, you'll find that they don't even really reject Christian theology. It's not as if the atheist objects to the resurrection or the parting of the sea; rather, it is Christian morality to which atheists object, particularly Christian moral prohibitions in the area of sex.

Actually, I'd like to go on record that yeah, I do object to claims of raising the dead and parting of the Red Sea.

But yes, now that you mention it, the no-condoms-let's-get-pregnant-unexpectedly-and-maybe-pick-up-a-few-delightful-STDs-on-the-way thing is quite objectionable too. I'm not too fond of needless rashes and shotgun weddings, and I don't see how driving without a seatbelt is a moral thing to do.

The atheist looks at all of Christianity's "thou shalt nots"—homosexuality is bad; divorce is bad; adultery is bad; premarital sex is bad—and then looks at his own life and says, "If these things are really bad, then I'm a bad guy. But I'm not a bad guy; I'm a great guy. I must thus reinterpret or (preferably) abolish all of these accusatory teachings that are putting me in a bad light."

Or I could just look at homosexuality as not applicable, divorce as better than a lifetime of marital misery if you're in that sort of situation, cheating is bad for obvious and completely non-religion-related reasons, and premarital sex is awesome.

And to wrap it all up (at least, the portion of idiocy that I have the patience to wade through), he declares that atheism is dying out. It's the apologist's version of constant creationist claims that evolution will be dead in a week. Unsurprisingly, it doesn't seem backed up by the facts at all (almost as if it was an outright lie) - Christianity in general has declined in America and the No Religion/Atheist/Agnostic category has seen huge gains. I'm sure it's all part of atheism's death throes.

Darwin Day craziness

2009-02-17T13:19:00.008-05:00

Intellectual fallout from Darwin Day. Enjoy.

First up, Egnor (a professional IDiot, and one of the dimmest of the bunch) whines about how people objected to his Darwin Day smear piece. The first line is "Why I don't believe in atheism's creation myth". It's not terribly surprising that someone would object to such drivel.

The rest of it is typical creationist talking points: evolution is poorly supported dogma (and conveniently, never trying to support that claim beyond the mere assertion), he humorously states that he figured out the flaws in evolution by reading creationist tracts (garbage in, garbage out), arguments from incredulity, etc. He finishes off his masterful defense of his idiotic editorial by derisively calling it "Happy Atheist Day". Real classy.

Second, a letter to the editor with the breakthrough announcement that "evolution theory is flawed science". ORLY.

His reasoning: we don't have strong AIs yet - specifically, a computer that can contemplate its own existence. Gotta love the creationist tendency to grab anything not relevant to evolution to attack evolution. Perhaps it's because the relevant fields clearly show that evolution occurs.

Oh yeah, almost forgot: he says evolution is atheism. I'm sensing a theme here.

Third, and this is more of an unintentionally hilarious comment than outright idiocy:

In India, Darwin is not the bogey man as he is in the West. The Indic tradition which accommodates both atheism as well as a well-stocked pantheon of 33 million gods (including a monkey god) should have little problem playing host to evolution.

I know it's supposed to highlight India's religious diversity as a barrier to the religious dogmatism that provides breeding grounds for creationism, but I can't help seeing it as an admission that India hosts such a panoply of odd beliefs that evolution doesn't even attract notice.

If you think I'm cranky...

2009-02-17T13:04:00.002-05:00

Check out this post.

Most of it is right, but it has all the tact of a freight train.

The New New Atheism

2009-02-14T01:57:00.003-05:00

This is certainly a different take on atheism. The New York Times has a thoughtful piece on one atheist's attempt to build a positive, atheist worldview - Living Without God.

The ongoing rancor with religion is so loud that it frequently drowns out other priorities, like figuring out secular morality and the best possible way of life, as well as how to get hope and purpose in the absence of God and religion.

Some people, particularly Ebonmuse, excel in that area, but I tend to leave such matters alone. I get my share of fulfillment and assume that others similarly figure these sorts of things for themselves. (I suppose that's a bit like saying that I'm a decent driver, so I just assume that everyone else on the road knows what they're doing, too)

I sometimes forget that religion fills this big role in people's lives and they find irreligion incomprehensible, even dangerous. Even some people who consider religious claims unlikely in the extreme still find themselves swayed by the emotional pull of religion or repulsed by the perceived nihilism of atheism.

It is for this reason that elucidating a secular way of life is very important. Pointing out all the flaws in religion and justly condemning religion's misadventures in politics and society doesn't matter to the average person if they do not also know of ways to be fulfilled and to be happy outside of religious dogma.

Friday the 13th

2009-02-13T14:58:00.005-05:00

Well, today's the dreaded Friday the 13th. And you know what that means.

It means absolutely nothing. Today is a normal day, just like every other day.

The 13 is due to our arbitrary calender with arbitrary numbers for every day and the non-arbitrary, roughly 24-hour period the Earth completes a single rotation around its axis. And believe it or not, our habit of assigning arbitrary numbers to non-arbitrary days doesn't change reality and make things either lucky or unlucky. If we had a different calender, today would be the 24th of Heptober or the 57th of Juneuary.

But today's Friday the 13th, a day saturated with superstition. Fortunately, National Geographic has a helpful article on the subject. (It's from 2004, but it's not like the superstitions ever change)

An expert's advice: think positive thoughts to keep those unjustified fears in check.

The woo-woo advice: "climb to the top of a mountain or skyscraper and burn all the socks you own that have holes in them" or "stand on your head and eat a piece of gristle"

I have a better idea: how about we try to act like we're sane people today and not do anything reckless, dangerous, or...gristle? Eat gristle?! What's wrong with these people?

Clergy support the bus campaign

2009-02-13T12:11:00.007-05:00

First they ignore you, then they fight you, then they support you, then...I forget, something about wearing matching outfits.

In England, Southport clergy say they have no beef with the bus campaign.

“We live in a pluralist society and one of free speech.

“I have no problem with the right of humanists, atheists and others seeking to promote their views peacefully and with respect for others and as long as I, as a Christian, have the right to promote mine.

“The campaign opens a debate which is worthwhile. I hope that this opens a wider discussion amongst people.”

Others chimed in, adding that they can't possibly figure out where people are getting the idea that Christian religious beliefs might be worrysome.

“I have no problem with the campaign - faith has nothing to fear from debate - but I'm curious why its sponsors think that believing is a source of anxiety and worry.

I'll give them a hint. Just a tiny, little hint.

The whole reason the bus campaign exists is because some nutters put a loving message of fire and brimstone on buses. The idea of that some nutjob next door not only believes that you will get everlasting torment after death, but self-righteously declares that you deserve such treatment simply for not mouthing the right pieties apparently doesn't go over well with nonbelievers. And for believers who haven't yet abandoned their integrity, it's undoubtedly unsettling as well.

“A good deal of evidence points to the fact that a religious faith makes for personal well-being and a sense of purpose.

“It also offers hope even in the face of suffering and death.”

Fr Atli Jonsson, of Our Lady of Lourdes RCC, Birkdale, added: “This slogan makes me wonder what its authors mean by "God". It probably isn't the one I believe in - so I dont worry and enjoy my life!”

Somehow, I doubt that such beliefs are truly as positive as the salesmen claim.

Happy 200th birthday, Charles Darwin!

2009-02-12T15:50:00.005-05:00

Today is the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth. All across the world, people are celebrating Darwin's work, which helped figure out the single most important idea in biology and arguably, all of science.

And boy, are the creationists pissed. For being such persecuted and voiceless souls, they seem to have little trouble getting the media at their beck and call, broadcasting their disdain of evil darwinism.

A common theme seems to be pointing at the Freedom from Religion Foundation's "Praise Darwin" billboard (which by the way, I didn't like for just this reason) and implying that atheists really do worship Darwin as a god. Seriously.

First up, Wingnut Daily's endless screed against evil, atheistic science. For a news organization (ha!) that declared the world to be 6,000 years old, it's little surprise that their article is a festering pile of rubbish.

Next, the DI people (who believe in a designer ~~God~~ ~~space alien~~ beingamajig who created species that then may have/may not have/didn't evolve) went to town - Luskin, Casey, and Wells are working overtime, hitting up Forbes, the Washington Post, and the U.S. News and World Report with sneer pieces.

I don't have enough time (or vodka) to cover them all, but here's a little taste of the vapidity:

The present controversy over evolution is often portrayed as the latest battle in a centuries-old war between science and religion. According to this stereotype, Darwin's theory was a milestone in scientific progress, based on evidence that is now overwhelming, and its principal opponents were--and still are--religious fundamentalists committed to a literal interpretation of Genesis chronology.

Yep, the Discovery Institute, authors of the Wedge Document, which states that their goals are to "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God" say that their opposition to evolution has nothing to do with God at all. Uh huh.

Friendly Atheist has news on Ohio celebrations that have caught the ire of local creationists.

And in a shocking reversal of their usual stance, Fox News has a decent piece up asking what Darwin would make of all this hubbub, 150 years after he went public with the idea. The writer thinks he would be thrilled at all the progress that has been made in the field, but disappointed at the ongoing denialism. Aren't we all.

For the honour of the Chapter

2009-02-12T11:51:00.003-05:00

They created a real-life version of the Rhino transport. Awesome. Now we just need a dreadnought.

From the looks of things, this game is going to be ridiculously good.

Religion in Brief

2009-02-11T15:44:00.006-05:00

Martin Luther spins in his grave - indulgences are back, limbo is out. Latest patch for Catholicism buggier than ever.

Astrologer does a reading for James Randi and surprise surprise, thinks he might be a skeptic. What a prediction! Oh yeah, and he used the wrong birthdate on the first attempt. And we're not talking about a day or two - it was off by 20 days - not even the correct zodiac sign. /facepalm. (Watch Randi's response over at Bad Astronomy. It's priceless!)

Crazy pastor says that abortion caused Australia's wildfires, apparently forgets how weather works. (hat tip to Dark Christianity)

Forever in Hell atheist blogger mocks some idiot's anti-atheist site. Hey! That's my schtick! Heh, there's plenty of idiocy to go around, so I guess we can share. *gives EAC salute*

And in other news, Ray Comfort is still an idiot.

Highlobster

2009-02-09T03:16:00.007-05:00

Questions that "darwinism" can't answer

2009-02-08T22:38:00.008-05:00

Via Brisbane Times

If it's any indication of the quality of the editorial, its title is a play on the creationist propaganda techniques of the same name, a vapid series of "stumper" questions which usually utterly fail to grasp basic concepts in not only biology, but science itself ("if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?!" or "how did nothing explode?!") or are outright lies miscategorized as questions ("how did millions of life forms evolve with absolutely no evidence of major change?") and are somehow meant to "demolish" the theory of evolution.

For some strange reason, they're only a hit with fellow creationists. To non-creationists, it's like attempting to demolish a physics professor's "faith" in gravity by retorting, "Oh yeah! Then how come birds fly?!". Full of win, it is not.

Evolutionary theory does not explain everything we want to know about the natural world or human life, and some of what evolutionary theory purports to explain it hardly elucidates at all.

Okay, what's the problem?

*skips lengthy, irrelevant God-talk*

Conway has argued evolution is not arbitrary and if life were to evolve again, it would look very much as it does now.

The physicist Freeman Dyson said: "The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture … the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense knew we were coming."

These lines of reasoning do not prove God's existence

Apparently, the evolution of complex, intelligent life --> God. Massive non-sequitur spotted.

Okay, enough God stuff, where are the flaws in the theory of evolution that you mentioned earlier?

The problem I face is weariness with science-based dialogue partners like Richard Dawkins. It surprises me he is not chided for his innate scientific conservatism and metaphysical complacency. He won't take his depiction of Darwinism to logical conclusions. A dedicated Darwinian would welcome imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide.

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

*wades hip-deep in even more irrelevant God-talk*

*finishes the article*

The flaws in evolution? Personal dislike of atheism. That's it.

"I find the materialist atheism of some rational sceptics harder to accept than theistic belief, and cannot make sense of my life in this world without believing in God and providence. Crudely naturalistic science leaves no room for poetic truth, refuses to honour any spiritual element in physical things and cannot accept the existence of a human soul."

Well, who wrote this? Surely someone with some sort of biology qualifications. Nope, just some theologian denigrating evolution on religious grounds and pretending that these objections are based in science without ever backing it up.

If we lowered the bar any farther, it'd scrape the floor.

**UPDATE**

PZ covered the same editorial this morning, check it out.

Born Believers

2009-02-08T21:30:00.004-05:00

An interesting article in New Scientist.

Highlights some scientists' claims that religion, rather than being selected by evolution as an individual and social boon, is actually a byproduct of how the brain works.

Of particular interest:

People are predisposed towards mind-body dualism:

"We very naturally accept you can leave your body in a dream, or in astral projection or some sort of magic," Bloom says. "These are universal views." There is plenty of evidence that thinking about disembodied minds comes naturally.

People readily form relationships with non-existent others: roughly half of all 4-year-olds have had an imaginary friend, and adults often form and maintain relationships with dead relatives, fictional characters and fantasy partners

Based on these and other experiments, Bering considers a belief in some form of life apart from that experienced in the body to be the default setting of the human brain.

Over-attribution of agency:

"You see bushes rustle, you assume there's somebody or something there," Bloom says.

Predisposed to teleological explanations:

Put under pressure to explain natural phenomena, adults often fall back on teleological arguments, such as "trees produce oxygen so that animals can breathe" or "the sun is hot because warmth nurtures life".

Seeing patterns where there are none:

The subjects who sensed a loss of control were much more likely to see patterns where there were none. "We were surprised that the phenomenon is as widespread as it is," Whitson says.

The conclusion:

as Barratt points out, whether or not a belief is true is independent of why people believe it.

It does, however, suggests that god isn't going away, and that atheism will always be a hard sell. Religious belief is the "path of least resistance", says Boyer, while disbelief requires effort.

Breaking news: evolution, theism compatible

2009-02-07T11:50:00.005-05:00

Via the Columbus Dispatch

The debate between creationism and Darwin's evolution theories often pits religious leaders against scientists. But many pastors find the two ideas compatible -- and are speaking out about it.

More than 11,800 Christian clergy members in every state have joined the Clergy Letter Project, a campaign started with a letter in 2004 to explain that harmony can exist between religion and science.

It is commendable that Christians are standing up for science. Indeed, they may have one more motivation for defending against creationism than atheists do - creationists preach a theme-park version of natural history as biblical fact that is so silly, so embarrassing, so monumentally untrue that it hurts the public image of Christianity by mere association. Non-creationist Christians are obliged to counter such nonsense as much for God's sake as science's sake.

There's an excellent quote by Augustine of Hippo on this matter:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."

"Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Faith leaders supporting evolution is not new, said Michael Zimmerman, a dean and biology professor at Butler University and founder of the Clergy Letter Project. Some of Darwin's most vocal supporters were faith leaders, he said.

In fact, shortly after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, the Anglican clergymen of Essays and Reviews gave it a glowing review, praising "Mr Darwin's masterly volume" that "must soon bring about an entire revolution in opinion in favour of the grand principle of the self-evolving powers of nature." Completely coincidentally, those seven were called "The Seven Against Christ" and two of them were slapped with heresy charges and lost their jobs, culminating in Samuel "my grandfather wasn't a monkey" Wilberforce getting a synodical condemnation of Essays and Reviews from the Convocation of Canterbury.

Of course, we're far removed from such blatant intolerance today. That's why in Dover, non-~~creationist~~ Intelligent Design Christians were merely harassed and condemned as atheists and threatened with hell and not burned at the stake as heretics.

It's little surprise that non-creationist Christians are wary of the repercussions of such zealots achieving political domination of our country's educational institutions.

The Rev. Paul Hamilton of Westerville Bible Church said that creation and evolution are completely incompatible. Hamilton adheres to the narrative of creation described in the book of Genesis.

Darwin had a bias against God, Hamilton said. He feels a mix of pity and disgust for clergy members who say the two theories can coexist.

See? Nothing but Christian love.

Additionally, he supplies the incredibly convincing argument that Darwin was wrong about evolution because he didn't believe in God. (Nobody tell him about atoms!)

