Oh My!

Deny Christ or die

Wacked out right-wing religiosity. I suppose I must be dead.

On The Issue Of Hate And The Sky Daddy

As an atheist I do not hate God. I cannot hate something that I do not believe in. Also, I do not hate believers. Even though I believe in their existence, I do not hate them. They sure do scare me sometimes, though. They also frustrate the hell out of me. Sometimes I even get a little angry with them. Jim Downey has helped me understand why I frequently feel this way.

I don’t hate the believers, yet it sure seems that many of them hate me. They also seem to fear me. That confuses me. After all, they have God on their side, and I don’t.

From So, do you "hate God"? by Jim Downey:

…the notion that atheists "hate God" has always struck me as being very insightful. No, no, not into our motivations or beliefs. Into the minds of the believers.

Because I don't give God much thought in my day to day existence. And I certainly don't spend any emotional energy on the Big Guy. Because, you know, I don't believe in Him. Or It. Or Them. In fact, the whole notion is about as silly as hating the Loch Ness Monster. It's just absurd.

Very interesting. Very insightful. Sometimes I think that I am slowly driving myself insane whenever I try to understand people who think and believe things (both political and religious) that are the exact opposite of what I believe. I find it very difficult to do, yet I continue to do it because I feel that I may learn something useful. I also feel that we need to agree on something/anything or we all shall perish into the abyss of total chaos. I wonder if those on the other side of the religious/political fence ever even try to understand the likes of me. It seems that I never have seen any signs of that happening. Even once.

Very often I am overwhelmed at the sheer verbosity of the religious when they try to use logic and evidence to prove the existence of God. They write and talk endlessly and never see that they have missed one little crucial point. You cannot make something out of nothing. Their logic and evidence are nonexistent. Everything that they offer as evidence and logic is actually make believe and pretend. And, as Jim Downey points out, they have some strange beliefs about atheists. They believe these things without evidence. This is why I believe that religion is very dangerous. If you can believe in the existence of God without any evidence, what is to stop you from believing in something else without evidence? (For example, that atheists hate God.) How many other things will you believe in before you truly jump into the deep end of lunacy? “Death panels” anyone?

How can one understand that which is impossible to understand? (I don’t mean God here, I mean the people that Jim Downey so aptly described.) How does one even begin to comprehend that another thinks that I can hate something that does not exist? It is mind boggling.

Thank you Mr. Downey for this little gem. And for Sky Daddy, as well.

Most Religious And And Least Prosperous

Matthew and Mark were close. They just left out the part about the first being last at the same time.

From Who Needs God When We've Got Mammon? by David Villano:

In a paper posted recently on the online journal Evolutionary Psychology, independent researcher Gregory S. Paul reports a strong correlation within First World democracies between socioeconomic well-being and secularity. In short, prosperity is highest in societies where religion is practiced least.

Using existing data, Paul combined 25 indicators of societal and economic stability — things like crime, suicide, drug use, incarceration, unemployment, income, abortion and public corruption — to score each country using what he calls the "successful societies scale." He also scored countries on their degree of religiosity, as determined by such measures as church attendance, belief in a creator deity and acceptance of Bible literalism.

Comparing the two scores, he found, with little exception, that the least religious countries enjoyed the most prosperity. Of particular note, the U.S. holds the distinction of most religious and least prosperous among the 17 countries included in the study, ranking last in 14 of the 25 socioeconomic measures.

Misguided?

From Atheist billboards are misguided by Jan Ainsworth:

In their latest poster campaign, Ariane Sherine and members of the British Humanist Association appear to have decided that it is a Very Bad Thing that parents might try and bring up their children within a religious or philosophical framework of their choosing. They suggest it is wholly unacceptable that anyone might suggest that their own child might belong to a particular religion.

While I know I risk offending the loyal and noble readers of Cif here, I genuinely can't believe that people actually donated good money to spend on billboard advertising that proposes such a misguided and patronising argument.

It is telling that Sherine resorts to quoting Richard Dawkins when she needs to find someone to explain the rationale for the campaign: "Children are routinely labelled with the religion of their parents", Dawkins suggests. By who, exactly? And if the answer is by their parents, who are the BHA to tell them to stop?

It is surely central to the role of a parent, whether committed to a religious faith or not, to want to pass on to their child the things they value most, the beliefs and world view that shape how they live. It is also consistent with that role to want to have those beliefs and world view acknowledged and affirmed as part of their children's education.

Read the rest here.

Why does this seem to bother Jan Ainsworth so much? Her spurious arguments and reasoning can simply be reversed and used to support Ariane Sherine and to denigrate herself. Of course this would be as useless and as pointless as what Ainsworth is trying to do. Yes, people should have freedom of religion. People also should have freedom of speech. If Sherine wants to spend money to express herself, then who is Jan Ainsworth to tell her to stop? All of this seems so pointless.

Speaking from personal experience, what matters the most to me about this issue is that people can end up getting hurt. If the child makes the choice to turn to another religion, or to atheism, there is immense potential for things to get very ugly.

The indoctrination of a child into a religion puts the child who doesn’t believe in their parent’s religion in a terrible position. The child must choose between what he/she sees as the truth, and his or her parents. Were his parents lying to him, or simply misguided? This is not an easy thing to deal with. The more that the religion defines who the parents are, the harder it is for the non-believing child.

This also puts the parents in a terrible position. If they truly believe, then their child will suffer for being a nonbeliever. Look out below, my kid’s going to hell.

I realize that some parents may be able to respect the wishes of their child to not believe as they do. However, simply by definition, their religion will not allow them to see their child as whole anymore. God will not accept him anymore. If they truly believe, then how can they accept him anymore? To me, this is absolutely monstrous. I find all of this to be very hard to put into words adequately, so I hope that some sense of what I mean is coming through.

Religious people claim to be compassionate. To me, they never seem to be very compassionate when this issue is brought up.

Oh, and it’s even worse if the child is gay or has had an abortion.

Before I go, here is one final quibble. Why the hell does Ainsworth write: “It is telling that Sherine resorts to quoting Richard Dawkins when she needs to find someone to explain…” Why is this “telling?” Could someone tell me? The only reason I can think of for Ainsworth to write this is because it comes off as some kind of insult directed towards Ariane Sherine. Poor woman, she can’t think for herself, she has to quote Dawkins. Yet, it’s not an insult to say that she quoted Dawkins, is it? I hate it when people do this kind of thing. It serves no useful purpose. Is it telling when Ainsworth quotes from the Bible? (I assume that she does, frequently.)

Voiding The Void

Disbelief in God does not equate to nothingness, no matter how many times some people say that it does.

From Atheism: A Cost/Benefit Analysis by Randal Rauser:

Let's just admit it: atheism boasts some significant advantages. For one thing, the atheist does not have to get up early on Sunday mornings and corral the kids in a frantic effort to make the service on time. Rather, he is free to loll around the house, reading the Sunday paper over a cup of smoky French Roast while getting all the latest political gossip on "Meet the Press" and "Face the Nation".

And there is no requirement to give to the poor. If the Christian kept the hundreds (or thousands) of dollars that she spends every month in tithes, in no time she too could have a new Samsung LED TV sparkling in her living room.Now that's the good life!

And while the Christian groans under the weight of the cross she has been directed to take up and carry every day, the atheist is free to go play tennis, ride a bike, or do simply whatever his little heart desires. Not bad at all!

But like the "Don't pay for sixty days" ads for that new Samsung TV, atheism also has a cost that eventually comes due. And you start paying it once you begin to realize that, according to atheism, we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing. For the shallow atheist, that "for nothing" promises to liberate (no obligations!). But the thoughtful atheist understands that "for nothing" means that there is no meaning or purpose to life. And the repercussions of that are staggering indeed.

So staggering is the cost that many atheists cannot admit that there is no meaning to life, and so they engage in the futile and self-deceptive attempt to project meaning onto the universe.

Once again we have a religious mind-reader telling us what atheists think. Because I do not believe in God, the arrogant assholes tell anyone who will listen that my life has no meaning. How dare they assume that what I do, say, and think has no meaning to me. How dare they say that my wife and family have no meaning to me!

Whose life is more shallow? One who only finds meaning from believing in God, or one who finds meaning in everything but believing in God?

Does Randal Rauser actually believe that there is no meaning to life? ("So staggering is the cost that many atheists cannot admit that there is no meaning to life.") Why does he care if some atheists do find meaning to life? Perhaps he’s jealous.

Some Tips

Here is some advice to make Christians act, well, more Christian when dealing with atheists. Another ten commandments, as it were. When dealing with atheists thou shalt not do these things. Do you think that any of them will pay any attention?

From Ten Tips for Christian Evangelists (Courtesy of Atheists) by Hemant Mehta:

5. Don’t talk about Jesus like he’s part of the conversation.

The people you’re talking to don’t share your beliefs, so they’re not going to be thrilled to hear that Jesus is listening in on their thoughts and sending messages or providing inspiration to the person talking to them.

This makes you come off as either crazy or… well, mostly crazy. I get that you actually believe that Jesus is alive and God is everywhere and all-knowing, but to non-Christians, he’s just an imaginary friend of yours, and so telling us to listen for his voice in our hearts is creepy.

6. Don’t plant literature.

We’re already stuck with Bibles in hotel rooms (thanks for that, Gideons and pushover hotels!). There’s no need to hide tracts inside books at the bookstore or leave those horrible fake $20 bill pamphlets with (or instead of) the tip at a restaurant. They don’t work. They’re impersonal, often accusatory, and extremely classless. If someone isn’t already a Christian, a pamphlet isn’t going to change that.

8. Don’t assume that we have “God-shaped holes in our hearts” and try to get us to admit it.

I certainly think that religion helps meet various psychological needs, and there are plenty of warm, fuzzy feelings (and deeper emotional experiences as well) that come along with it. But just because you have a proverbial hole-in-your-heart that only Jesus can fill doesn’t mean that all of us do.

Trying to convince us that our lives suck or are incomplete without God isn’t going to work. Stop insulting us and implying that we’re secretly miserable. We’re getting along just fine without any gods, so this line of strategy won’t work.

9. Don’t compare your past experiences to our present.

I cannot count the number of times I’ve heard Christians enthusiastically share their stories of horrible, sinful lives that left them feeling empty and lonely.

These “sinful” lives usually consisted of such shockers as swearing, going to R-rated movies, looking at porn, drinking, partying, smoking, and occasionally doing drugs. Oh — and having premarital sex.