Actually, Darwin didn't stop believing in God until well after his voyage on the Beagle. Prior to the voyage, Darwin had been well educated in theology, greatly admired Paley's Natural Theology, and was most definitely a self-professed Christian. Heh, bias indeed.

For him, creation and evolution are mysteries, and humans can't presume to know for sure.

And unlike creation, evolution isn't quite so mysterious as it once was, as new discoveries inevitably lead to a greater and more detailed understanding of evolution.

Despite their efforts, all the zealous dismissal of evolution in the world can't turn back the clock and make creationism viable. Nor will vile slander of fellow Christians intimidate them from making a stand for science.

The varieties of atheism

2009-02-03T22:24:00.007-05:00

When it comes to atheism, theists tend to lump atheists together. Worse still, Christians apologists incessantly refer to "the atheist" in a creepy, nazirefic way as if atheism was some sort of monolithic ideology that all self-described atheists adhere to.

But not all atheists are the same. Atheism, like theism, is a broad category that reveals little about the specifics of what people believe. Atheism, like theism, encompasses a variety of different beliefs. Here are a few of them that I have noticed: (this is meant as a quick overview and not a comprehensive list)

Communism. I have to talk about this one because McCarthyism casts a long shadow and there are still people in the States who don't understand that there are atheists who aren't communists. But there are indeed atheists who do subscribe to Marxism-Leninism, especially in the few remaining communist countries.

Objectivism. The polar opposite of communism. Extremely pro-capitalism, reason as the only way of perceiving reality, and emphasis on rational self-interest as opposed to altruism.

Religious atheists. Believe it or not, atheism in and of itself does not preclude belief in the supernatural. It's quite possible to disbelieve in a creator god and yet subscribe to a religion.

Buddhism, especially Zen Buddhism, is often described as an atheist religion because god in the sense of an eternal creator god doesn't exist. Although devas are believed in, they differ from gods in the western sense of the word in very important ways - they aren't immortal or perfect and didn't create the universe. Buddhism differs from most western religions in that supernatural devotion is secondary compared to enlightening oneself and attaining nirvana.

LaVeyan Satanism can also be said to be atheistic. Adherents do not believe in any deities or any supernatural beings at all. Rather, the Satan of the Bible is a seen as a positive symbol of mankind's inherently individualistic, prideful, and carnal nature.

Many UFO religions can be correctly described as atheistic, albeit with powerful alien civilizations taking on roles traditionally assigned to Gods. Raelism is one such religion, with sufficiently-advanced aliens, the Elohim, who seeded the Earth with life (they're big Intelligent Design advocates), sent many prophets to spread their message (including Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad), and will one day return to share their advanced technology with us. So where's the atheism? Raelians don't believe in souls or any gods. Rael himself took the Blasphemy Challenge and praised the Out Campaign, which gives me mixed feelings to say the least.

Secular Atheists. This is the big enchilada - atheists who not only object to notions of gods, but also to anything supernatural at all. Arguably, most self-described atheists fall in this category. These atheists tend to be nonreligious, highly value science as a way of knowing that is much more reliable than faith, apply skepticism to truth claims, and support secularism. And unlike communists or objectivists, many secular atheists tend to hold more moderate political views ranging from liberal to centrist to libertarian. Secular atheism has its roots in western religious skepticism, from Greek to Enlightenment to modern arguments against belief in a god. Secular atheists may subscribe, in whole or in part, to a wide variety of philosophies and ethics. I myself am quite fond of secular humanism, existentialism, and epicureanism.

Superbowl atheist

2009-02-01T12:26:00.006-05:00

Well, today's the big day. Very soon, I shall be amongst the masses on this most holiest of Sundays: Superbowl Sunday.

It's a whole day dedicated to crass consumerism, pathetic drunkenness, and big, burly men jumping on top of each other in an inevitably homoerotic fashion. And boy, do I despise it.

Gamer/nerd that I am, I'm not a big sports fan in the first place and couldn't care less about which team wins what. That's fine, people have different interests and that's cool, but I resent being harassed by strangers who really seem to care about this stuff to something bordering on clinical obsession, assume that I do too, and are very anxious to bombard me with the details of the games - and not just today, but every single week. That's not cool. Even the door-knocking Christian solicitors aren't that evangelical. If I really cared about the game, I'd be at a sportsbar somewhere getting blasted and yelling at the TV with the other knuckle-draggers. If I'm just out and about doing my own thing - gassing up the car and buying some groceries - this is not an invitation to bother me.

It's strange that sports and religion are some of the few things that it's socially okay to shove down strangers' throats. If you stopped some random stranger on the street to discuss some Soulstorm skirmish in excruciating detail, you'd get locked up in a padded cell.

I'm sick of I'm sick of nodding my head and pretending that I care about this drek. It's just dishonest.

So I'm going to start a new tradition - I'm going to be honest about this stuff from now on. The next time I get bothered by some overzealous sports fan about which meaningless team I want to win the meaningless game I'm simply going to respond that I'm not a fan and that I really don't care which team wins.

*UPDATE*

Honesty really is the best policy. The diehard fans politely dropped the subject after I fairly politely showed that I was uninterested and a few people even expressed similar sentiments.

The maw of the Bible Belt

2009-01-31T12:55:00.004-05:00

Gallup has new poll results out: the religiousity of individual states in the USA.

They asked people "Is religion an important part of your daily life?"

Unsurprisingly, a majority (65%) said yes. And again, a real shocker is that people from the Bible Belt states were far more likely to say yes than people from Pacific or New England states. This data matches nicely with gallup's previous poll, which indicates that these states have large non-religious populations while the Bible Belt states have relatively few. The religious epicenter is undoubtedly somewhere in Alabama, spreading like kudzu to all nearby states, including my own state of North Carolina, #8 on the rarely-coveted most religious states in the Union category.

It's official, I live in Jesusland USA.

In North Carolina in particular, the joke is that we have two religions: Baptist and Catholic. (Other protestant denominations are dwarfed by the baptists, there are very few non-Christian believers, and evangelicals are humorously known to view Catholicism as another religion entirely rather than a different denomination in the same religion)

The good news is that the religious stranglehold is slipping, with national dips in approval of organized religion and increasing secular outlooks among the younger generations. So maybe there's hope after all.

What atheism is (and what it isn't)

2009-01-30T12:17:00.005-05:00

There's always been a heckuva lot of confusion regarding atheism, but lately, I've noticed people take it to who new levels. It's not uncommon among fundamentalist circles see atheism denounced as a religion. Even for your average person, misconceptions abound. For many, it seems they think that atheism is a "system of belief" or some miraculously universal worldview that all atheists share.

Christian apologists in particular seem to have a hard time with atheism. I don't think they can quite grasp the concept of being irreligious - instead of wasting time understanding it, they lazily project their own religious norms on others, even people who aren't religious at all. Thus, we have popular myths of atheists worshiping everything from Satan to Darwin to themselves. And a frighting chunk of believers buy into their every misinformed word.

So what is atheism?

Atheism is merely a response to the question, "Do you believe in the existence of a god?". Theists say yes, while atheists say no.

Atheists are simply people who disagree with theistic claims - claims of a Creator God who made the universe. That's it. There's not necessarily any other point of agreement.

Atheism isn't a philosophy or worldview or even a religion for the same reason that not believing in leprechauns represents a worldview. Atheism isn't even a belief, it's a rejection of a belief and the only real difference between it and a-leprechaunism or a-unicornism or a-fairyism is that very few people seriously believe in such things anymore.

That said, atheists do not "believe in nothing". Atheists can indeed construct valid and positive worldviews, but these views are not atheism, they are beliefs in addition to atheism.

Obama offends Christian Nation wingnuts

2009-01-27T13:15:00.007-05:00

Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars

At Obama's inauguration, here's what he said:

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth

He's emphasizing the diversity of the American people as one of our great strengths. Everyone (well almost everyone) agrees with that. But he made one mistake, he said that we're a religiously diverse nation (which is factually true, check the latest polls). And that has the wingnuts up in arms.

They insist that America is a Christian nation (read: soft domionism). Well, what does that mean? It means that America has been and should continue to be governed under Christian (as opposed to secular) principles and it heavily implies that non-Christians aren't "true" Americans and should have no say in their own country. Nothing but historical revisionism (particularly about the founding fathers) used to fuel thinly-veiled religious bigotry and theocratic fervor.

Imagine people saying that America is a "white country" and that government should promote "white values". See the problem? Yeah, it's horribly racist and an attempt to abuse governmental authority to promote their narrow-minded, sectarian, racist ideology - a notion of "white values" that many white people would likely dispute. American theocrats have the same gameplan. And that's why they despise Obama's admission that America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and nonbelievers in addition to Christians. They can't admit the diversity of American religious opinion because then they have to surrender the myth that America has always been and should continue to be based on their religion beliefs. Without the enduring myth of the Christian Nation, they cannot hold power.

Wingnut Daily went to town on this latest news, complete with links to other crazy wingnut sites. Here's one reaction:

A television commercial that aired in South Dakota by a group calling itself the Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric juxtaposed the audio of Obama's "no longer Christian" statement over images of the presidential candidate dressed in Somali garb and a picture of him with his hands rested below his waist while other politicians place their hands over their hearts during the Pledge of Allegiance.

"It's time for people to take a stand against Barack Hussein Obama," declares the voiceover on the commercial.

Atheists are Insane

2009-01-26T13:45:00.009-05:00

Via Catalyst

Oh man, you're definitely going to need a padded cell after this anti-atheist diatribe is over.

First, let's raise a toast to one brave soul - an Amazon forums spiritual warrior named Paul. Hallowed be his crazy rants about atheists quoted with admiration from the next cell over.

First up, atheists only talk about God because they hate God. They're mini-devils who apparently aren't as even-minded as the devil, who himself believes in God.

They hate God. It is very clear. Oh, they hate Christians too, and the Bible and the church.

Well said, Paul. You truly are a fountain of wisdom.

The atheist responses? What nuggets of madness do they bring? What evil, Satanic hatred will they inflict on these poor, persecuted believers?

Well, it turns out they just dislike believers who define moral goodness through religious affiliation, thus condemning atheists as evil. Awkward...

From that short pit stop at sanity, we just hang a right on the Damascus road straight to crazyville.

Every tenet of Christianity is just assumed to be true, complete with frequent bible verses, and therefore atheism is only explicable through insanity or outright malevolence. Why else would someone reject an obviously true deity?

Read the whole thing, it's great. It's essentially a few sentences worth of actual thought stretched out to a couple pages worth of how evil and crazy atheists are for not believing in the author's God.

Many Christians think that atheists are fools. Rightly so for so does God. “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” (Psalm 53:1) In fact I call it a conscious and deliberate insanity. Perhaps that’s fair, because many atheists think that Christians and theists are fools as well.

I'll give it the author one thing, deliberate insanity is certainly in the air.

The fact is the depravity of the human heart proves that all sinners hate God more than anything else. There is no REAL CAUSE for their hatred still they hate Him. Every hatred has a cause, but in their case it is a falicy and a myth. They think it very real and reasonable, but it is evidence of their hatred and insanity. They ought to love Him. Yet they hate Him. And so store up more and more wrath for that day of judgment.

Quick question: I was sort of under the impression that everlasting torment is pretty much the maximum possible punishment. Explain how more wrath is supposed to make that worse.

Well this is definitely shaping up to be fstdt material, because it has requisite ALL CAPS and egregiously misspelled common word, "falicy".

Okay, now that we've established that there is no REAL CAUSE for atheist hostility towards God/goodness/Christianity/puppies, let's go ahead and pretend like we know the cause. It's a breeze - all you have to do is apply armchair psychology to millions of people. Ready?

The insanity of the atheist is all to clear. No doubt they hate Him for He is holy and they are not and darkness always flees at the entrance of light. He is pure and they are not. He is altogether lovely and they are not. He insists on their obedience but they will not. Therefore they hate Him. This is insanity!

The real reason atheists hate on God/believers: they're jealous of our ~~freedoms~~ holiness. That's right, "The atheist hates God because He is so good."

Most atheists are usually avid evolutionists for all they have is eternal matter. There is no eternal God. Self is of supreme importance

Those crazy evolutionists, believing in that pseudoscientific hooey about how the world and all life wasn't poofed into existence by an intelligently designing God 6,000 years ago. How gullible! And they actually believe that their self is of supreme importance. How self-centered! They should totally have the God of all creation come down to Earth and get murdered for their sins.

The atheist thinks all Christians should be placed in a mad-house, an asylum for the insane, for they believe in God, in Jesus, in Sin, in Heaven, in Hell, in Angels, in Demons etc. etc.

Atheists think all Christians are insane? Strawman ahoy! Palin 2012 crazy, maybe. Clinically insane and in need of a padded cell, no.

the atheist is supremely convinced of his reality - so very much so. Look at all the websites and books by skeptics and atheists.

Yay, atheists genuinely, sincerely don't believe that a god exists.

There's just one problem with that: you just said that they somehow "know" that God exists ("While they inwardly know he is their real friend") and simply choose to hate him.

My dear atheists, does your own moral course commend itself to your conscience and your reason? If not, what are you but a moral maniac? Atheist man, atheist woman, must you in truth write yourselves down as moral maniacs?

Uggh. Nope, can't say mounds of drivel are very convincing. Berating the kids for not believing in Santa Claus isn't a very good apologetics technique, but it's painfully common and the endless froth gets lots of laughs. Thanks for the entertainment, I feel sorry for you if you're serious.

Atheism is a Religion

2009-01-26T13:19:00.006-05:00

From the ironically-named blog, Atheism's Fallacies:

1) Atheism is not a religion.
2) Atheist activism! Humanist chaplains!
3) ZOMG, atheism is a religion!!!!1

I love it. The train of thought is great. It's linguistic torture with deliberate obfuscation, all designed reinforce one bumbling, obviously incorrect myth - that atheism is a religion. It's exactly the kind of godly dishonesty that makes one proud to be an atheist.

Nurgle Gurgle

2009-01-25T21:05:00.002-05:00

I've been out for a while with a very nasty stomach bug which hit me like a ton of bricks during the snowstorm. I felt cold, weak, and tired for entirely too long. And the best part was feeling nauseous at the mere mention of food while simultaneously being seriously under-nourished.

But now I'm back and better than ever.

Jesus appears in lava lamp

2009-01-17T14:39:00.003-05:00

Australia man finds Virgin Mary and baby Jesus in his lava lamp, the latest in a long line of nuts who claim to see religious figures in such unlikely places as toast, a concrete underpass, floor tiles, even road rash.

“This is a true, tangible miracle that is not just an optical illusion", he exclaims. Because you know, if I were a deity, I'd choose to broadcast my presence by gracing an assortment of mundane objects in a manner that's utterly indistinguishable from pareidolia (and therefore supremely unconvincing) rather than actually trying to interact with people in a normal manner. That makes perfect sense.

Bus ad extravaganza!

2009-01-17T12:00:00.007-05:00

Muslim bus ad draws protests

Not to be outdone by atheist bus ads, CAIR put up $60,000 worth of bus ads in Broward county, Florida. It says "ISLAM: The Way of Life of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad."

But the ironically named Americans Against Hate (because it seems that hate is all they do) will have none of that. Their head, Jewish activist Joe Kaufman claims that the ad is deeply offensive and misconstrues Abraham and Moses as followers of Islam (which is something Christians never ever do).

Here's the hilarious part: both groups claim that the other one is affiliated with terrorists.

And the strange thing is that they both sort of have a point. CAIR was investigated (but unindicted) by the Department of Justice as a possible conspirator for a Dallas-based Muslim charity that funneled money to Hamas. Meanwhile, AAH is allegedly affiliated with some Israel-based Jewish terrorist group that was banned in Israel and had its assets seized in the US for its terrorist dealings.

Monotheism: making the world a better place, one nutbar terrorist organization at a time.

But the ensuing biblical slapfest going on between AAH and CAIR is ticking off one County Commissioner. She said, "We have restrictions on cigarettes and adult entertainment, and we should eliminate religious ads hereafter,"

Eliminate all religious ads?? Score one for the atheists, muahaha.