The thing is, maybe these things made you feel guilty or empty; maybe you developed addictions or other problems relating to these activities, and maybe you’re much happier now that you don’t do them. That’s great. But it doesn’t mean that hearing your story is going to shock us or convince us to change our ways. There is such a thing as a healthy balance, and it can include some (or maybe all) of those “vices.”

This tactic seems especially silly when different Christians groups and denominations can’t seem to decide what’s sinful and what’s not.

10. Don’t talk down to us, as if we’re just not understanding something perfectly obvious.

Many of us have read the Bible, prayed, attended church for years, and still ended up as atheists. There’s no magic bullet that converts people to Christianity. Whatever experience led you to believe probably happened on a pretty personal level. We haven’t witnessed anything miraculous or heard any voices, and we don’t see anything self-evident about God in nature or humanity. So if you insist on trying to save us, at least familiarize yourself with our perspective before jumping in, because assuming we’re simply uninformed or dumb is only going to hurt your chances.

I singled out these five of the ten tips because I have had similar thoughts on these issues for many years.

It is annoying and even insulting to an atheist to have Jesus become a part of a conversation or greeting when he has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It pisses me off that God is all over the place. No, I suddenly did not start to believe in God. What I mean by God being all over the place is that he is on our money, in our mottos, our Pledge of Allegiance, our swearing in ceremonies, at the end of Presidential speeches, etc. I find all of these things to be ridiculous and insulting, as well as illegal. (I know that the courts don't agree with me on the illegal part. However, they've been wrong before, you know.) And yes, God's book is in my hotel room, even though I didn’t ask for it, and I don’t want it there.

I would be miserable if I tried to be religious. It’s not the other way around. I would always know that I was lying to myself if I pretended to believe in God. I allow you your belief, please allow me my non-belief. Let’s leave it at that. The problems come when you try to convert me. The problems come when you try to inject your beliefs into the public dialog and pretend that they are facts. I am not trying to stop you from believing. I just think that you are being stupid by believing. I think that you are being stupid giving your money away. I think you are being stupid when you elect George W. Bush because of his values.

I don’t need God to make me be a moral person. I don’t need to be born again. There is nothing wrong with me in that department. I’ve got plenty of other flaws that need working on, and no imaginary monarch (good Lord!) is going to help me there. Oh, and by the way, it would be a little bit easier to even think about believing in God if he himself was a little bit more moral. Not to mention his sexually abusive priests.

Yes! Please don’t talk down to us. I've been down the religious road. I reject it. I’ve read (and still do read) chunks of the Bible. It hasn’t made me believe. If God’s own words don’t make me believe, why are you so arrogant to think that you have something to add?

Not all religious people are arrogant and rude. It’s just that the ones who are arrogant and rude happen to be especially so. I find it most irritating to have someone place their need to convert me above my existence as a fellow human being. If you are going to try to convert me, you should, at the very least, try to get to know me first.

Religious people seem to be the least empathic people on the planet. It is unfortunate that there are so many of them.

Church Attendance Is Flat

My guess is that the local bar, pub, and tavern has seen an increase in attendance.

From Poll Finds No Boost in Church Attendance during Economic Crisis by Audrey Barrick:

While tens of thousands of Americans have been laid off in recent months and religious leaders have blamed corporate greed for the economic crisis, churches have not seen a jump in attendance numbers as many might have expected, according to a new poll.

Over the last three months, about 42 percent of Americans reported that they attended church, synagogue, or mosque weekly or almost every week, which the Gallup Poll found to be the same percentage reported earlier in the year.

History has shown that a significant crisis usually results in fuller pews, as was seen after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. During this latest crisis of economic challenges, some reports have indicated that houses of worship have drawn larger crowds.

But while some churches have seen higher numbers, the recent Gallup Poll found "absolutely no change" in church attendance after reviewing almost 300,000 interviews Gallup conducted throughout this year.

Read the rest here.

Billboards And Bus Signs And Histrionics, Oh My!

I don’t really care if “theists and atheists are guilty of histrionics.” So what?

From Both theists and atheists are guilty of histrionics by Steve Goble:

On the one hand, I fully support the rights of everyone -- on both sides -- to express their views. I'm deeply grateful to live in a country where people can debate these things openly. It's good that the sign battle has people talking about these matters. As long as people are talking, there's a chance at understanding. Not much of a chance, considering the deep divide, but a chance nonetheless.

It's also refreshing to note that people who feel differently from the majority no longer seem intimidated, and are no longer content to keep quiet. We all live here, and we all have a right to be who we are.

So far, so good.

OK, I have some serious problems with the billboard battles as well, and not so much stemming from the signs themselves as from the reactions they spark. It is appalling that so many people are howling "those people shouldn't be allowed to say that!" Or, "They should get out of America if they don't believe in our God!"

C'mon. It's a free country, remember? If you disagree with one side or the other, that's fine, but don't toss the Bill of Rights into a trash bin. If you dislike the other guy's sign, get your own sign.

It also bugs me that so many people these days instantly see any opposing viewpoint -- on just about any topic, but especially regarding religion -- as a "vicious attack." Say you don't believe in God, or that you want the government out of the religion business, and you are lambasted as an "atheist" who "hates Christians" and wants to "wage war" on "all that is good." If you tell someone you believe in God, you get labeled as an "anti-intellectual theocrat" who wants to "cram religion down everybody's throat."