Meanwhile, in the UK, British MPs tabled a motion in parliament against the atheist bus ads because Christians and Muslims supposedly find the atheist bus ads "offensive and morally unhelpful". (these are same people who respectively find evolution and Danish editorial cartoons offensive enough to warrant censorship)

These poor, persecuted souls want the atheist ads silenced and are apparently willing to feign victimization to get it. Mediawatchwatch has the scoop.

Last, but certainly not least, Pink Triangle reports that a British bus driver refuses to drive any bus with an atheist ad on it because it offends him. He's taking the same courageous moral stance that Christians over here do when pharmacists refuse to sell contraception (which is kinda sorta their job) or Muslim cashiers who refuse to scan bacon or beer (again, this sort of falls under the whole job thing). The bus driver reportedly recoiled in shock and horror that there "probably" isn't a god. Yeah, well try getting an IT guy on weekends.

Book Review: Doubt: A History

2009-01-15T12:40:00.014-05:00

Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson, by Jennifer Michael Hecht

This book is amazing. I highly recommend. My copy is falling apart right now from overuse. I desperately need one of those Quran book-holders to preserve it. For atheists, the book will likely introduce you to many religious skeptics that you haven't heard of before and offers insight into both the history of atheism, and to a lesser extent, the history of religion. For theists, it offers a easy and painless introduction to religious skepticism, and Hecht's warm and friendly tone is sure to be a welcome relief. At 494 pages, it seems quite formidable, but once you get into it, it's a breeze.

I really liked Ebonmuse's summary:

A magisterial history of religious doubt, dissent and freethinking from the ancient Greeks to the modern day. Readers who can get past the book's admittedly intimidating size will find treasures on nearly every page, showing that doubt has been alive and well in even the darkest of dark ages. I learned an enormous amount from this book and will use it often as a reference - strongly recommended.

The book starts out with my favorite part, Greek doubt. It goes over the major schools of thought - Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Skepticism, and introduces us to Greek doubters: Xenophanes, Democritus, Epicurus, Diagoras, Anaxagoras, Socrates, etc.

One thing that always strikes me about this book is the sheer multitude and diversity of doubters throughout history:

The Carvaka (in the play The Rise of the Moon Intellect, Passion's diatribe against religion is absolutely hysterical)
Islamic doubters al-Razi (who famously wrote The Prophet's Fraudulent Tricks, The Stratagems of Those Who Claim to Be Prophets, and On the Refutation of Revealed Religions and yet died of natural causes) and al-Ma'arri ("O fools, awake! The rites ye sacred hold / Are but a cheat contrived by men of old / Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust / And dided in baseness-and their law is dust.")
Chinese philosopher Wang Ch'ung (who attacked magical thinking and espoused naturalism)
Giordano Bruno (who pursued Copernicanism to its logical end and shockingly claimed that the universe was filled with other suns and other worlds just like ours, teeming with life. He was burned at the stake as a heretic, although with probably the most badass last words ever, "Perhaps you, my judges, pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I recieve it." Even today, the Catholic Church still cries crocodile tears over his ~~death~~ murder. Cardinal Angelo Sodano called it a "sad episode", but quickly added that we should not judge those who condemned Bruno and that the inquisitors "had the desire to preserve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life." What a load!)
And I can't forget Baron d'Holbach, one of the first openly atheistic atheists (who mused on God, "If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? If he has spoken, why is the universe not convinced?")

I could go on all day (and heartily enjoy every moment of it), but you get the picture. There are gems here, and that's not all. Hecht does an excellent job weaving together the myriad lives of religious doubt, noting the common refrains, and presenting naturalism as a both a valid and worthy alternative to supernaturalism, with its share of heroes and firebrands, its moments of triumph and loss, and its ability to inspire and enrich the lives of people.

Doubt is a must-read for anyone interested in religion's critics.

Two strikes against forced indoctrination

2009-01-14T12:48:00.012-05:00

First, a Chicago dentist violated discrimination laws by forcing employees to submit to indoctrination in the tenets of the Church of Scientology. Because don't you want someone poking around in the most tender and sanguinary parts of your gums with wickedly sharp instruments to believe that there are evil spirits dancing around in there?

But wait, it gets better. Not content at merely forcing probably the world's most vile religion on Earth on people, he also subjected 18 female employees to sexual propositions and fired people who complained about the whole "you have be Scientologists in order to work here" policy.

He, of course, continues to deny all wrongdoing, and settled merely to "to avoid further expense and disruption" of his business. The U.S. district court ruled that he must pay $462,500 and prohibits him from continuing to engage in "any further sexual or religious workplace discrimination". I consider this a win for the Marcab Confederacy.

Second, a public school accused of some very disturbing breaches in church/state separation just lost the case. The U.S. District Court judge ruled that the school should discontinue the following:

Promoting prayer at school-sponsored events, including graduation.

Planning or financing religious baccalaureate services.

Promoting religious beliefs to students in class or during school-sponsored events and activities.

Holding school-sponsored events at churches.

What the-? At churches?! That's crazy. And the summary is quite the understatement: by "promoting religious beliefs to students" we're talking about documents instructing teachers to preach about "judgment day with the Lord" to their students, not as part of any sort of religious curriculum, but just to drop the J-bomb whenever and wherever they feel like it.

The ACLU filed suit about this back in August 2008, and they say that both school board members and the principal had "a repeated pattern" of "promoting and endorsing prayers at graduation ceremonies and other school events, of sponsoring religious ceremonies and holding official school events at churches."

The filthy, Jesus-hating pinkos of the ACLU said that this was wrong because "Parents, not the public schools, should be responsible for deciding whether their children receive religious education," and that "Religious freedom is eroded when the government endorses any particular religious viewpoint."

Needless to say, the Christian sites are shocked, shocked I say, at both the persecution of Christians and the anti-God bias of both the ACLU and the courts (and somehow missed the rationale for the lawsuit), spinning the decision as some sort of Orwellian removal of all religion from schools. Some of the more literacy-impaired ones out there don't seem to understand the difference between state-sanctioned prayer as a part of official school events and unofficial, voluntary prayer, and they're chalking this up as an all-out-attack on the rights of individuals to pray. (which probably isn't the ACLU's actual position given the free exercise clause in the first amendment)

That's why I have a tiny little challenge for any persecuted Christians out there: imagine a public school holding official events at the local mosque and pushing Muhammad during class. You would be screaming your lungs out for religious neutrality, you contemptible hypocrites. You only value the freedoms of secular government when it serves your interests, and attack the very freedoms you claim to hold dear when it's your group doing the evangelizing. That is all.

Christians fast for the new year

2009-01-13T20:38:00.008-05:00

Christian Post

You guys know we're already hip-deep in January already, right?

Over 300 churches are hoping to make a tremendous impact on the body of Christ and throughout the world through 21 days of prayer and fasting.

For 21 days, thousands will be going without food, certain meals, television, Internet or "anything that feeds your flesh-man."

"It’s really not about the food. It’s about denying your flesh-man the things that feed it," Chris Hodges of Church of the Highlands Birmingham, Ala., stressed.

21 days? That's not a very good symbolic number. If you really want to please the guy upstairs and usher in the new year with a *reads from the pamphlet* "supernatural, miraculous tone", I think ya ought to go at least 77 days without consuming any health-sustaining organic matter. It's either that or the flesh-man wins.

God wants you weak, poorly nourished and on the verge of hallucinating, otherwise this revolution around the sun (which have been happening like clockwork since time immemorial) might potentially be less than supernatural or not very miraculous. And we wouldn't want that, now do we?

Creepy PSAs

2009-01-12T23:32:00.005-05:00

I love the government. From the earliest days of my childhood, I will forever remember it as an often efficient purveyor of grade school food-like products - grade F meat parts with a side of some kind of preternaturally green lettuce-like plant and a brownish milk pouch labeled "skim" that totally didn't look like a reused hospital blood packet.

Well, it turns out that they do something useful on the side - pumping out clever, completely factually accurate, and totally not permanently traumatizing ads to inform us dumb citizens who otherwise wouldn't be able to grasp complex and difficult issues of not standing on train tracks or not eating paint chips. Behold their genius:

Another Panda attack

2009-01-10T12:32:00.009-05:00

Via CNN

"I always thought they were cute and just ate bamboo," Zhang said

Every time something like this happens people are always incredibly surprised that a huge bear with formidable teeth and claws and enough strength to take out Chuck Norris could possibly hurt them.

Even the media buys into the fuzzy and harmless depiction of pandas from time to time:

Gu Gu is not your typical soft and cuddly giant panda

Gu Gu is your typical giant panda. Your typical giant panda will maul people who jump into its cage. It's not a puppy, it's a wild animal. It will probably hurt you if you get close to its cage.

But on the other hand, Panda cubs are friendly and absolutely adorable.

A disturbance in the Force

2009-01-10T12:10:00.006-05:00

Sacha Baron Cohen's black Jesus to shock America

Oh man, there's so much potential for this to go very, very wrong but it also might be absolutely hilarious. Either way, Cohen's sure to antagonize half the country and that's always funny, hehe.

Replicator ecosystem created in the lab

2009-01-09T12:51:00.004-05:00

Via Wired

It's not life (which by definition, is composed of cells), but it certainly evokes the word.

Basically, researchers created RNA enzymes with the potential to replicate with each other. Then, they added nucleic bases to the mix and the enzymes started replicating, producing more enzymes than were initially there. From there, evolution took hold and three mutant strains ended up dominating the population which were better at replicating than the initial population.

Good ol' impossible evolution in action, and an excellent experiment providing insight into early life.

I wonder where the creationists are in times like these.

A Christian response to the bus campaign

2009-01-09T12:24:00.005-05:00

Via Crosswalk

Basically, the author is smugly amused that the bus ads say that there probably isn't a god rather than saying that there definitely isn't one. In a blinding display of brilliance, he assumes that this indicates a lack of conviction and "demonstrates the weakness of the atheistic argument" (The irony is that if the message was more along the lines of strong atheism, these people would just accuse atheists of being dogmatic. Smug dismal either way.)

Well, as it turns out, the real joke is in the comments. The author didn't do the research and some reader kindly pointed it out to him.

But the mere fact of not understanding what they're talking about sure doesn't stop idiots from repeating the talking point. (who themselves are kindly corrected in the comments)

Oregon Church refuses to marry straight people until gays can marry

2009-01-08T13:43:00.005-05:00

Article

First Congregational United Church of Christ’s Rev. Pam Shepherd, seeing the act of signing marriage licenses for heterosexual couples as a form of discrimination against gays and lesbians, decided that in the name of fairness no licenses should be dignified with the signature of the church’s clergy until all families receive equal treatment under the law.

While well-intentioned, I don't think this sort of thing is a very good way of advancing gay rights. Seems like it's just adding to the problem by cheating yet another group out of their marital wishes.

Church removes crucifix for being too scary-looking

2009-01-08T12:18:00.005-05:00

This story still has me in stitches. It's like an irony onion, layer upon layer of folly.

Basically, a church removed its own crucifix because it was "too scary" and conflicted with their Christian mission of hope and happiness.

Rev Souter, formerly a cell biologist, said: "The crucifix expressed suffering, torment, pain and anguish. It was a scary image, particularly for children.

"Parents didn't want to walk past it with their kids, because they found it so horrifying.

"It wasn't a suitable image for the outside of a church wanting to welcome worshippers. In fact, it was a real put-off.

Indeed, it is horrifying - a man brutally tortured and killed. But you know, that's sort of the whole basis of Christianity.

This part is pure genius:

"We're all about hope, encouragement and the joy of the Christian faith. We want to communicate good news, not bad news, so we need a more uplifting and inspiring symbol than execution on a cross."

Yeah. We're all about sharing Jesus here. You know, that guy who was crucified...oh wait.

What's going to replace the crucifix? A nice, shiny "ultra-modern stainless steel cross". Modernity's a-knockin'.

I like the deadpan snark from one churchgoer who disapproved of the change:

One long-standing member of the church, who asked not to be named, said: "The crucifix is the oldest and most famous symbol of the Christian church.

"Pulling it down and putting up something that would look more at home on the side of a flashy modern shopping centre is not the way to get more bums on seats.

"Next they'll be ripping out the pews and putting sofas in their place, or throwing out all the Bibles and replacing them with laptops. It's just not right."

Australian atheist bus ad banned

2009-01-07T15:23:00.004-05:00

Telegraph has the story.

In Australia, atheists hoped to put up bus ads saying "atheism – celebrate reason" or "atheism - sleep in on Sunday mornings", but they were banned by the advertising company.

Why, you ask?

Metro has previously allowed adverts from religious groups including anti-abortion campaigners, but says it has now changed its policy to ban all material deemed controversial.

Basically, they get carte blanche to censor whatever they don't like. Ridiculous.

But it's not like this reaction wasn't expected - they gave it a no wayback in November. I guess it's just official now.

Pastor: Humans innately seek the right religion

2009-01-06T18:20:00.004-05:00

News and Observer

Most people don't "find" or discover their religion - it finds them.

Doubtful. Most people get their default religion (the religion of their parents or community), some exposure to outside ideas (in modern, cosmopolitan societies, the amount of exposure can be quite large), and whatever ideas they can conjure up themselves.

Contrary to the assertion that people's religions "find them", religions tend grow and spread in fairly predictable, mundane ways - passed down from generation to generation and through evangelism. Native Americans don't just up and convert to Christianity prior to contact with Christians. Individuals are the same way, they work with what they have, and traditions tend to weigh heavily.

But according to the pastor, humans have to innate qualities that pull us towards religion:

I believe humans have two inward drives: The first is a drive or desire to know why they exist. Man has a sense that we are "effects" from a "cause" that is outside of the effect. We exist because of something or someone else greater than ourselves. We yearn to find that someone. There is an innate appetite to discover and admire him.

Sheesh, just say the G-word already.

Second, there seems to be a moral code or law written in our hearts.

We have something inside of us that tells us that we are not only in trouble with earthly authorities but accountable to a "higher power."

Okay, even assuming there aren't massive logical errors hiding there (like say, erroneously projecting your own Judeo-Christian reasons for belief in God unto absolutely everybody), how do we know which religion is right?

The response is pure genius:

Is the belief system accurate from an anthropological, genealogical, geographical, scientific and social perspective?

Scientifically accurate? This is religion we're talking about here. Here's a quick run down of a few of them:

A dead guy comes back to life and decides whether or not you get tossed into everlasting fire for all eternity.

All of humanity's problems are caused by spirits of space aliens who were sent to Earth and blown up by their evil ruler.

Magical spells really work.

The world is not only a lie, but is inherently full of anguish and suffering, which can be escaped through a regiment of religious practices.

Up next is the remarkably helpful question:

Does the religion claim to be authentic and sanctioned by God?

...

This is just a wild guess here, but yeah, chances of that are pretty high.

Does the religion claim to be salvific and capable of appeasing the anger of a just God?

Remember that projection thing from earlier? You're doing it again.

Long story short, whichever religious claims that are most similar to Christianity (claims of historicity, salvation, appeasing God's holy wrath) are most likely truthful. Circular logic triumphs again.

Evolution is Awesome

2009-01-06T17:44:00.003-05:00

Hat tip to PZ

Quite possibly one of the coolest commercials I've ever seen:

What good is half a bike?

2009-01-04T17:00:00.008-05:00

Kudos to Panda's Thumb and Carl Zimmer for bringing the pwn.

Casey Luskin, one of DI's last remaining Quixotesque crusaders for ~~Creationism~~ Truth, embarrassed himself recently with yet another botched analogy for Goddidit:

“Bicycles have two wheels. Unicycles, having only one wheel, are missing an obvious component found on bicycles. Does this imply that you can remove one wheel from a bicycle and it will still function? Of course not. Try removing a wheel from a bike and you’ll quickly see that it requires two wheels to function. The fact that a unicycle lacks certain components of a bicycle does not mean that the bicycle is therefore not irreducibly complex.”

Actually, bicycles can and do still function after a wheel is removed. It's called a unicycle.

This comes of the heels of a long line of botched analogies, most notably Behe's insistence that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, just like a mouse trap.

Actually, it turns out that if you take away most of the parts of the flagellum it's still functional as a type 3 secretory system.

And if you're really want to blow ID out of the water, you can get E. coli to evolve novel flagella. Guess a designer isn't really so necessary, after all.

Even the infamous mousetrap analogy itself fails miserably:

And if you look at the evolution "debate" closely, it's interesting to observe the rank-and-file creationists talking about evolution as if it were merely the addition of new, fully-formed parts, and that if you rewind the clock, you get organisms without the vital tools needed for survival. After all, what use is half a wing or half an eye or half a flagellum? That's essentially the argument of the Discovery Institute's argument, rebranded creationist arguments from ignorance.

It's hard to comment on exactly how wrong this line of reasoning is. It's like arguing with someone who seriously thinks that the Spore creature creator is how evolution actually works - that organisms are simply bestowed new parts as they go along and presto changeo, your eyeless fish suddenly has complex eyes. Similarly, with a wave of his magic wand, the ~~Christian God~~ Intelligent Designer has given previously-immobile bacteria the gift of the bacterial flagellum. Magic sure is neat!

But that's not really how evolution works at all. New features do come into fruition on occasion, but not out of thin air. And parts used for one function can find a new function (case in point: hands) The key concept in evolution is variation: finch beaks with slightly different lengths, primate skulls with slightly different dimensions, etc. A nearly endless variety of forms off just a few basic parts. That's how evolution really works.

And try as they might, creationists can't explain the diversity of life with magic. It simply fails as a science.

Anti-atheist blog makes a factual error, film at 11

2009-01-02T12:39:00.009-05:00

Good catch from Friendly Atheist.

Hehe, confusing Africa with a country, those silly apologists. But that's orders of magnitudes less stupid than their usual fare. (A lot of the same people run Atheism Sucks and Atheism is Dead, as well as the now-defunct pre-internet site: "Ye Atheism most foul art mortally wounded, my good sirs", distributed with free copies of the Malleus Maleficarum)

Screw going after trivial slip-ups, there are failboat fleets out there just waiting to be photographed and archived for posterity.

Here's one of my personal favorites: a linkstorm of "excellent" anti-evolution resources. And there's a twist! These aren't your (relatively) high-class AIG or DI sites, we're talking links to sites that are low-quality, even by creationist standards. (the first link is to Conservapedia for crocoduck's sake) All with the author's glowing approval. D'oh!

And let's not forget this example of superb logic: Logic exists, therefore God exists. Seriously.

Geographical errors are the least of their concerns.

Happy New Year

2009-01-01T12:18:00.003-05:00

Well, it's a whole new year, just like last year.

It's funny, I'm a cashier and despite the "War on Christmas" bugaboo, few people made a fuss over whether I said "Merry Christmas" or not. But on New Years Eve, people practically demanded that I tell them "Happy New Year" a half-dozen times before finally leaving. What's the big deal?

To me, New Year's Day has got to be one of the most utterly arbitrary and senseless holidays out of the year. Our arbitrary calender year is over - whooo hoo! Party time! Let's get drunk! Makes no logical sense. And it always seems to fall in the midst of a nigh-endless block of cold and miserable weather, which only makes for more of a letdown when we all start off the new year feeling sick and cold (and possibly hung over)

And it's so saturated with fake optimism: things will be different this year! No, they won't.

And let's not forget the empty promises: I'm going to be a better person! I'm going to lose 20 pounds! I'm going to manage my money better!

No, you're not. You'll be right back to your old habits by February, if you even make it that far.

So happy arbitrary celebration day! Have a wonderful [standard unit of a time]!

People will soon thank Bush

2008-12-29T11:19:00.005-05:00

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt

Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of the incessant whining from the Bush administration that their poor little feelings are hurt from all the totally unwarranted negativity surrounding their policies and vowing that history will someday vindicate them.

Rather than acknowledging their screwups and heaven forbid changing course away from disastrous policies, they play childish propaganda games with delusions of posthumous grandeur writ large.

In addition to Rice, Mrs Bush, Rove, and Rush Limbaugh have repeatedly played trotted out this argument. Even the Wall Street Journal is in on the act, likening disapproval of the Bush administration with outright disloyalty.

It's sickening.

Last year, Lieberman even had the gall to suggest that Bush will be remembered by historians as a great President. In actuality, a majority of historians surveyed consider him the worst President ever, with most of the rest placing him towards the bottom of the pile.

And here's what they had to say:

“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

I can hardly disagree. We've had the bailout disaster (unabashed corporate welfare at every taxpayer's expense), the flood of national debt that had previously been surplus, the global warming denialism, the Halliburton and Enron scandals, the monumentally screwed-up War in Iraq (and the outright lying leading up to it), torture, domestic spying, pushing abstinence-only sex ed, the endorsement of Intelligent Design Creationism, and spearheaded the crusade against gay marriage. And that's just for starters - there has been so much much fail in the past 8 years that it's difficult to keep track of it all.

History will never forgive these failures.

In just a few days, the Bush administration will finally be over. Good riddance.

On Conversion

2008-12-28T20:24:00.013-05:00

Recently, the atheosphere lost an atheist blogger - The Raving Atheist has converted to Christianity.

Here are some reactions from the atheosphere: PZ, God is for Suckers, and The Raving Atheist forums. Additionally, Daylight Atheism and The Uncredible Hallq soured on his blog long ago, with both PZ and Pandagon predicting his conversion, and assuming it isn't a joke, they have now been proven right. There are some Christian blog reactions as well: The Curt Jester is rooting for him to convert specifically to Catholicism, and Think Christian has a fairly brief review (with hilariously stereotypical comments).

I'm certain that an explanation for his change of mind will shortly come to light, but it seems instructive to note his strong abortion views and his attempt to ground them in metaphysical terms (specifically, dualism) claiming that humans are more than the sum of their parts (sadly, the the concept of emergence was ignored while magical souls were invoked) and that the mind is more than a "bubbling cauldron of cranial soup". From there, it's only a hop, skip, and a jump to Jesus.

Well, actually, it's not really that easy, which is why I find the process of conversion fascinating - it's not just changing one's mind on a single idea (whether or not a god or multiple gods exist), it's quite the leap of faith in quite a number of areas - what kind of God exists, whether God has any offspring, whether any sort of afterlife exists, if miracles occur, if angels exist, which books are holy, etc, etc. It's quite surprising that such a turnabout would happen simultaneously in all areas. Alternatively, I suspect that conversions are frequently more about social psychology, purely pragmatic reasons (for example, converting for marriage) and emotional/ideological hooks than rational contemplation - religious avowal seems more like an Asch conformity experiment than an honest appraisal.

But this kind of thing does lead to no small amount of (forgive the pun) soul-searching. Conversions (and deconversions) happen ever day - someone wakes up one day an atheist and an evangelical Christian on the next (or vice versa), or converts to Scientology or Hinduism or Islam. The joke is that Americans change their religion about as often as their long-distance plan (and phone companies hassle people far less!), a whopping 44% if you include shifts from one Protestant domination to another.

As a deconvert, I consider myself fairly resistant to conversion - I've already peeked behind the curtain and figured out the whole great and powerful Wizard of Oz shtick. You can't unlearn that sort of thing. Emotional appeals don't work (only the facts matter, and they either support the conclusion or they don't) and pragmatic pressures fail (I refused to compromise what I believe, even when it may be substantially in my interest to do so). Barring the unlikely event that I look out an airplane window and see God, complete with attendant angels merrily playing their harps, I consider my atheism fairly secure.

For thousands of years, theists have insisted that a God created the cosmos, and for thousands of years, no one has ever been able to give the slightest confirmation of such claims, and certainly not for a lack of trying, but tricks of logic (the tastiest possible steak dinner would have to exist to be delicious, therefore it does exist) simply do not convince. Sure, I might be wrong about a million other things, but when it comes to the supernatural, I'm betting on black.

Angel heals girl with pneumonia

2008-12-26T11:55:00.003-05:00

This has been circulating like mad recently: link

Not only is it a supposed to be a supernatural/miraculous healing, but it's also an angel caught on film - finally the proof believers have been waiting for.

There's just one problem - it's almost assuredly a hoax. That's my take, at least. I suppose we'll have to wait until more information comes to light.

The Science Behind Santa's Mystical Journey

2008-12-25T23:26:00.007-05:00

Link

Essentially, it's a brain-melting journey into Santapologetics - how Santa (who really exists) uses sufficiently advanced technology to really deliver the Christmas presents on time. The stupid just oozes from this one.

Here's how some kids think he does it:

"He has a gadget on his sleigh that makes it go turbo. He can go down the chimney in one second!" he said.
Over in Hillsdale, N.J., however, five-year-old Amelia offered a simpler solution: "Maybe he has a secret shortcut."

Next, there's a literal rocket scientist's take on the whole thing:

He believes that Santa -- whom experts say moved to his underground complex at the North Pole more than 500 years ago -- has spent the last five centuries researching better ways to deliver presents at light-speed to kids everywhere.
In doing so, he and the elves have made scientific breakthroughs that the rest of humanity can only dream of, Silverberg said.

To understand kids' wishes, he simply constructed a ginormous underground antenna, to "collect incoming electromagnetic waves and filter them, finding out which thought-waves are coming from which kids." Then, Santa filters the the "though-waves" by naughty/nice somehow, and when it's deliver time, he wraps his sleigh and eight reindeer in a "relativity cloud", which apparently uses Einsteinian relativity to create a time-dilation bubble, which can then physically shrink Santa and Co. so they can fit through keyholes and dog doors instead of chimneys, since few homes have chimneys nowadays.

Apparently, all this was figured out by a whole team at NCSU running detailed calculations (wow, what an incredible waste of time).

Oh yeah, and Santa uses super-high-tech GPS/navigational devices that put Fed Ex to shame and he genetically engineered his reindeer to fly.

One quick question: why can't we just say that Timmy's parents love him and bought him presents? Seriously.

Priest ruins Christmas forever

2008-12-24T10:06:00.004-05:00

BBC

A Catholic priest has been criticised by parents in a city in northern Italy for telling their children that Father Christmas does not really exist.

Hahaha. Oh the irony!

The priest got a lot of flak from angry parents who accused him of ruining their family's Christmas by daring to suggest that Santa may be a human invention rather than a real being, but he said that he wasn't trying to hurt anyone's feelings.

Oh the price Santa-atheists pay for challenging the prevailing dogma - the legions of Santa-worshiping fanatics who go into hysterics at the slightest criticism of their Great Red Lord. The Yuletide defense mechanism makes any criticism of Santa a social taboo. It's very fortunate for humanity that Saint Nick is the only manifestly implausible belief that people hold to be sacrosanct, otherwise, we might be in real trouble.

Pope: Discriminating against gays just as important as the environment

2008-12-23T22:41:00.005-05:00

Reuters:

Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

Wow. I'm speechless.

My faith in my ability to dodge Poe's Law has been shattered. It is now officially impossible to tell conservative Christianity from its many parodies, as well as real church leaders from your average sign-wielding, Westboro-esqe fundamentalist. Heaven help us all.

The Shoe Terrorist

2008-12-22T23:27:00.011-05:00

Originally, I wasn't going to talk about this, but apparently throwing a shoe at the President has suddenly become a big deal. Go figure.

The latest news is that the Powers That Be are trying to tie this guy to terrorism. Seriously.

Apparently, this dastardly "assault" on the President was orchestrated by none-other than an anonymous freedom-hating and allegedly throat-slitting terrorist. Right. Because otherwise, no one would ever consider vocally displaying their anger and contempt of Bush's administration and its misadventures in Iraq. Seriously, the guy is universally adored in a country he invaded.

Pop quiz time - can you spot the terrorist?

And where did this whole terrorism thing come up from? Turns out it might have been coerced under torture:

He said he visited his brother in jail on Sunday and found him with a missing tooth and cigarette burns on his ears. Muntadhar al-Zeidi told his brother that jailers also doused the journalist with cold water while he was naked, Uday al-Zeidi said.

Thanks guys, that makes this whole incident so much better! So let me get this straight: you "liberate" a country to "spread freedom" and then when an Iraqi journalist exercises that freedom in an admittedly aggressive way (but on my side of the world, throwing a shoe at somebody is an extremely minor misdemeanor at worst) you torture the him and fabricate some terrorist connection. Basically, responding to an act of protest with torture and distortion, angering not only the Iraqi people (whose representatives vote on whether or not American forces stay or go) but also all Americans who value justice. What a disaster.

God VS Science

2008-12-20T11:42:00.007-05:00

From Science Daily:

A person's unconscious attitudes toward science and God may be fundamentally opposed, researchers report, depending on how religion and science are used to answer "ultimate" questions such as how the universe began or the origin of life.

Especially considering that scientific theories regarding the origins of the universe or the origins of life are very controversial topics amongst religious people right now, with denialism still very much in ascendence. This is a recurring thing (evolution/cosmology is the new outrage, heliocentrism is an old and settled one) - religions tend to build their monasteries in human ignorance and when human knowledge expands - due to science - a conflict between science and religion is inevitable. Whenever any religion makes a falsifiable claim (a testable claim about the natural world), you'd better believe that the claim is going to be scrutinized and that the truth of the matter will eventually come to light - and the discoverable truth seems to contradict the premature dogma at every turn. Miracles, resurrections, depictions of the structure of the universe, and especially origin myths are all fair game. Only by restricting itself to the airy, insubstantial plane of utterly unfalsifiable claims will religions fail to conflict with science, and religions fail at attracting and keeping followers when supernatural beings no longer have real, tangible effects on the world.

"It seemed to me that both science and religion as systems were very good at explaining a lot, accounting for a lot of the information that we have in our environment," she said. "But if they are both ultimate explanations, at some point they have to conflict with each another because they can't possibly both explain everything."

Indeed, both science and religion are explanatory systems. But religion relies on faith while science relies on evidence. Science grows with new discoveries, while religions are threatened by them and find it difficult to change their old dogmas, which are (sometimes literally) set in stone. It's not hard to figure out which one will inevitably falter as humanity grows and learns.

But all this is hardly a recent revelation, the experiment is the new thing. It's interesting, but a little odd: subjects read an excerpt about the Big Bang theory or the Primordial Soup hypothesis, which ends with either positively or dismissively. Then the subjects had to categorize various words as either positive or negative, but before each word appeared on the screen, a 15 millisecond subliminal message appeared, saying "God" or "science", which seemed to nudge the subjects in that direction. Long story short, subjects primed for a positive evaluation of God tended to score science negatively and vice versa.

Why is this the case? Because these are two are very different systems of figuring out the universe, because they have historically been at odds, and because however artfully believers can mesh the findings of science with their dogmas, the methodologies of science and religion conflict at a fundamental level - the rugged skepticism of science has never been able to sit well with the magical thinking of religion.

Many Americans say other religions can lead to eternal life

2008-12-19T22:27:00.011-05:00

Pew Polling Results

While this isn't exactly earth-shattering news per se (the U.S. has a history of ecumenism and inclusivism, almost to the extent that one can be considered a "person of faith" in good standing and pray to a beached sperm whale), exactly which other religions Americans give high marks to is interesting.

Here's the crunch:

80% of Christians identified at least one non-Christian religion as granting eternal life (that number is surprisingly high even among evangelical Christians at 72%)

The non-christian religion most favored is Judaism (69%), followed by Hinduism (53%), which just barely edged out Islam (52%). Dead last (pun, get it? bah) are atheists (42%), which somehow managed to be less of a route to eternal life than not being religious at all (56%). I guess they didn't realize that a lot of atheists would fit very comfortably in the non-religious category as well. Or maybe it's just good ol' fashioned fear of atheists.

But how exactly does one obtain eternal life? Beliefs. No, actions! *gets dragged into theological debate with both views seemingly supported in the Bible* Each view enjoys about 30% popularity.