Sorry. It's not a vicious attack on atheists if someone else believes in God and says so out loud. It's not a vicious attack on Christianity if someone believes in something else, and says so.

I think the histrionics on both sides hinder discussion and understanding. Consider the Bible-believer who says, "This is a Christian nation and if those God-haters don't like it, they can leave!" That person leaves the false impression that Bible-believers are all narrow-minded fools, which is not true. Some Christians believe that, but not the majority.

Consider the atheist who says, "Christians are all morons who want to set up a theocracy and burn the witches!" That person reinforces the false idea that all atheists hate Christians -- again, not true. Some atheists believe that way, but not the majority.

Hysterical, unreasoned comments from both camps prompt sensible people in the middle to keep their heads down and stay out of the discussion -- thereby assuring that nobody is actually listening to anybody.

In a debate like that, who wins?

It all depends on who the moderator of the debate is. If he is biased to one side or the other, then that is who will win. Otherwise this is a debate that no one will really win. The atheists claim their side has already won, the religious believe that their side has already won. Is that the best we can do? Agree to disagree?

I think that the “histrionics” (Steve Goble’s word, not mine) are an important part of the debate. Eliminate the fringe and you have censorship. Who gets to decide which voices are “histrionic” and which are not? The fringe are the most intolerant. Eliminate the fringe from the debate and you eliminate the debate itself.

I think that we are talking about more than one debate here. The debate that concerns me the most is actually the one in which “histrionics” plays the biggest part. The “agree to disagree” world would be one that I could be content with. Unfortunately it is not our reality. The reason many atheists are speaking out more frequently and more loudly as of late is because religion has become increasingly more political. It’s bad enough that religion has always been political, but we did have the Enlightenment and the U.S. Constitution, which led to a period of a little bit of separation of church and state. Now, we are taking steps backward. It seems to me that Roe v Wade was too much for many religious people to take, and that 9/11 and George W. Bush (along with his fundie following) were too much for non-believers to take. Sam Harris acknowledges that 9/11 was a catalyst that caused him to write The End of Faith. This debate is not really about whether God exists or not. It is about whether believing in God has made us more intolerant of one another. It is about whether believing in God can cause one person to kill another person, in the name of God. Let me take a moment here to point out that most atheists would believe in God if they were given irrefutable proof of his/her/its existence. Most atheists simply want to live a life of reason, and would prefer that reason dictate the choices made by others that have an effect on said atheists. In other words, it pisses me off that George W. Bush hears the voice of something akin to the tooth fairy as support for his invasion of Iraq. And I agree with what Sam Harris (who believes that religion played a large part in the 9/11 attacks) writes on page 31 in The End of Faith:

As I have said, people of faith tend to argue that it is not faith itself but man’s baser nature that inspires such violence. But I take it to be self-evident that ordinary people cannot be moved to burn genial old scholars alive for blaspheming the Koran, or celebrate the violent deaths of their children, unless they believe some improbable things about the nature of the universe. Because most religions offer no valid mechanism by which their core beliefs can be tested and revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the superstitions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors. If we would speak of the baseness of our natures, our willingness to live, kill, and die on account of propositions for which we have no evidence should be among the first topics of discussion.

How willing are the religious to have this discussion? This is a simple debate about life and death, about pain and suffering caused because of religious beliefs. (It is curious, as well as despicable, that for those who chant the mantra of “Choose life” that life seems to not be a state of existence that pertains to adults and children.)

If the debate is simply about the existence of God, it seems that this should be an easy debate to have. And it actually is. There is no proof for the existence of God. Believe if you must, but there simply is no proof. Yes, the universe is a wonderful place. Yes, it exists. The fact that the universe exists is not proof that God exists. There is no reason to think that someone had to create the universe in order for the universe to exist. (In spite of the big bang theory, I tend to think that the universe had no beginning, and will have no end. No one had to create anything.)

Let’s get back to Steve Goble. He should read The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. Sam Harris has plenty to say about religious moderates and religious extremists. In fact, Harris’ viewpoint is completely the opposite of Goble’s.

From page 20 of The End of Faith:

While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. From the perspective of those seeking to live by the letter of the texts, the religious moderate is nothing more than a failed fundamentalist. He is, in all likelihood, going to wind up in hell with the rest of the unbelievers. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God. Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance - and it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on par with fundamentalism. The texts themselves are unequivocal: they are perfect in all their parts. By their light, religious moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness to fully submit to God’s law. By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question - i.e., that we know there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us - religious moderation will do nothing to lead us out the the wilderness.

How can we come together when we play by three very different sets of rules? The atheist plays by the rules of reason, the religious moderate plays by the rules of faith and reason, and the religious extremist plays by the rules of faith.

I feel that I must point out to Steve Goble that from the atheists point of view there is no such thing as a reasoned point of view from either the religious moderate or the religious extremist. Therefore, atheists do not see the religious moderate and the religious extremist as “sensible people.”

Steve Goble says “It's not a vicious attack on atheists if someone else believes in God and says so out loud.” I agree. I also know of no atheists making this claim, so I’m not sure what his point is. What is disturbing to many atheists is when the belief in God is taken outside of the realm of the church and into the secular world. I have already mentioned violence and killing. Add to that the issues of abortion, stem-cell research, and the creationism/evolution “debate.” These are vicious attacks on reason and logic, and they are too much to take lying down. These are also “debates” that simply have no place in the secular world, because belief is not proof.