And unsurprisingly, views on exclusivity are linked to church attendance. As church attendance goes up, exclusivity goes up and as attendance goes down, exclusivity goes down. If they go to church at least once a week, 42% say that their religion is the only path to eternal life. If they go less than once a week, that number changes to 18%. (Evangelicals are 60% to 30% respectively, while Catholic numbers don't change much at all, from 85% to 84%)

What does this poll tell us? Judaism rocks. Granted, the other "religions" on offer are kind of weaksauce: Islam, Hinduism, atheism, and no religion at all. No deism, pantheism, Buddhism, Taoism, Baha'i, or any pagan religion. I'm really surprised Buddhism in particular didn't get on the ballot, considering that the Dalai Lama is one of the few non-Christian religious leaders that Americans are likely to be familiar with. Maybe next time, they'll increase the ever-widening net of interreligious inclusiveness and endorse my beached whale religion as a path to everlasting life just as valid as whatever crazy religion they believe in. For the sake of tolerance, let's all pray for it, towards whatever human (or whale) died for our sins. Ramen.

Funny Inventions from the 1930s

2008-12-18T22:47:00.001-05:00

It's amusing how many human-powered flight attempts didn't take off.

Investigating Near-Death Experiences

2008-12-17T21:17:00.006-05:00

Interesting article on the latest attempt to figure out scientifically exactly what's going in the brain while people are having near-death experiences.

“I see no reason why a priest should tell us about death when we have all this technology available,” says ~~Dr West~~ Dr Parnia. “Death is a biological process and there’s no reason why we shouldn’t study it through medicine.”

Heh.

Getting a scientific handle on this phenomenon is fiendishly difficult. Dead people don’t report back, and it is very hard to assess the status of survivor accounts — are they merely hallucinations occurring before the crisis or just after? Perhaps they are no more than the brain’s way of soothing your path to extinction.

Perhaps. Or "visions" are reconstructed from a barrage of random firings of an oxygen-starved brain into a semblance of a narrative.

The Skeptic's Dictionary and Secular Web have some useful notes on the variety of NDEs (suffice it to say that the typical white-light, life review, seeing dead people stories don't appear to be the norm)

It definitely seems like there is a cultural expectancy factor - there are famous stories of people seeing bright lights, so people tend to see bright lights. Christians see Jesus, Hindus see the Hindu god of death, etc. It's like UFO reports - the flying saucer-type was first popularized in 1947 and was the common reported shape until more recent times, and as the flying saucer craze has declined in popularity, other depictions (black triangles, cylinders, etc) have become more common.

And, as in all things, it is the human mind that is at the heart of the matter. If we can float out of our bodies, then the mind is separable from, and, perhaps not dependent on, the brain.

Well, we do know that our brains are adapt at filling in the blanks (think blind spots) and tricking us into thinking we can see things that we can't actually see.

Twelve years after Tom Wolfe famously announced in Forbes magazine that, as a result of developments in neuroscience, “Your soul just died,” it may be time to say: “No, it didn’t.”

Yeah, let me know when there's conclusive evidence for that.

But is such a thing as a separable mind poss-ible or even conceivable? The answer is yes. In explaining why, it will be necessary to plunge into philosophy and quantum mechanics.

*groans*

And why does "possible" have a dash through it?

Dualism is the default human conviction, embraced by religions, philosophies and, in fact, by everybody in their lives — if we didn’t embrace some degree of it, we’d be constantly worried about crashing our cars into other people’s thoughts.

Wait...what?

We’re all imprisoned in the chains of cause and effect that started with the big bang.

Materialism means fatalism, apparently. I don't buy it.

Just because things have material causes does not mean that we're stuck on some pre-ordinaned timeline - people can take different actions and a different timeline can be traversed. And in some cases, even if human actions do not change, one event could easily occur instead of another (a lightning bolt could strike one tree instead of another). Granted, those sorts of small-scale changes are unlikely to have large-scale results (a butterfly in Hawaii isn't going to stop hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico), but it's something at least.

He is a distinguished physicist at the University of California at Berkeley. He is convinced that quantum mechanics applies to large as well as small things.

Okay, I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen. On a macro scale (i.e. our everyday world), stuff is pretty well explained by your normal, garden-variety physics. Quantum Mechanics doesn't enter into it.

The world as a whole is just as weird as the inner workings of the atom. The truth of the world and ourselves is that the whole thing is a chaotic swirl of energy and particles. But we don’t see it, because we make our own reality, our own truth, by only asking certain questions. The brick is a product of our mind; to all-seeing, non-human eyes, it is just a swirl of almost nothing.

New Age drivel. Where are the news editors when you need them?

Reporter: "I'm getting some quotes from a scientist, do you mind if I just spout deep-sounding New-Agey nonsense as if it were science between his quotes?"

Editor: "Sure, that sounds like quality journalism to me."

This idea would, if widely accepted, end the reign of scientific materialism, replacing it with a new dualism. It would mean the universe is not a “causally closed” system, locked down since the big bang, as mainstream science has always insisted it is, but open to freedom of choice by the autonomous, floating, matter-altering mind. We would have regained our souls.

*groans again*

Second, you’d have to accept that a lot of the things that now seem like products of charlatans and grifters — telepathy, spiritualism, even psychokinesis — will suddenly seem much more credible. Thirdly, you need not anticipate instant oblivion on death but a series of very weird and very illuminating experiences.

Let me know how that turns out.

But a bucket of iced water is necessary at this point. Few scientists think any of this is going to happen.

Finally, some much-needed skepticism. And yes, I rather doubt there's a lot of scientific backing for telepathy, psychokinesis, or an afterlife. It would have been nice if you stated that before making it sound like science was just inches away from proving it.

NDEs have fired the imaginations of the religious. But they also fire the imaginations of the investigators. Everybody with an interest in this area has been inspired by a personal experience of a confrontation with death and by the startling vividness and transformative powers of the NDE. Whatever it is, it means something.

Indeed they have fired people's imaginations, perhaps in the literal sense. At any rate, I'm confident that it will be figured out eventually, and I rather doubt it'll be the evidence for the truth of religion that the religious expect it to be, especially sense they claim different and often contradictory things.

Hard materialism is just one more philosophical position, and the authentic sceptical reaction is not a derisive snort but a humble acceptance that there are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in any of our philosophies.

Jeez, talk about derisive. What's up with the blatantly evil connotation of materialism anyway? It's like these people first learned about materialism while Night on Bald Mountain played in the background.

Are you a Hardcore Atheist?

2008-12-16T16:43:00.005-05:00

Friendly Atheist has an amusing quiz:

Participated in the Blasphemy Challenge. No, but I was rather enthusiastic about the idea and applauded fellow atheists taking a stand. The anonymous leaks/protests, too.
Met at least one of the “Four Horsemen” (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) in person. Nope
Created an atheist blog. Ding ding ding. We have a winner!
Used the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a religious debate with someone. Oh yes. The entertainment value alone makes the FSM one of my favorite deities, second only to the Old Ones.
Gotten offended when someone called you an agnostic. Yes!
Been unable to watch Growing Pains reruns because of Kirk Cameron. No, but I wouldn't watch it anyway.
Own more Bibles than most Christians you know. No, I still use the one from confirmation.
Have at least one Bible with your personal annotations regarding contradictions, disturbing parts, etc. No, I take great care not to damage any books in my possession. I NEVER write in my books.
Have come out as an atheist to your family. Sadly, no.
Attended a campus or off-campus atheist gathering. Yes. Meetup ftw.
Are a member of an organized atheist/Humanist/etc. organization. No.
Had a Humanist wedding ceremony. No.
Donated money to an atheist organization. No.
Have a bookshelf dedicated solely to Richard Dawkins. Yes, sort of. I have a decent-sized pile of atheist books, I just lack the furniture to house it.
Lost the friendship of someone you know because of your non-theism. Never! I may be a frothing atheist by night, but my relationships with people are much bigger than mere theism/atheism.
Tried to argue or have a discussion with someone who stopped you on the street to proselytize. No. I'm quite shy irl and simply politely refuse such offers. My pleasant demeanor is deceiving; I secretly consider such intrusions very pushy and insulting and would very much like to counter-evangelize in favor of the Old Ones. Alas, I'm chickenhearted. My sole moment of triumph was when a lone, elderly JW came to my work and mindlessly thrust a bunch of Watchtower tracks in my face (which apparently, I was supposed to pass out for him) and walked off. The ball of violently balled-up tracts made for an excellent 3-pointer in the trashcan.
Hid your atheist beliefs on a first date because you didn’t want to scare him/her away. No. I don't hide my atheism to people who inquire.
Own a stockpile of atheist paraphernalia (bumper stickers, buttons, shirts, etc). No.
Attended a protest that involved religion. No.
Attended an atheist conference. No.
Subscribe to Pat Condell’s YouTube channel. Bookmarked.
Started an atheist group in your area or school. No.
Successfully “de-converted” someone to atheism. Not that I know of.
Have already made plans to donate your body to science after you die. Nope, burial at sea. Seriously.
Told someone you’re an atheist only because you wanted to see the person’s reaction. No, and that's a little messed up.
Had to think twice before screaming “Oh God!” during sex. Or you said something else in its place. No.
Lost a job because of your atheism. No.
Formed a bond with someone specifically because of your mutual atheism (meeting this person at a local gathering or conference doesn’t count). Yes.
Have crossed “In God We Trust” off of — or put a pro-church-state-separation stamp on — dollar bills. No.
Refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. No, but now I garble the "Under God" part.
Said “Gesundheit!” (or nothing at all) after someone sneezed because you didn’t want to say “Bless you!” Yes. I either say gesundheit or nothing at all.
Have ever chosen not to clasp your hands together out of fear someone might think you’re praying. No.
Have turned on Christian TV because you need something entertaining to watch. Oh God no! Shoot me if I ever get that bored.
Are a 2^nd or 3^rd (or more) generation atheist. No. First generation, afaik.
Have “atheism” listed on your Facebook or dating profile — and not a euphemistic variant. No. So far, I have resisted the urge for Facebook and similar sites.
Attended an atheist’s funeral (i.e. a non-religious service). No.
Subscribe to an freethought magazine (e.g. Free Inquiry, Skeptic) No.
Have been interviewed by a reporter because of your atheism. No.
Written a letter-to-the-editor about an issue related to your non-belief in God. No.
Gave a friend or acquaintance a New Atheist book as a gift. No.
Wear pro-atheist clothing in public. No, I don't broadcast my atheism.
Have invited Mormons/Jehovah’s Witnesses into your house specifically because you wanted to argue with them. No.
Have been physically threatened (or beaten up) because you didn’t believe in God. No. Jeez, that's screwed up.
Receive Google Alerts on “atheism” (or variants). Oh hell yes.
Received fewer Christmas presents than expected because people assumed you didn’t celebrate it. No.
Visited The Creation Museum or saw Ben Stein’s Expelled just so you could keep tabs on the “enemy.” No, I heard all I need to from other atheist blogs coverage of it. Plagiarism, Godwin's Law.
Refuse to tell anyone what your “sign” is… because it doesn’t matter at all. Yes, anytime someone brings up astrology with me, I emphatically inform them that it's hogwash.
Are on a mailing list for a Christian organization just so you can see what they’re up to… No, but that's not a bad idea. I check out the fundie sites every once and awhile for the comedy value.
Have kept your eyes open while you watched others around you pray. Frequently. Even as a theist. I never understood the whole closing-your-eyes thing. What's that supposed to accomplish? Or better yet, what's the point of prayer in general? Is there some sort of system - the high magnitude the ~~wish~~ prayer, the more people are needed and the more frequent the prayers have to be?
Avoid even Unitarian churches because they’re too close to religion for you. Yes, I'm highly irreligious and so I avoid churches altogether (except to vote, and then I caustically remark at their rare utility)

Results: 12 out of 50. Atheist white-belt, but it is my hope to accomplish #2, #9, #11, #16, and #20.

I'm far behind the pack: Evolved and Rat/i/onal (38/50), The Atheist Blogger (33/50), Homosecular Gaytheist (30/50), Stupid Evil Bastard (26/50) and Magnificent Frog (22/50)

Creationism on the View

2008-12-14T23:27:00.006-05:00

Wow, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

The Intelligent Designer Jeans. The Blind Pursemaker. Uggh.

fyi - they stole my cockroach retort.

The stupidity antidote: Stupid Design with Neil deGrasse Tyson

New Poll: Americans believe in God, UFOs

2008-12-13T19:38:00.009-05:00

New poll results under the unintentionally hilarious headline: Belief in God, UFOs prevail

80% believe in God (98% among regular churchgoers; not too many atheists in the pews)
75% believe in miracles
73% believe in heaven
71% believe that Jesus is the Son of God
71% believe in angels
70% say Jesus Christ rose from the dead and that the Bible is, all or in part, the "Word of God."
68% believe in the "survival of the soul after death"
62% think that hell actually exists
61% believe in the Virgin Birth
59% believe that the devil exists.

Essentially, 60-75% of my fellow Americans are completely out of their gourd. I can see the God stuff - belief in God is relentlessly indoctrinated and also has the advantage of an (incorrect) association with goodness. But Hell and Satan? That's just plain crazy. People who truly believe that there's some horned demon prancing about, tricking poor souls into believing the great lie of evolution (a joint atheist-jewish-communist-nazi conspiracy, so I'm told) - that's insane.

Now we get to the bumpy part of the ride, the (unbelievably popular) fringe beliefs:

A third are evolution denialists (compared to 47% who aren't creationists and 22% who apparently haven't figured it out yet)

40% believe in creationism, though the question did not elaborate on exactly what that term meant.

44% believe in ghosts

36% believe UFOs are real (trick question: UFOs are known to exist; alien spaceships aren't)

31% believe in both witches and astrology.

About a quarter believe in reincarnation, or "that you were once another person,"

Wow. Witches and astrology? That's quite the combination. Great, so out of the aforementioned 65-70% crazy religious people, I have to deal with the ~30-40% crazy supernatural/superstitious people. I'm sure there's a substantial amount of overlap, but still, that doesn't leave many level-headed people left.

Bush shocks evangelicals

2008-12-12T22:43:00.013-05:00

Story here

George W. Bush's recent statement that he believes the Bible is "probably not" literally true has apparently left many Christian conservatives reeling in shock.

One blogger at the conservative Washington Times, commented the next morning, "I already have an e-mail from a former Bush administration official who writes, 'This just completely alienated his evangelical supporters.'"

Finally, the last Bush supporters this side of Crazyville have at long last had it with the guy.

And why do they dislike him? Not because of the torture, or the domestic spying, or waging a war under false pretenses, or screwing environmental legislation (especially endangered species legislation), truly epic accumulation of debt, or the bailout (whatever happened to the omnipotent Free Market?). They don't like him because he said that theistic evolution was possible and that the Bible probably isn't literal in each and every instance. Oh heaven forbid! Our President, Emperor Nero the Mad, had a fleeting moment of sanity for once in his life (twice if you count calling off a military strike against Iran).

Look at this graph (blue is approval rating, red is disapproval rating)

Everybody with a pulse and the ability to recognize disaster already jumped ship by 2004. Even the Republicans figured out that the guy is a terrible president, and they haven't even figured out whether or not evolution happens yet. But for the past 8 years, the Evangelicals have treated him like he's the second coming, and only now, in the final days of his presidency, has he finally alienated these people. Hell, they probably would have done an apotheosis on his grave if he didn't let slip that he's not a total fundamentalist-literalist.

And here's the ever predictable never-was-a-Christian reaction:

"Evangelical Christians were conned into thinking that Bush was 'one of them,'" the Moral Collapse blogger concluded. "the reality is that he isn't one of them and he never was."

ORLY. He tirelessly promoted the evangelical agenda - sneaking Intelligent Design into science classes, championed the remarkably bigoted idea that gays can't marry, diverted money from fighting AIDS to fund churches, and the guy even said that God told him to attack Iraq. I can't think of a single U.S. President who has tried harder to look as Jesusy as possible or wears his religion on his sleeve quite like this guy. He even said Jesus was his favorite philosopher, for Christ's sake. That's like saying that Ken Ham is my favorite scientist or that Bill O'Reilly is my favorite novelist. Bottom line: if Bush isn't an evangelical Christian, then no one is.

Pope: Atheism weakens committment to human rights

2008-12-11T17:55:00.011-05:00

Yeah, I know, I've been picking on Catholicism lately. What can I say, it's probably the easiest punching bag in the world: practically daily wrongdoing, a talent for truly objectionable press statements, a long history of blatant hypocrisy when it comes to doing the right thing (wrapped in a smooth, silky veneer of piety and milk chocolate), with regular and irresistibly shoddy arguments against atheism. Don't worry, I'm aware that other religions have their share of crazy as well, like the Muslim lawyer's bizarre take on Christmas festivities. Don't worry, I'll get to other stuff soon enough.

Anyway, on to the Pope's address:

Without doubt, we have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go: the right to life, freedom and security of hundreds of millions of our brothers and sisters are still under threat; the dignity and equality of each individual is not always respected

Yeah, no kidding.

Natural law, written by God within human conscience, - continued the Pope – is a common denominator between all men and all peoples; it is a universal guide that everyone can recognise and thanks to which people can understand each other. And so, human rights are ultimately founded in God the creator, who gave each one of us intelligence and freedom. If we ignore this solid base, human rights will remain weak because [they are deprived of] a solid foundation.

Uggh. That's epic logic right there. Where to begin? First off, despite the ceremonial deism in the Declaration of Independence, human rights are understood as an innate thing - all people should have certain rights because all people desire life, liberty, and happiness. It's a travesty of the highest order to suggest that innate, self-evident human rights bear no meaning without belief in God. Rather than based in God, human rights are quite clearly based in mankind.

It's no small irony that the Catholic Church has previously condemned the idea of human rights - Pope Gregory XVI put it quite clearly when he said that it is an "absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone" and "Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty. " History 1, Pope 0.

To add to Pope Benedict's speech, a Cardinal lays out his views on freedom of religion. Apparently, it's not enough simply to have have the basic right to free exercise of religion, he wants the deluxe package:

During the commemorative congress, Cardinal Bertone in his observations on human rights, highlighted the value of religious freedom as a “fundamental right”; “the object of this right, is not the intrinsic content of one determined religious faith, but immunity from all coercion, a security zone capable of guaranteeing the inviolable space in which every believer and the community in which he expresses his beliefs are free to act, without outside pressures from persons, social groups or authorities, whomever they may be. It is an evident fact that religion has a direct influence on the internal life of States and the International Community. Despite this, there are increasing indications of trends that seem to want to exclude religion and the rights connected to it from the possibility of concurring in the building of social order, even in full respect of that pluralism which distinguishes contemporary society”.

That is one reeaaallly strange statement. A religious "security zone" where believers can do... whatever they want I guess, without any sort of "pressures" (criticism?) from outsiders. I could be mistaken about this, but from the tone and the secularism bogeyman at the end, it really does seem like he's advocating a criticism-free version of religious tolerance, similar to the one Muslims demanded from the UN.

Read some of his earlier stuff, it's a real eye-opener - endorsing religious entanglement in politics with the succinct phrase, "politics needs Christianity".

Everything needs Christianity nowadays. Human rights needs Christianity. Ethics needs Christianity. Science needs Christianity. Politics needs Christianity. The public square needs Christianity.

Know what I think? Christianity desperately needs a niche.

Gays welcome, just not at the chapel

2008-12-10T20:09:00.005-05:00

Well, today was Day Without A Gay (so I had to come to work sick lest rumors abound, thanks a lot guys :P).

In the wake of Prop 8, the religious backers of this blatant attack on equal rights, the Mormon and Catholic churches, are certainly feeling the backlash.

That's why a handful of Catholic clergy recently put out letters assuring gays and lesbians that they are "cherished members of the church". The priest added, "who can't get married because our religious belief is that gays are perverted, child-molesting abominations who will surely be tossed into the everlasting fires of Hell by God. Oh yeah, and we think other countries executing gays is just fine. Be sure to toss a 20 in the collection bin on your way out, thanks."

And I thought politicians were two-faced! Yikes.

But it gets better, one priest's open letter tried to defend his pro-prop 8 stance:

"Religious leaders in America have the constitutional right to speak out on issues of public policy," Niederauer wrote in a statement posted on the archdiocese's Web site. "Catholic bishops, specifically, also have a responsibility to teach the faith, and our beliefs about marriage and family are part of this faith."

By all means, talk about whatever you want (heaven forbid infringing on someone's rights), but what you're actually doing isn't teaching the faith, it's imposing the faith. There's such a huge difference between the two concepts that you can have fleets of aircraft carriers do doughnuts in the gulf between them.

Mahony and Niederauer said their support for Proposition 8 was intended to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, not harm gays or lesbians.

Exactly. No harm was intended. They just don't want your kind to have the right to marry. That's all. Jeez, you guys make it sound like it's bigotry or something (which you seriously need to stop doing, let's have a little respect around here).

Have no fear, gays and lesbians, your church is here for you. They were here for you you on 11/5 and they're here for you now. And, God willing, they want to be there for you on ballots across the country for years to come.

Bush: Bible not literally true

2008-12-09T18:47:00.007-05:00

In a stunning change of pace, George W. Bush said something reasonably intelligent. Two things, actually:

The Bible is "probably not" literally true.
Evolution is compatible with belief in God.

Granted, he's still sticking to his pro ~~creationism~~ ~~cdesign proponentist~~ intelligent design stance, but I suppose even this meager admission is a tremendous leap forward for a presidency drenched in dino-riding Christian fundamentalism.

You're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president.

Right. Good call, not wanting to speak about things you feel you may not have enough knowledge or expertise to be comfortable addressing. Best to leave this sort of stuff to the experts.

One question: where was this humility when you said that schools should teach ID?

I think that God created the Earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty

Yay, God of the Gaps.

I'm curious, what specific part of the history of the Earth is so mysterious that it needs a deity? Was it when the Earth first formed? The very first replicator? The first eukaryotic cell? The first chordate? The first primate? Answer the question and you will find scientific data detailing its formation due to purely naturalistic processes. Suddenly, it's a little less mysterious and the God of the Gaps evaporates.

I wonder how the religious right, particularly the creationists/IDiots, are going to take this. Even Bush, a president not widely known for his intellectual prowess, dismisses biblical literalism. That has got to hurt.

Pope prays for the poor and jobless

2008-12-08T18:45:00.004-05:00

Pope starts Rome holiday season, prays for jobless

Pope Benedict XVI is praying for those who lost jobs or are struggling to pay bills as Rome's holiday season began with a traditional appearance by the pontiff near the Spanish Steps.

This holiday season, the guy swimming in money wants to let you know he really sympathizes with the plight of the poor. So when you cut him a check this year for 10% of your earnings, know that he feels your pain.

And by the way, he condemns love of money and power (one cannot serve both God and Mammon), so on behalf of over 1 billion souls, he's praying to God for your financial security.

...

I just don't understand how people can compartmentalize like this. It's ridiculous.

Deepak Chopra stands up to Sean Hannity

2008-12-07T15:39:00.004-05:00

For once, I have to give the guy props. Even though he peddles New Age nonsense, he knows a blowhard when he sees one.

Read it, read it now

The crowning moment of win:

You have a powerful platform that influences many people. Why do you use your influence to monger fear, militancy, divisiveness, and jingoism?

Why I Love Editorials

2008-12-07T14:17:00.005-05:00

Yeah, I know I said that I loathe editorials earlier. Did I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. (I am large, I contain multitudes.) Walt Whitman ftw.

That said, there's been a bunch of good ones recently:

Atheists should teach Bible Class

In Texas, it looks like they're getting ready to offer Bible classes in high schools. And well, there's been some suspicion that the underlying motivation behind move is more along the lines of proselytizing than education. Thus, one clever writer offered this wrecking amendment: have atheists teach it. Hilarity ensues.

The Religious Right should start their own Party

Sick of religious conservatives interfering in political affairs (like a priest calling voting for Obama sinful), this Modesto citizen offers them helpful advice: start the Theocratic Religiosity Party. Hey, it works in the Middle East.

And finally, I'm going to applaud a group of Christians for trying to meet us halfway on doubt.

A St. Louis Church is responding to the New Atheist movement by offering courses on doubt:

Rather than return fire at atheists or get defensive and caustic, The Journey’s senior pastor, the Rev. Darrin Patrick, decided to explore the nature of doubt with his congregation.
He’s asking the church’s 2,300 members to be honest about their own skepticism and doubts about Christianity and is encouraging them to meet atheists halfway.

Certainly, it's a welcome change of pace.

On a recent Sunday, Patrick encouraged his congregation to go see Religulous and assured them he would, too. Church officials play a short video of atheists and skeptics they’ve interviewed making thoughtful points about unbelief, or questioning the nature of a certain Christian theology or doctrine.
Patrick then tackles that topic in a 45-minute sermon that dives deeper into the questions brought up by skeptics. Some of Patrick’s sermons are titled "There can’t possibly be only one 'true’ religion, can there?"; "Doesn’t belief in religion only breed prejudice, violence, and injustice?"; and "Why would I pattern my life after a book of old stories that have been proven by science to be mere myth?"

Now, we all know where this is going - the church website says the program is designed to get religious doubters to "doubt your doubts", but it beats other churches takes on doubt - demonizing it as sinful and treating atheism is if it were a "belief in nothing". Hopefully, this more realistic approach might at the very least educate Christians about skepticism and atheism and provide them with a better understanding of where atheists are coming from.

Blood Type Craze in Japan

2008-12-06T19:24:00.008-05:00

Blood type obsession in Japan

Apparently, increasing numbers of Japanese citizens are subscribing to the theory that "blood types determine every aspect of personality, temperament and interaction with others".

Sounds suspiciously similar to astrology.

Despite a undeniable lack of scientific evidence proving a link between blood type and temperament, this has not stopped the Japanese population enthusiastically embracing the concept.

The above is an excellent working definition of pseudoscience - scientific-sounding claims sans any actual science, yet it amazingly finds popular appeal among people who ought to know better.

The descriptions of the bloodtype-derived personalities are simply absurd:

TYPE A – Patient, uptight, sensitive, responsible, cautious.

Famous examples: Adolf Hitler, Britney Spears, Ringo Starr

TYPE B – Individual, unconventional, optimistic, unpredictable, creative, strong

Famous examples: Paul McCartney, Jack Nicholson, Leonardo Di Caprio

TYPE O – Trendsetting, passionate, vain, self-confident, loyal.

Famous examples: The Queen, John Lennon, Liam Gallagher

TYPE AB – Sociable, popular, calm, rational, critical, indecisive

Famous examples: Marilyn Monroe, John F Kennedy, Mick Jagger

Two words: Forer effect

There's nothing magical about the blood type system. It's just antigens on the surface of your red blood cells, that's it. It doesn't dictate personality, it dictates immune response when receiving a blood transfusion.

The history of this incredibly gullible way of thinking makes for interesting reading:

The fad faded in the 1930s as its unscientific basis became evident. It was revived in the 1970s with a book by Masahiko Nomi, a lawyer and broadcaster with no medical background. Nomi's work was largely uncontrolled and anecdotal, and the methodology of his conclusions is unclear. Because of this he has been heavily assailed by the Japanese psychological community, although his books are phenomenally popular.

A dying pseudoscience that was revived by a non-expert's popular books and enjoys ridiculous popularity despite the fact that it's completely wrong? Okay, now it reminds me of creationism.

And don't get me started on the blood type diet...

Freedom of religion scares Islamic cleric

2008-12-06T17:44:00.007-05:00

Fundamentalists say the darnedest things. Here's a great quote from Saudi Cleric Al-Munajid:

The problem is that they want to open a debate on whether Islam is true or not, and on whether Judaism and Christianity are false or not. In other words, they want to open up everything for debate. Now they want to open up all issues for debate. That's it. It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief. So where's the conspiracy? They say: Let's have freedom of thought in Islam. Well, what do they want? They say: I think, therefore I want to express my thoughts. I want to express myself, I want to talk and say, for example, that there are loopholes in Islam, or that Christianity is the truth. Then they will talk about freedom of belief, and say that anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants... If you want to become an apostate – go ahead. Fancy Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem. That's what freedom of belief is all about. They want freedom of everything. What they want is very dangerous.

Actually, that's a great idea. Open everything up to debate, allow free speech and freedom of belief. Also, allow people to join (or leave) any religious affiliation.

It's funny that guys like him are so scared of granting people these basic freedoms. What are they scared of?

Dinesh D'Souza, certified Liar for Jesus

2008-12-05T18:45:00.007-05:00

And the arguments are still incredibly silly.

Quick summary:

#1 - Sunnis suiciding bombing Shia mosques and Shi'ites retaliating with death squads has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Seriously. Same thing with the historical violence between Catholics and Protestants - and these kind of conflicts are literally called "Wars of Religion". And religion has nothing to do with it? Fail. Big time.

#2 - The ancient Greeks and the Romans didn't believe in compassion or "sacredness of human life", whatever that's supposed to mean.

“Wherever there is a human being, there is an opportunity for a kindness.”
- Seneca the Elder, a Roman orator

#3 - Science is faith-based. Oh dear, he's really digging that hole. But wait, it gets better: "D'Souza went on to say that these assumptions are the direct legacy of Christian theology. They are: 1. The universe is rational. 2. The universe is lawful. 3. The rationality of the world is mirrored by the rationality of our minds."

Wow, what a trainwreck. And no, concepts like the universality of physical laws owe nothing to laughable tales of the dead rising up from the ground, demon-possessed pigs, and iron axe-heads that float on water. Besides, if imparting scientific knowledge was the goal of the Bible, you'd think there'd be a heck of a lot better advice in there than using magic to cure snakebites.

But still, D'Souza seems to think that while the universality of physical laws makes sense to Christians (it's apparently analogous to the concept of divine law), us poor atheists believe this stuff purely on faith. Those foolish scientists apparently didn't run experiments, replicate those experiments to double-check people's work, and observe natural conditions elsewhere to make sure that alleged physical constants are indeed constant. Nope, no one ever thought of that.

#4 - This one is really my favorite part, he takes a page out of the neo-Nazi playbook and tries to downplay alleged atrocities by the faithful. Instead of good ol' fashioned Holocaust denial, we get Inquisition denial and witch-burning denial. He claims that the inquisition only resulted in 2,000 deaths. He must've been reading the completely unbiased Vatican version. Well, at least the witch-burning claim isn't as unsubstantiated - 19 people were indeed executed in Salem. (one additional man, Giles Corey, was killed in an act of judicial torture and a few more died in prison, but details shmetails!) What Dinesh apparently forgot was that Salem wasn't the only city with a witchcraze - the witchcraze body count in Europe ranges into the ten of thousands. In fact, people are still killed for alleged witchcraft to this very day.

#5 - In his last foot-in-mouth moment, Dinesh suggests that the real reason atheists don't believe in God is that they want a morality-free existence:

The atheist, however, has found a beautiful solution to the problem of moral judgment: Just abolish the Judge. If there is no God, there are no Ten Commandments, everything is permitted. To atheists, that is a gospel of liberation.

And here it is, your moment of zen:

The new atheism is different in that it attacks belief in the private sphere. Its goal is to eradicate, demolish and discredit Christianity. Many atheists want to make each and every Christian feel like a complete idiot.

This one cracks me up every time. You need no help, my friend, you're doing just fine on your own.

Nexus: The Jupiter Incident

2008-12-04T20:15:00.004-05:00

My roommate is really into this game. I'd apparently never even heard about until just now, but when he showed me this video, my jaw hit the floor.

My God, it's full of stars.

Scared of Atheism

2008-12-03T11:16:00.006-05:00

Something about atheism seems provoke fear and anger in people.

Just putting up a few signs with extremely mild messages like "Don't believe in God, you're not alone" have been met with waves of anger and resentment from a small but vocal minority of Christians, who are now working themselves into a frenzy against the imaginary assault against the Winter Holiday. Simply writing a book critical of religion will earn you the wholly inaccurate "militant atheist" label, the not-very-subtle equation of vocal, peaceful atheism with the evils of religious violence and terrorism. And sometimes, you don't even have to actually do or say anything to anger the wrath of the faithful - Senator Pete Stark was demonized by Christians simply for the crime of unbelief.