Girl Kisses Girl And Goes To Fantasy Land

From "Ugh" of the day by Tracy Clark-Flory:

Unless you failed all summer long to turn on the radio, watch television or step foot outside of your apartment, I shouldn't have to explain that a sign displayed outside of Havens Corners Church in Blacklick, Ohio, reading, "I kissed a girl and I liked it, then I went to Hell" is an attack on Katy Perry's infectious single "I Kissed a Girl." (A sampling of the lyrics for cave dwellers: "I kissed a girl and I liked it/ The taste of her cherry ChapStick/ I kissed a girl just to try it/ I hope my boyfriend don't mind it.")

From Today in Fundie Insanity by Jude T:

I wasn't aware that Hell had a work-release program for damned souls to make church signs.

The sign is probably the work of an escaped soul. Sam, Sock, and Ben better get to work.

Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves

From Is Buffy Responsible For Slaying Women's Church Attendance?

Today’s modern woman sees more relevance in TV icons who promote female empowerment such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, than in church and traditional religion, according to new research to be published in the Church Times this week.

Dr Kristin Aune, a sociologist at the University of Derby, says the church (all Christian denominations) must act to halt the steep decline in female attendance at services across the country.

She says: “In short, women are abandoning the church.”

Read the rest here.

The implication by Dr. Aune seems to be that there is something wrong with women not attending church. What I see as a good thing, Dr. Aune (a sociologist) sees as a bad thing. Women who think independently are deciding to leave the church and Dr. Aune does not seem to be very happy with this. The church “must act to halt” this terrible thing. What kind of sociologist says something like this? Are sociologists supposed to be biased in the way that Dr. Aune obviously is?

And the whole Buffy the Vampire Slayer thing just seems like a way for the author of the article and Dr. Aune to draw attention to themselves.

Nothing Sacred

From God's Word by Wendy Kaminer:

Whether the media lead or follow cultural trends, they rarely, if ever, challenge them. The mass media cover religious belief faithfully, in accordance with conventional wisdom about its virtues. Mark Silk, author of Unsecular Media, observes that print coverage of religion "tends to be softball" because "a lot of readers go to church" and, in general, "newspapers and newsweeklies are not in the business of offending their readers."

I'm not arguing that the media should make a practice of attacking religious beliefs as mindlessly as it promotes them, airing the invectives of militant atheists along with the pieties of believers. I am suggesting that "nothing sacred" is a good motto for critics and journalists. It doesn't imply cynicism or nihilism, but rather a purposeful skepticism--a willingness to interrogate our most passionate beliefs and assumptions. Religions exert immense social and political power; how can we abdicate our responsibility to critique them? Religions are collections of ideas about God, and ideas should be subject to hazing.

At Least He's Not An Atheist

From Zamora: 'I kill for God' by Moses Mendoza and Vanessa Ho:

Isaac Zamora, accused in the deaths of six people, says he kills for God.

"I kill for God. I listen to God," Zamora said twice Friday, his first public words after being arrested in the killings of a deputy, two neighbors, two construction workers and a motorist.

Read the rest here.

Oh My, A Pastor Who Lied!

Nine Network's Caroline Hillman reports on a pastor who lied about having cancer to cover up his sexual addictions:

One Reason Why I Am Anti-Religion

In the jargon of the blogosphere, PZ Myers nails it.

From Will we ever stop running away from the source of the problem? by PZ Myers:

This story about the struggles of a high school biology teacher in Florida is depressing. David Campbell, the teacher, is a hero — but it's the kind of hero sent off to suffer and fail in a misplaced struggle, who dutifully falls in battle, a victim of bad leadership and poor strategy. It's the same old tactics the educational bureaucracy has been pushing for 50 years or more: tip-toe gently about the subject of religion, never challenge the idiocy students bring into the classroom with them, always strain to allow them to accommodate science to their personal superstitions…which means pretending that science doesn't directly contradict their cherished myths. It doesn't work and has never worked, and the problem gets worse and worse every year.

Throughout the story, the teacher is striving to be respectful to religion (he's an Anglican himself) while the students are being arrogant dumbasses who refuse to listen to this evolution stuff. There is a villain here, but the article doesn't point a finger directly, nor does David Campbell place the blame: but the willfully anti-science students are victims of church and dogma. It's gotten so bad that it's not just parents and students who are opposing good science education, it's some of the teachers themselves. One of Campbell's fellow biology teachers is busily inculcating students with stupidity, too.

Animals do adapt to their environments, Ms. Yancey tells her students, but evolution alone can hardly account for the appearance of wholly different life forms. She leaves it up to them to draw their own conclusions. But when pressed, she tells them, "I think God did it."

Mr. Campbell was well aware of her opinion. "I don't think we have this great massive change over time where we go from fish to amphibians, from monkeys to man," she once told him. "We see lizards with different-shaped tails, we don't see blizzards—the lizard bird."

That that woman is a public school science teacher is an indictment of the educational system in this country. We can tell right away what has made her stupid, though: I think God did it. She's been infected with religion.

Read the rest here.

Religion, by definition, stomps on the smoldering embers of critical, factual thinking of the youngest among us until the embers are dead. It is not always possible to ignite them again, and most of those among us spend their lives in the dark. They become “sheep” following some of the most insane “shepherds” the world has to offer.

Why does this trouble me? Because I must live in this world with them. They undermine our educational system, as PZ Myers points out. Also, they are responsible for violent leaders like George W. Bush coming to power. How many atheists do you suppose voted for Bush? My guess would be none.

Religion is a dangerous disease.

The Best They've Got

Once upon a time some atheists wrote some books. Some religious people don’t like these books. So some of them wrote some books too. They also wrote articles, columns, and blog posts, too.

All the responses to the books that the hallowed atheists have written that I have read have one thing in common. Lies. They are full of lies and misrepresentations.

Norris Burkes has written something called Turn a deaf ear to whispers of hatred. Even the title is despicable. I’ll come back to why this is so a little later.

Norris Burkes is a civilian hospital chaplain and an Air Force Guard chaplain. He of all people should not be lying to other people. But he does.

Here is lie number one:

But more often than not, people ignore the whisper of hate, which is where we get our word “ignore-ance.”

I have googled the etymology of the word ignorance. Nothing I found says what Burkes claims. If someone finds something which proves what he has written is true, please let me know, and I will correct this.

Burkes then goes on and claims that the big three of book-writing atheists are “infectious carriers” of hatred.

In the world of religion, I’ve yet to see more infectious carriers than I’ve seen in the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. These evangelical atheists would have you believe that all our problems stem from all forms of religious faith.

In his Dec. 3, 2006, New York Times op-ed piece, columnist Nicholas Kristof pleads for a “Truce on Religion.”

Criticizing what he calls “an increasingly assertive, often obnoxious atheist offensive,” Kristof identifies Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion,” as leading the “Charge of the Atheist Brigade.”

“It’s a militant, in-your-face brand of atheism,” Kristof writes. “Such discrimination on the basis of (non) belief is insidious and intolerant, and undermines our ability to have far-reaching discussions about faith and politics.”

Now, let’s go back and look at the title that Burkes chose. Turn a deaf ear to whispers of hatred. What kind of discussion can you have about faith and politics when one side refuses to even listen to the other?

“These evangelical atheists would have you believe that all our problems stem from all forms of religious faith.” This is an outright lie. Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins claim that some of our problems come from religious faith, not all of them.

I can’t speak for all atheists, but I can speak for myself. This atheist is “on the offensive” because I’m tired of being lied to by hypocrites. The hypocrites who aren’t supposed to lie. The hypocrites who resort to calling other people names when they lie. Let’s be clear about something here. Religion is by its definition and practice “insidious and intolerant.” I would not describe atheists as insidious, but we can be intolerant of religion and religious people. So what? Each side can be intolerant of the other. It goes with the territory. Get used to it.

Burkes quotes Nicholas Kristof:

“Every time I travel in the poorest parts of Africa, I see missionary hospitals ... churches (that) galvanize their members to support soup kitchens, homeless shelters and clinics that otherwise would not exist. Religious constituencies have pushed for more action on AIDS, malaria, sex trafficking and Darfur’s genocide, and believers often give large proportions of their incomes to charities that are a lifeline to the neediest.”

As far as I know, no atheist is denying the good things that religious people have done. We just don’t think that doing good and charitable work requires a belief in a god. Simple as that. So the Kristof quote is totally irrelevant to the point that Burkes is trying to make. Which I see as another lie from Burkes.

Here is more from Burkes:

Kristof concludes, “We’ve suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance.”

Amen, Kristof. We can’t allow intolerance of either kind. We must allow room for the conversation.

This is a typically arrogant viewpoint that atheists must deal with when faced with those of faith. Absolutely no empathy with the other side. How rude can you be? The thought of showing tolerance toward the atheist never, ever enters their small, closed minds. “We must allow room for the conversation.” Again, I remind you of the title: Turn a deaf ear to whispers of hatred. The only conversation that Burkes will tolerate is a one-sided one. He gets to talk. Don’t ever listen to those goddamned atheists.

Burkes does at least have some awareness:

Fortunately, I have friends and readers who are the kind of atheists who put the human in “humanist.” When I ask them what they want from the faithful, they tell me two things. First, they are tired of people making the assumption that an atheist can’t possibly be a moral, upstanding, civic-minded person and not believe in God.

It is a myth that atheists have no morals. It is a good thing that Burkes is aware of this.

Burkes closes with something else I agree with. A call to end all the hate. Perhaps Mr. Burkes could start with himself. First, he could stop hating atheists. Second, he could encourage others to stop hating atheists. Try to love your enemies. Love for Hitchens! Love for Harris! Love for Dawkins!

Yes, let’s try to end all the hate. However, before we can do that, we need to end all the lies.

I doubt that people like Burkes will do that. Lies are the best they’ve got.

Not All Judges Are Wise

U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns is an idiot.

From Cross Purposes: Federal Court Says Christian Symbol Is Really ‘Patriotic’ by Sandhya Bathija:

Apparently, a cross, which is the preeminent symbol of Christianity, is now also a symbol of American patriotism.

At least according to a federal judge in California, who ruled yesterday that the Latin cross atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego is not considered a religious symbol and can be mounted on federal government land.

Read the rest here.

Points And Rights And Hard Thinking And Rethinking

I sincerely hope that there are more Christians like this one.