What is it about atheism that gets people so riled up? And by riled up, I mean throwing insane fits of rage.

Surely, it's not the atheists themselves: even at the devil's convocation - atheist meetups - there's scarcely anything more threatening than griping about creationism and calling religious beliefs superstitious (which, I hasten to add, is exactly what Christians believe about every other religion on the planet).

Perhaps a great deal of it lies in Christians' own fears and prejudices - doubt is a sin after all, and denying the existence of God is the only unpardonable sin. (Matthew 12:31-32) And since Christianity gives hope and meaning and joy, then atheism - the rejection of God - must be its opposite: meaninglessness and despair.

Believing that atheists are Satan's little helpers goes a long way to explaining it, but that's not the whole story. Non-Christians are not viewed with nearly as much apprehension, and they also disbelieve Christian dogma. Ah, but they believe in supernaturalism - in gods and spirits - and chances are, they also believe in faith. Surely, some Christians take comfort in the fact that the world prays (and believes in prayer), even though the religious beliefs are not the same.

I think that's the main source of the animosity towards atheists - not only do they not believe, they don't believe in belief. And if that's the case, then no amount of diplomacy will ever work with these people - simply being an atheist is threatening to them, and they'll fight any attempt to get the word out, now matter how mild the billboard's message. They simply cannot be reasoned with. And in some ways, I feel sorry for the people engaged in pious hysterics, people like Rep Davis and Knute Berger: they're prisoners of their own hate.

Fresh War on Christmas Fail

2008-12-02T14:20:00.007-05:00

One of the most sanctimonious and hysterical editorials I've seen on the Faux War on Christmas so far. You can almost visualize the angry froth against atheists for spoiling this magical sacred tradition (that has only truly existed since its reinvention in the 19th century)

Up first is the standard theocon rant, bemoaning the PC secularization of Christmas and horrendous persecution of Christians in having to share a nativity scene on the state capital building with other religious (and even atheistic) messages :

Since you can't selectively use public property to endorse a long-standing religious tradition anymore, the pendulum has swung wide and now anyone with an axe to grind on a Christmas, excuse me, "holiday" tree, is welcome.

Boo-hoo.

(By the way, Atheist Revolution has an excellent explanation of what happened in Washington State that apparently prompted this editorial writer's meltdown. Suffice it to say it was hardly as anti-Christian as the writer made it out to be.)

Next comes the hernia-inducing denunciation of Dan Barker's sign, which says:

"At this season of the winter solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds"

Apparently, this "atheist-sympathizer" is quite insulted by "Godless blowhards" and their refusal to consider hold anything sacred (if only we paid more deference to what other people hold sacred, then we would be considered nicer people!)

But alas, the die is cast, "the War on Christmas continues. The atheists, playing spoilers to Judeo-Christian belief, give atheism a bad name instead, while PC public officials pursue policies that debase the whole notion of the sacred season. I score this a loss for the anti-Christmas forces."

But the author reprimands the "pro-Christmas forces" as well, though with the curious metaphor that they're "as selfish and murderous as Somali pirates". Say what??

But the piece doesn't end until the fat lady sings her verse - a Christ-like appeal to the cudgel:

This is a war that nobody is winning, but everyone had better hope the atheists are right. Otherwise, there'll be hell to pay.

Humor: You're Doing It Wrong

2008-12-01T22:54:00.010-05:00

The good news: a well-meaning article with tips on how to appreciate humor.
The bad news: it's full of fail and reads as if it was made for a 1950s homemaker.

Seriously, folks. The author lists reading newspaper comics as a viable source of humor. That's just plain wrong. Some of the stuff is good enough to crack a smile (Calvin and Hobbes, Far Side, etc) but the vast majority is humorless drek (Family Circus).

Then there's another activity recommended as a great way to get you laughing: writing funny captions in the family photo albums. Uggh, shoot me if I ever do something like that.

Dave Letterman's Top Ten List (how many decades has it been since that was ever funny?)

Add "find something funny" on one's to-do list (spontaneity fail)

Then there's this:

When a person offends you or makes you angry, respond with humor rather than hostility. For instance, if someone is always late, say, "Well, I'm glad you're not running an airline."

Yeah, that makes you a jerkass, not a comedian.

Spend 15 minutes a day having a giggling session.

*facepalm*

Recall several of the most embarrassing moments in your life.

WTF.

Okay...it's apparent that this article wasn't meant for me (or possibly anyone born before 1920), especially its insistence on the lubby-dubby normal people's levity, like smiling at "the sight of kids playing, a loved one or friend approaching". Meanwhile, I'm chuckling at Pedobear and mechwarrior mechs photoshopped into old WWII photos. Methinks the common ground is pretty thin.

Normal people's type of humor:

My type of humor:
I typically go for a mix of black comedy, slapstick and absurdist humor and I throughly enjoy Dave Chappelle, Monty Python, Futurama, Three Stooges, Invader Zim, etc. I adore off-color jokes, like Mel Brooks parodying Hitler (especially the Hitler on Ice bit) and satirical jabs like the Cannibal Corpse Lounge music joke (NSFW).

I really wish people could appreciate that kind of stuff more and expand their horizons just a little bit. There's a whole wealth of humor out there that people, especially the author, seem to miss out on.

New Humanist Cards Redux

2008-11-30T22:29:00.005-05:00

Remember those New Humanist religion cards?

Well, turns out they were a big hit with religious people. So big that they used them in their age-old infantile sectarian spat over which one is worse - a Christian blog claims they're not tough enough on Muslims (apparently they're not big on literacy over there) and some other site has it as possible "Islamaphobic" (but certainly right wing) material (which is ironic because the card made fun of Muslims' uncanny ability to take extreme offense at anything remotely critical of their faith, even to the point of violence)

You know what I think? I think they're hilarious and you bozos are the punchline.

Dinesh D'Souza, still not very bright

2008-11-29T19:21:00.009-05:00

Dinesh D'Souza. He was the 2007 Bad Faith Awards winner, a notable idiotic apologist and generally not very bright fella, but I didn't find out just how bad he was until just now, when I recently tortured myself by reading the drivel firsthand instead of watching the slapstick from the merciful distance of the nosebleed section.

Here's the article in all its self-embarrassing glory:

Contemporary atheism marches behind the banner of science.

Whoa. Hold it. That's not necessarily the case. A lot of atheists are rather ticked off about religious demonization of science and theists' attempts to remove or censor scientific facts that they dislike for religious reasons. The effect of this ongoing denialism is that now atheists can point to facts about our world that some religious people still don't accept as proof positive that some religious beliefs are faulty and that the concept of religious faith certainly plays its role in enabling this triple tragedy of being wrong, refusing to learn, and foisting known falsehoods on one's children and the public in general as if it were gospel truth.

But don't confuse atheism with science. Even though they both scare fundamentalists, they're not the same thing.

The central argument of these scientific atheists is that modern science has refuted traditional religious conceptions of a divine creator.

Well, God-of-the-Gaps conceptions at any rate, where God is trotted out to explain gaps in human knowledge (i.e. creationism). The other conceptions of God are too ghostly to have much weight.

But of late atheism seems to be losing its scientific confidence.

Why? Because atheists put up billboards that don't have anything to do with science, apparently. Is that really what they consider a good argument on the planet that you're from?

Instead, we are given the simple assertion that there is probably no God, followed by the counsel to go ahead and enjoy life. In other words, let’s not let God and his commandments spoil all the fun.

*cue the clips of atheists descending into reckless hedonism and carnal lust*

Oh, and here's why atheists have "given up the scientific card": fine tuning and the question of whether or not there are other universes.

Uggh. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt and lost it in Universe Alpha (we're in Universe Beta, by the way)

There are two hurdles here, one historical and the other methodological. The historical hurdle is that science has for three centuries been showing that man does not occupy a privileged position in the cosmos, and now it seems like he does.

Umm...okaaay, there are all kinds of things wrong with that. #1 - we're talking about life in general, not necessarily human life. #2 - it's a just-barely-possible existence, combined with numerous planet-sundering threats and a nigh certainty of extinction. #3 - "privileged position in the cosmos"? Seriously?? How on Earth did he arrive at that conclusion?

The methodological hurdle is what physicist Stephen Hawking once called “the problem of Genesis.” Science is the search for natural explanations for natural phenomena, and what could be more embarrassing than the finding that a supernatural intelligence transcending all natural laws is behind it all?

...

Wow. Apparently, hackneyed fine-tuning arguments are all that's needed to prove God. A lot of conditions in the universe are suitable for life to form (there wouldn't be any discussion on the matter if they weren't), therefore God. God-of-the-Gaps logic, what could possibly go wrong?

No wonder atheists are sporting billboards asking us to “imagine…no religion.” When science, far from disproving God, seems to be pointing with ever-greater precision toward transcendence, imagination and wishful thinking seem all that is left for the atheists to count on.

Oh my God. This whole editorial was a fraud. "When Science Points to God". Guess what it has a distinct lack of? Science in any way supporting theism.

What a crock.

Vatican says that cell phones and Internet are bad for the soul

2008-11-28T20:33:00.006-05:00

Link

In yet another slide into both irrelevance and absurdity, the Catholic Church is now against "excessive" cell phone and internet use, claiming that it's harmful to one's spiritual life.

In a way, that's quite absurd ("souls" don't really exist and however annoying your Bluetooth habits are, you can sleep easy knowing that you're only harming the peace of those around you and gradually turning yourself into a mindless gabaholic) and untrue (in the US, Jesus is our Facebook buddy).

But on second thought, it does make some sense. The Catholic Church is an organization that (desperately) needs the attention of its members and every Sunday, and their Mass services compete with all other ways people could spend their time. (I heartily recommend sleeping in) People who are doing other things aren't attending Mass and therefore aren't ~~getting brainwashed~~ getting their weekly dose of Jesus. So naturally, it's in their best interest for such organizations to prohibit competing activities (which is one of the wonderful reasons why drunks can't buy alcohol on Sunday). To sum it up: more iGod = less God.

But the funny thing is that on this issue, I don't think they've quite figured out how to keep their story straight yet (unlike rock music, condoms, atheism, and enjoying sex) :

“Nations once rich in faith and vocations are losing their own identity under the harmful and destructive influence of a certain modern culture,” he told a recent assembly of the Synod.

However, Pope Benedict has embraced many aspects of modern technology in order to convey the Catholic message to a young, tech-savvy audience.

Hilarious. So they like it when it spreads the meme but don't like it when it hurts the meme. Gee, who could've seen that coming?

Bonus! Moment-of-zen style picture:

Awwww. He's pretending to have a job that's valuable and useful.

The Secular Right

2008-11-27T02:11:00.003-05:00

New blog ahoy, Secular Right! (Hat tip to Friendly Atheist)

Card-carrying Liberal atheist baby-eater that I am, I don't know how I should react. Should I cheer the atheism or boo the conservatism? Oh what the heck, I'm in a cheering mood. Welcome, fellow atheists!

They're in good company, too: people like George Will (self-described agnostic), Christopher Hitchens and blogs like Atheist Conservative and Secular Conservative.

And I have to admit, despite political differences, they're generally a much more agreeable bunch than the typical religious-right fare and tend to oppose much of the same nuttery that I object to (like creationism) and support much of the good things I like about America, like liberty, justice, and apple pie. And when we disagree, it'll be a matter of fact and logic, and not a matter of God's will. With any luck, it'll at least wear away the ol' atheist=liberal/communist misconception.

Theology professor says atheism contradicts science

2008-11-26T14:32:00.004-05:00

Link

Up next, a creationist says that airplanes contradict the theory of gravity.

Contrary to the news headline, his argument seems to be that science must be agnostic on the concept, a conclusion that I agree with. (Similarly, science is agnostic on the existence of tiny, invisible, undetectable fire-breathing dragons but we don't take their existence seriously either) His reasoning is interesting to say the least:

If the world is endless than the science can't prove there's no God,"

*unfalsifiable theory alarm activated, burden of proof shifting detected*

According to the theologian, science and religion do not oppose one another, but should jointly oppose various superstitions and false doctrines.

Poor guy, he doesn't realize that his own religion is assuredly among the superstitions he disdains.

"Knowledge itself is only a building material. It's impossible to live in building materials, you need to build a house. The house is integral world outlook," Osipov believes.

"Integral world outlook"? Oh, he means worldview. Well, yeah, that comes into play frequently - any information people are exposed to is inevitably colored by their preconceptions, beliefs and values. But part of becoming an adult means coming to terms with reality and abandoning faulty beliefs that clash with the facts, having the courage to admit error and constantly striving for greater and greater precision as new facts are uncovered. In that way, even the most esteemed theologian still has a lot of growing up to do.

Europe beats USSR in atheism

2008-11-25T18:42:00.004-05:00

According to French philosopher Alain de Benoist, modern Europe has beaten the USSR record in mass atheism.

I wish the article gave actual statistics on this (What was the Soviet record? How many atheists are there in Europe?) but alas, it doesn't.

I'll keep an eye out for later developments.

Broun: It's "One NationUnderGod"

2008-11-24T00:11:00.005-05:00

Georgia Rep Paul Broun, or as he's more widely known- that Hitler guy- is here to tell us the proper way to say the Pledge of Allegiance: without any pause between the "one nation" and "under God" parts. Why? In order to emphasize that there is "no separation or implied separation between nation and God." Preferably, you should do it with a Bible in one hand and a burning effigy of the Bill of Rights in the other.

This might be purely coincidental, but it turns out that American politicians fail basic civic literacy tests even worse than your average American and it just so happens that one of the questions politicians failed more miserably the rest of us on was:

6) The Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits:

A. prayer in public school

B. discrimination based on race, sex, or religion

C. the ownership of guns by private individuals

D. establishing an official religion for the United States

E. the president from vetoing a line item in a spending bill

26.41% of citizens answered that question correctly, 21.24% of elected officials got it right (making for an I-can't-believe-you-hold-public-office score of 5.17%) and 100% of crazy theocratic politicians named Paul Broun are utterly clueless about it.

Video games will one day destroy humanity

2008-11-23T13:18:00.005-05:00

From the TED talks - the presenter had a really good presentation about how video games have emerged from 8-bit to nearly photo-realistic quality and how gaming has become this huge thing now. It's a decent talk, but it's also kinda obvious to everyone under 50.

But at about 10 minutes in, he shows some guy's video who melodramatically goes on and on about he's some hopeless video game addict who can't tell fantasy from reality and bombards the audience with all the alleged scary implications of video games. Seriously.

I'm a gamer and I love video games. I love the thrill in out-witting and out-playing an opposing army - methodically conquering the whole zone with my own army and leaving only slag in my wake. I love getting the fleet together and doing the same thing on a galactic scale. I love alpha-striking an enemy mech's cockpit with PPCs. I love starting from scratch on some open world and exploring it down to the last rock, learning all its secrets and besting all its adversaries. I love saving the world, and I love dominating the world with an iron fist.

I love video games, but I know they're not real. Don't get me wrong, I relish the experience and I get really into what I'm doing, but I never confuse fantasy with reality.

This guy, however, doesn't seem to be able to separate fantasy from reality. And that's genuinely scary because people who truly are like that belong in the looney bin. At its best, a video game is a form of interactive storytelling - and except for the interactive part, it's not all that different from our other forms of storytelling, like watching movies or reading a book. If you really enjoy reading Harry Potter, that's cool. If you think you are Harry Potter, then you have some serious problems. And (zealous parents take note) the book's not to blame for your problems.

Video games are getting better than ever, but they're just another form of entertainment. They will soar to new heights as the technology behind them allows for more and more realistic representations of real and totally fantastic worlds. But they won't cause you to be some mindless, addicted zombie or any of the other scary stuff the fearmongers casually throw around. Video games won't destroy humanity.

There still probably isn't a God

2008-11-22T11:40:00.010-05:00

There's an interesting take on the atheist bus campaign in a turkish editorial:

He wonders how buses with "There probably isn't a God. So stop worrying and enjoy life" on them would fare in Turkey. And even though he's a theist, he wouldn't have a problem with it because he believes in free speech. Awesome! I wish more Americans had that sort of attitude - one of the Imagine No Religion billboards just got pulled because of complaints. Land of the Free, indeed.

But then here comes atheist misconception #1:

by the way, atheism is a belief, not disbelief, as it is sometimes called mistakenly. A true disbeliever would be an agnostic, not an atheist.

Wrong, big time. Considering all gods to be imaginary is no more a belief system than considering ghosts or leprechauns or djinn to be imaginary.

Yet what interested me in all this was not just whether Turkish society has matured enough to allow such unorthodox views whether they be on God, Atatürk, or "Turkishness." We all know that the answer is not positive.

Yikes. What happened to that open society you were talking about earlier?

What interested me rather was the message given by the Dawkinsian atheists. From the premise that "there is probably no God," they were concluding, "now stop worrying and enjoy life." But why would the existence of God, rather than His nonexistence, be something that we should be worried about?

That's an excellent question. Allow me to illustrate:

In the Bible, hell is clearly described as a fiery, eternal torment for much of mankind, where "the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched" and there is a "weeping and gnashing of teeth".

Let's just say that there is a very good reason why the term "God-fearing" exists.

Now, I might be mistaken on this, but I'm pretty sure that believing these kinds of things doesn't exactly make for the ideal society. Especially if you sincerely think this sort of thing will happen to a family member or close friend for the unpardonable sin of not believing the right things.

So yes, I think it is fairly certain that people "worry" over God - both in the sense of divine fear (both the threat of hell and the more comical notion that God is some eternal policeman watching us commit trivial sins with stern disapproval) and the sense that whether or not God exists is something people puzzle over for much of their lives.

Belief in God is an obstacle to enjoying life.

Bingo! Yes, that's how it is seen.

Or, to put it differently, life is more fun when you don’t think that there is a God who gave it to you.

That one...not so much. That's one heck of a loaded statement, too. A more accurate depiction of a belief that a lot of atheists share is that life is more precious and important knowing that we have but one life to live and that not planning our lives according the wills of imagined Gods frees us up to determine what we want to get out of life and pursue it with all our strength.

Yet today most of us live in open, free societies. We are, thank God, no longer forced to be theists or atheists.

Amen to that.

Rather than being the traumatized victims of a neurosis, research has shown that religious people are actually, on average, mentally and physically healthier than secular people.

I rather doubt that. Here in the South portion of the United States, there is no shortage of crazy religious folks. I find it very hard to believe that, in the absence of religion, they'd have the same vocation with a secular cause instead.

...even some secular scientists have concluded that our brains are "hardwired for God." Why is that?

Wait, stop there. When scientists talk about the brain being "hardwired" for God, it's not usually in the sense that there's an "innate, physical conduit between human beings and God". We're talking about stuff like this:

Anthropologists like Atran say, "Religion is a byproduct of many different evolutionary functions that organized our brains for day-to-day activity."

We're talking about the same cognitive traits that evolved to help us survive may also lead us to superstitious thinking - we commonly anthropomorphize non-human things, attribute intelligence and will to inanimate things (my computer doesn't want to print!), see faces in the clouds, and easily develop causal superstitions (my favorite is post hoc ergo propter hoc).

One thing that might strengthen the atheist argument to "stop worrying" is that religious belief brings not just good news but also sobering responsibility. But then again, we have to ask whether man is happier when he feels free from responsibility or when he takes on responsibilities that he willingly fulfills.

What? Who said atheism meant shirking one's duties? If anything, the duties are increased, because one must now pursue knowledge and meaning on your own and act in a just manner while at the same time shouldering no small amount of bigotry from one's neighbors. It can be very tiresome indeed.

If I were an atheist, I would rather sit down, reflect about the meaninglessness and the inevitable tragic end of all my existence, and descend pessimistically into nihilism.

Jeez, atheist misconception #2! And boy is it a doozy! Come on Mustafa, you know better than that! There's a really good post about it over on Richard Dawkins'...oh wait, nevermind. Try here and here then.

I am rather happy because I am convinced that life has a meaning and death is not the end and that there is a God.

Cool. I'm rather happy too, and I don't believe in either a God or an afterlife.

Now they've gone too far

2008-11-22T00:36:00.005-05:00

Taliban militants burn down a video game store in Pakistan

They also recently hit a mosque with a suicide bombing, killing 12 other people. Disgusting.

The Internet is Killing Christianity

2008-11-21T12:50:00.006-05:00

Well, not really, but that didn't stop some Christian site from a gratuitously alarmist reaction to the news that there are atheists on the interwebs.

Comments poured in, and there was much lulz to be had: our children are in thrall to the demonic allure of internet irreverence, adults are having sex outside of marriage, gays are getting hitched - the end times are near! Clearly, this is a moral crisis in need of Spiritual Warriors!

Uggh. The horror.

But seriously, is the internet a detriment to religion? Possibly, but I rather doubt it's as harmful as the fundamentalists make it out to be. It's an open forum where ideas can freely compete - and I'm sure the risk of exposure to another viewpoint has frightened many a fundamentalist. And obviously, the anonymous nature of the internet makes it much easier to be more blasphemous than one might be able to be in real life (for example, I don't think I'd be able to pull off calling religions superstitious in public without risking harm). But it's also a place where like-minded believers congregate (and swap soundbites about America's perpetually imminent Godly destruction) and prop up each other's beliefs in the supernatural. And judging from the prominence of religion online and the ubiquitous presence of Godspam (preachy religious spam e-mails, often unintentionally hilarious in their faulty logic and repetition of urban legends), the internet is also a place of fervent evangelism.

No, the internet isn't killing Christianity. But its cosmopolitan nature raises serious problems for religious tribalism.

Why I Loathe Editorials

2008-11-20T21:09:00.008-05:00

I'm known to occasionally torture myself by reading letters to the editor. What I see doesn't encourage me.

The religious do vile work: Pascal's wager, "If there is no higher moral authority, then right and wrong do not and cannot exist because no one human is above another", here's a fine example of the Gish Gallop, and here's one playing on imagined atheist hopelessness and despair where the author sardonically quips "Perhaps, after death, we will learn by the silence and extinction predicted by the atheists that they were right in their belief that death is the end of us. Perhaps we will discover by the sounds of angel music that the atheists were wrong." The list goes on and on, a constant background din of ignorance and confusion. It's to be expected, but it's exasperating to see over and over and over again.

But ironically, a lot of the worst misconceptions and misunderstandings I've ever seen tend to come from atheists themselves, like when Scott Adams made a blog post in favor of Intelligent Design (the original post no longer exists, but reactions to it (including PZ's post) still do). It's an excellent reminder of the need to read up on the subject and come to an informed conclusion about it rather than shooting from the hip and coming out with something deeply embarrassing.

In the newspapers, the atheist voice is far too often a tangled mass of atheist buttery and we're left quibbling with each other rather than putting up a united front against the dogmatism that has enveloped our societies.

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. The author comes out and says that he doesn't believe in God then derides the atheist bus campaign because he thinks other atheists are smug and sanctimonious jerks who unfairly criticize religion (what on Earth does that have to do with the bus campaign?!).

Well, how are they wrong? As it turns out, he allows that they probably are right, but it's just not that simple. And that line just gets repeated over and over again. It's like arguing with somebody over the color of the sky. Eventually, he agrees that it's blue. "But wait!", he says, "It's not that simple, the clouds aren't blue!" Arrggh!

Why is it not that simple? Because people don't actually believe in a bearded guy in the sky - they just believe in a bearded guy who died for your sins then ascended up into heaven; God isn't actually anthropomorphic at all, Sistine Chapel not withstanding. Okay, even assuming that is right, people are still talking about a godlike entity somewhere in heaven (whatever that is) and that's just plain superstitious even allowing for the beardlessness. It's an utter non-point pretending to be a serious objection to atheist criticisms, and the article is filled with them. It's painful to read.

The other forms of atheist buttery are often in response to the New Atheist crusade against religion by people who aren't religious themselves, but nonetheless think that religion should stick around because people "need" religion.

Here's an example of that:

Some people only have enough willpower or brain power to accept the answers that others feed them. Others, have a little more willpower and/or brain power, and come up with answers (theories, religions) and provide them to other people. Still others are able to question those answers, and accept or reject them on the basis of reason. Finally, a scant few are even able to question their programming from where these questions arise.
But the vast majority of people fall into the first group; they simply need answers. Without the backdrop of religion, and the peaceful contribution of its answers, I’m not sure the human race would fare very well, or even survive. Granted, the answers are patently false, but they keep a lid on the boiling pot of the human psyche, and keep us from killing each other.

Resolved: morons need lies. I mean, come on, how condescending can we get? Surely people are smarter and more adaptable than that! Can't people make do without having some kind of sacred cow? Thankfully, this isn't a rhetorical question - vast portions of many European countries are non-religious - not just the hypothetical geniuses who alone can handle atheism, but the whole breadth of society, down to the janitors and fast-food cashiers.

It's exactly these kinds of things that keep us from having an effective voice in the community - we keep sending conflicting (and often inaccurate) messages about ourselves or intentions - one head of the hydra is always busily gnawing on its own neck.

New Atheism 101

2008-11-19T11:10:00.013-05:00

The name is a little misleading, since New Atheism is simply an extension of previous efforts by atheists to promote a naturalistic worldview and criticize religion. The main difference appears to be its "aggressive" nature - refusing to treat the topic of religion with kid gloves (a social faux pas), and railing away at the perceived absurdities of religious beliefs and casting greater emphasis on the harmful consequences of religious belief (such as Islamic terrorism and Christian advocacy of creationism and dominism). The Four Horsemen - the top advocates for the movement - are Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, who each wrote bestsellers on the topic of religion.

The goals seem to be to encourage nonbelievers to come out of the closet and work together, to break the spell of public deference paid to religions through conversational intolerance, and to protect and promote science education (this is the focus of Richard Dawkins in particular).

I sometimes jokingly refer to New Atheist movement as Celestial Being due the thematic similarities - much-resented "militancy" designed to end conflicts and ultimately bring about positive universal change.

But why did New Atheism suddenly explode on the scene? Worlds Apart has an excellent explanation:

The reason for the sensation are fairly straightforward I think: the silent majority of British people are now non-believers, yet religious organisations have seemingly been wielding a greater and greater degree of political influence in recent years, both domestically and internationally. Hence there is a deep well of non-religious frustration to be drawn upon. Furthermore, amongst intellectuals and scientists, there seems to be a high degree of frustration that religion has not withered away as many had expected, and that religion appears to be associated with the rejection of well supported scientific theories and evidence based reasoning in general.

In the United States, I think it's a reaction against organized religion in the wake of religious terrorism and violence, as well as increased intrusion by Christian conservatives in political/social affairs. A good chunk of it is also a growing non-religious population, especially among young adults, who are "getting fed up with being routinely marginalized, ignored and insulted", as the Nation puts it.

The criticisms

Like anything else, the New Atheist movement has its critics: everything from religious people who resent their beliefs being attacked to non-religious people who bemoan the "strident" tone of their fellow atheists.

The usual criticisms of this New Atheism are very predictable and not very convincing:

New Atheists criticize only fundamentalism, my "sophisticated" and nuanced religious beliefs remain untouched.

My reply: unless you've sophisticated yourself out of your religion entirely, you still hold to the core beliefs: miracles, divine plagues, the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus, angels, Satan, the divine authority of the Bible, the trinity, etc. Clearly, more than a couple of these are just as implausible as any fundamentalist belief.

New Atheists don't understand religion.

A strange accusation, since a substantial fraction of adult atheists come from a religious upbringing. PZ refutes the accusation with the Courtier's Reply , the rejoinder that one need not know everything about something to find it faulty - one doesn't have to read every last treatise on astrology to figure out that astrology is bunk or read every last painfully obtuse creationist tract to figure out that creationism is false. In fact, most religious people themselves spend vanishingly little time learning the beliefs of other religions that they themselves reject. When's the last time you heard a preacher tell the faithful that they mustn't eschew Islam without first reading the Koran and the hadiths?

New Atheists are dogmatic, arrogant, aggressive meanies.

Not much to say on this one, since it's more of a smear tactic than any actual argument. It's annoying how often this comes up, as if being congenial were more important than being truthful. More often than not, this perception is not the critic's fault, but a defense mechanism people have when any of their "deeply-held beliefs" come under scrutiny; people instinctively react with hostility and project aggressiveness onto the critic. In reality, "Even the most tigerish
of the New Atheists are pussycats in their rhetoric, compared to many others."

Religion Cards

2008-11-18T14:55:00.006-05:00

New Humanist has a side-splitting list of religion cards - various religions and denominations get their much-earned mockery in the form of being variously portrayed as obscenely wealthy and sheep-amassing giants who promulgate embarrassingly implausible beliefs and sanctimoniously take offense at nearly everything. (they'll probably take offense to that too) The atheists get off comparatively lightly - geeky and broke perhaps, but not self-deluded.
(Hat tip to PZ)

They really should expand on this idea. How about religion-based MTG cards?

Christians get White.
Pagans/Wiccans get Green.
Satanists get Black, of course.
For Muslims, I'm thinking Red for some reason.
Atheists get Blue (duh, logic and reason)
Jews get...d'oh, only five colors. Well, they get to share Red with the Muslims. That'll work out fine, I'm sure.

We Need to Organize

2008-11-18T10:55:00.007-05:00

One of the great things about atheism is its decentralized nature, we're all free to believe whatever we want - we're not bound to any sacred book, any dogma, or any particular leader. But it also makes it tough to agree on anything besides the basic fact that we all don't believe in gods. There's a reason why attempts to organize atheists are referred to as "herding cats".

And the disorganization has been very helpful in the past, when being outed as an atheist usually meant a cruel and unjust death. In medieval times, any centralized organization anathema to the church would quickly be destroyed by wrathful zealots, as pagan religions were demolished. Atheism survived in no small part due to its invisible nature. Religious doubt throughout world history has been like a hydra: you can lop off one head, but it survives - cities, even whole countries, can be firmly pressed into orthodoxy, and doubt can be discouraged in the cruelest and most barbaric ways, but all it ultimately does is drive doubt into secrecy there (where it inevitably outlasts its aggressors) while it prospers in freer societies elsewhere.

But that disorganization is also a huge handicap right now, because it means that atheists in America have very little political influence (to the point that it's commonplace for politicians to attempt to out-Jesus each other each election cycle and news shows can host "discussions" on atheism sans any actual atheists and say that atheists should sit down and shut up) and don't have a whole lot in the way of social support for other atheists (being a lone atheist is really tough, especially in the Bible Belt).

We need a community. We also need to get together and fight for what we believe in.

An atheist billboard? How offensive!

2008-11-17T16:36:00.018-05:00

Considering all the scorn heaped on the atheist bus ad, it's enlightening to look back at the last time the right-wing pundits were mad about "aggressive" atheist advertising:

Way of The Woo has the story: Fox News said that this billboard is offensive. Seriously. Their reputation as a wingnut propaganda machine is well-earned, but this was a new low even for them.

It's absolutely incredible what people think is "offensive" these days. Atheists can't even cough without ticking off a battalion of Christians with persecution complexes. Meanwhile, the religious right freely churns out hate to either zealous applause or indifference - the sheer scope of the hypocrisy is astounding.

Here's a little perception test: check out the following billboards and figure out which ones are offensive and which ones aren't.

If you thought that the first three are horribly offensive and inappropriate attacks on your faith that should be taken down immediately, but didn't flinch at any of the other salvos of overbearing evangelism, ignorance, and just plain creepy screeds - congratulations, you're a fundie.

Fundamentalists are great because they're so forthright and unapologetic - they let you know in advance that they're firmly committed to their supernatural beliefs and nothing will ever change their minds. They're exactly the kind of people that happily put up billboards to castigate atheists as "un-American" and then brazenly claim that it's the atheists who are intolerant. Unbelievable.