From Questions > Answers:

Religion fascinates me, as do attacks on it, now that I accept them as a good and necessary thing rather than something to get all knee-jerky about. Fundamentalism basically trains you to just say, “I’m Right, because the Bible says so!” and either storm out of the room or add a placid, “I’ll pray for you.” Neither approach is acknowledging that the opposition has, er, a point, or even the right to one.

Read the rest here.

I have had way too much experience with the “I’m Right, because the Bible says so!” and “I’ll pray for you” ones.

Many religious people seem so threatened by any sort of skepticism concerning the notion of faith that my usual conclusion is that they actually have none and refuse to admit it.

From later on in Questions > Answers:

Wilson tends to pick and choose from the different gospels, rejecting certain things outright - Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem, for instance, which does sound pretty unlikely in those days of primitive and frankly dangerous travel - yet accepting others that seem as random (his distant blood relation to John the Baptist) and even going on to build fairly extensive speculations based on the accepted “fact” (quotes because why this is somehow more probable than Bethlehem seems to be a little sketchy). In this, he’s no different from most Bible folk, who skip all sorts of things in Leviticus, like selling your daughter into slavery and sacrificing bulls, as well as verses like “Be ye separate,” which the Amish take quite literally. I prefer his approach, where the New Testament is poked and prodded and manhandled in a genuine, heartfelt search for answers rather than slapped with the bumper sticker “God Said It. I Believe It. That’s All There Is to It.” Wilson’s way forces some hard thinking and often rethinking. I like this, even if many so-called Christians seem to not just dislike it, but actively recoil at the very thought of it.

Many religious people do seem to think that it is OK to pick and choose what to believe from the Bible. In spite of the fact that they do this, they seem incapable of thinking that an atheist, like myself, could do this also. Let alone find any value in it. Whether Christ was fictional or factual is irrelevant to me. Some of the things that he supposedly said, by way of the Bible, are valid and morally correct. I don’t deny them. I like them. I also think that most of the Bible is bunk and incredibly harmful. And of course, the difference between them and me is that they are supposed to believe all of the Bible, and I have the freedom to do with the Bible as I choose.

Crackers And Wafers And Rudeness, Oh My!

Some other bloggers, internetters, and unmentionables think that PZ Myers was rude or abusive to the Catholics because he “didn't accord the Eucharist proper respect.” Some think that he is a jerk. Some find his conduct reprehensible. Just what is the proper respect that an atheist should have for the Eucharist?

Here’s what Catholics believe about atheists like Mr. Myers and myself:

We will spend eternity burning in hell. They believe this just as much as they believe in transubstantiation.

How rude is that?

The god that the Catholics believe in is a fucking asshole.

How rude is that?

For a more sane perspective on all of this visit Majikthise.

The world would be a better place with no religion at all.

One Man's Body Of Christ Is Another Man's Frackin' Cracker

This is a long one. Father forgive me, for I know not what I do.

It seems to me that we have yet another case of faith versus reason, of religion versus science, of belief versus fact. Who will win this time? Whose side are you on? Will it cost a university biology teacher his job? I hope not.

Just how evolved are we? Not very, if PZ Myers loses his job over this.

From Communion wafer held 'hostage' raises holy heck by Paul Walsh:

A Minnesota university instructor and avowed atheist is jousting with a national Catholic watch dog group over a smuggled communion wafer, which the associate professor dismisses as a "frackin’ cracker."

Paul Z. Myers, who teaches biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris, on his blog this week expressed amazement that a Florida college student who briefly took a wafer "hostage" from a church ceremony has been receiving death threats for an action that was characterized "a hate crime" by the Catholic League.

Under the headline, "It’s a frackin’ cracker!" Myers wrote in an at-times profane blog entry: "Crazy Christian fanatics right here in our own country have been threatening to kill a young man over a cracker. This is insane."

"It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ," Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a news release. "We look to those who have oversight responsibility to act quickly and decisively."

Read the rest here.

I would like to point out that Mr. Myers’s blog is called Pharyngula.

If there isn’t a term called “Universal Acceptance”, then there should be. (And give me the credit for coming up with it, if there isn’t.) I’ll give some examples, in order to define what I mean by Universal Acceptance. I would say that murder is universally accepted as being morally wrong and that people should be punished when they commit murder. Anyone disagree? No? That is Universal Acceptance. It is different from Majority Rule. Universal Acceptance stands the test of time, Majority Rule does not. Universal Acceptance always “wins” in the end, Majority Rule does not. Universal Acceptance is always right, Majority Rule can be right, but it can also be wrong. Slavery is an example of this difference. The earth being thought of as flat, but now being accepted as being round is another example. Universal Acceptance has truth on its side, Majority Rule does sometimes, but not always. Universal Acceptance can give power to minorities, Majority Rule does not. The Republic of the United States of America gives us a good example of this. Universal Acceptance is Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all believing in the Constitution together. Majority Rule is one of the parties electing a good or bad president. The Constitution endures, the president can be remembered (Lincoln or Washington) or fade away (Franklin Pierce). Universal Acceptance is the Constitution saying “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Majority Rule is Christians thinking the United States is a Christian nation. Deciding who has committed a Universally Accepted as wrong murder is decided by Majority Rule (a jury), and that decision is sometimes right and sometime wrong. Science is Universally Accepted, religion is Majority Rule. Religion really is Majority Rule and not Universally Accepted, even though most religions claim they are a minority, and that they are persecuted. If religion truly was Universally Accepted, there would only be one religion and no atheists.

Although it may appear that they do, these statements do not contradict one another: “Universal Acceptance is always right.” “The earth being thought of as flat, but now accepted as being round is another example.” “Science is Universally Accepted, religion is Majority Rule.”

Even though scientists of the time thought that the world was flat, this belief was Majority Rule and not Universal Acceptance. Scientists can change their minds to suit the facts. Theists are not supposed to change their minds, and are supposed to ignore the facts. Universal Acceptance is dictated to by factual evidence, Majority Rule is dictated to by people who have been influenced by some combination of factual evidence, emotions and belief. I can’t think of how to say it better. (Please forgive this humble blogger.) The “some combination” means that any of the three could be set to zero, so to speak. For example, factual evidence does not need to be part of the equation. Majority Rule could be dictated to by people who have been influenced by emotions and belief without any factual evidence. Or by people who have been influenced by emotions only. And so on.

From IT'S A FRACKIN’ CRACKER! by PZ Myers:

So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address.

Let’s assume that PZ Myers has gone ahead and done the deed.

I propose that PZ Myers is not desecrating the body of Christ in the form of a wafer. He does not believe in the body of Christ in the form of a wafer. Mr. Myers believes he is desecrating a wafer. Is that a crime? Now, you may point out that many Catholics believe the wafer IS the body of Christ and that Mr. Myers should respect that belief. Why? Jewish people do not believe that the wafer is the body of Christ. If Mr. Myers were to respect the beliefs of the Catholics in this instance, isn't that disrespectful to all Jewish people? (Let's not even consider any of those heretical atheists.) Buddhists do not believe it, either. Anyone from a non-Christian religion does not believe it. Only in the minds of Catholic believers is PZ Myers actually desecrating the body of Christ. For the rest of us the body of Christ decomposed a long time ago. Where do you draw the line?

I say it is time to call on a super hero. Let’s bring out our hero: Universal Acceptance. He is always right and knows just what to do.

Clearly this matter flunks the Universal Acceptance test. Why? Because I said so. I believe in Universal Acceptance. And I get to decide what’s right and what’s true. And I made it all up, just like the Catholics made up all the stuff they believe in. I'm only playing by their rules. Seems fair to me. If the Catholics can use the argument of belief, then why can’t I? And why can’t PZ Myers? He believes that the wafer is not the body of Christ. PZ Myers should get to keep his job, and Bill Donohue should shut the hell up. He has a right to believe what he chooses to, and so does PZ Myers. And they both have the right to talk about it, even though I just said Bill Donohue should shut the hell up. Let’s just stop all the death threats, job threats, and all other threats of any kind. OK? Except for crackers and other inanimate objects. Go ahead and threaten them all you want. (And if you want to insert a joke here about Bill Donohue being both crackers and an inanimate object, go right ahead. Just remember that I didn’t put that joke here. You did.)

But wait! There’s more!

I can think of many things that are more vile than desecrating the body of Christ. George W. Bush comes to mind immediately. A war criminal responsible for who knows how many senseless deaths. A war criminal who will probably never be punished until he arrives at that non-existent hell that he and Mr. Donohue like to believe in. (Like I said, he will probably never be punished.) What could possible be more vile than that? Then just round up the usual suspects: murder, rape, war, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc. Even vomit is more vile, for Christ’s sake.

Next I have a question for Mr. Donohue. (I already know his answer, and I think it’s a stupid answer. See if you can guess the answer and not win a prize.) How could anything that PZ Myers or Webster Cook do to your precious “body of Christ” be any more desecrating than placing this “body of Christ” in one’s mouth and causing this “body” to pass through the human digestive tract, then a toilet, finally ending up in a sewage system. And millions, if not billions, of Catholics do this every day. They have been doing this for a very long time, and unfortunately will probably continue to do this for a very long time. Over and over and over again. Talk about desecration! Talk about vile!

Some more questions for Mr. Donohue or anyone else who has seen the light. Why does an all-knowing, all-powerful god not tell his popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, brothers and sisters to just un-consecrate that little cracker that has fallen into the hands of someone like PZ Myers or Webster Cook? Then everyone could be happy. “He just desecrated a cracker. Ha ha. Good one, PZ.” God sure seems to like to leave Jesus hanging. Why does Jesus always get the short end of the stick? Or cross, or cracker, as it were. Help Jesus out here God, just tell the idiots to un-consecrate your son's body and turn him back into a cracker. Why do people choose to believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful god who seems to be so stupid and spiteful, someone who hates his own son so much? And again I know the answer to that one: “Mumbo jumbo, gibberish, and more mumbo jumbo, and don’t forget to put some money in the collection plate.”

Lastly, no religious people are allowed to criticize what I have written here. It is all true, factual, and correct. Because I believe that it is. That is all that you believers should need to know.

God, I’m tired.

Hungry too. I think I’ll go eat some crackers.

Religulous

From Losing His Religion by Jim Radosta:

Bill Maher is a brave man. Not only does he flaunt his political incorrectness regularly as the host of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, but now he’s taking on fundamentalist wackos in Religulous, a documentary coming out this fall.

Read the rest here.