Recovering Religiholics

From Welcome to Recovering from Religion by Darrel Ray:

If you are one of the millions of people who have determined that religion no longer has a place in your life, this may the the right spot for you. Many people love the social support they get from religion, but can’t deal with all the crazy ideas they are required to espouse. It can be difficult to leave a religion because family and culture put so much pressure on us to stay and pretend to believe. If this is you, we want to help you find your way out. We are Recovering Religionists™, people who have given religion our best shot but just can’t bring ourselves to believe in virgin births, resurrections, 2000 year old miracles and the “power of prayer.”

Read the rest here.

Save The Pope's Hats!

Quote Of Note - Jesse Ventura

“It is torture… It’s drowning… You give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I’ll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders. Jesse Ventura

Is God Tasty?

From Faith Diary: Consuming God:

Changing religion is widespread in the US, according to new research, but why? The BBC's Religious Affairs correspondent Robert Pigott investigates. Also this week - nuns surfing on the wave of eco-sustainability, and why you CAN find some atheists in (Afghan) foxholes.

Read the rest here.

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.

How Low Can You Go?

From When 50 is Too Old by Richard Primus:

It is now widely understood that presidents must value youth in their Supreme Court nominees. The reason lies in the combination of two factors: life tenure and the party system. Because justices serve for life, presidents can increase their influence on the law by choosing young nominees. Given two-party competition, this incentive can provoke an unhealthy game of how-low-can-you-go: If one party nominates young justices, the other party risks ceding long-term control of the judiciary if it does not choose justices who are at least as young. As a result, it is hard for anyone much older than 50 to be a serious contender to fill David Souter's seat.

Things have not always been this way. Between 1945 and 1980, both parties wanted their nominees to dominate the Court, but the locus of competition lay in winning presidential elections, and perhaps in choosing effective justices, rather than in choosing young ones. In that period, there were 18 new justices, and their median age upon appointment was 55.5 years. Crucially, 55.5 was the median age for the eight Democratic appointees and also for the ten Republican appointees.

Read the rest here.

First, Furthermore, And Finally

From A Life With Religion, and Without by Owen C. Thomas:

First, if you follow John Dewey in his assertion that “whatever introduces genuine perspective is religious,” then there is no such animal as the nonreligious. Furthermore, historians of science now know that biblical religion was a major factor in the rise of the empirical side of modern science.

Finally, since following Dewey and many others, if everyone has a worldview, whether implicit or explicit, and none can be proved to anyone else who does not share it, then we all “walk by faith, and not by sight,” as Paul put it.

First, what if you don’t follow John Dewey and his assertion? (Or perhaps the better question is: what if you don’t follow the Owen C. Thomas interpretation of John Dewey and his assertion?

Furthermore, how many ancient scientists were burned at the stake for being heretics? What effect did these murders have on the development of the “empirical side” of modern science? (Is there a non-empirical side to science?)

Finally, faith in one’s own worldview does not equate to faith in God.

Why Do Atheists Care?

From God doesn't believe in atheists by Jack Chapman:

I noticed people who claim to be atheists always get upset whenever Christians have a National Day of Prayer, or set up a nativity scene somewhere, or maybe even say “God bless you.”

I even read a couple of weeks ago that some atheists are being “de-baptized.”
These are people who once believed in God, accepted him, then decided he doesn’t exist.

That has me wondering: Why do they care? Why waste their time if they believe our belief doesn’t exist? What’s so offensive about that?

It’s because every atheist deep down inside knows there is a God, they are mad at him and want to fight him with every bone in their body. Sad, isn’t it?

But there is good news, God doesn’t believe in atheists.

Obviously, Mr. Chapman doesn’t believe in listening. He seems to have never listened to any atheists at any time in his life. He also seems to not listen to himself. Otherwise, why would he write anything as stupid as this?

Why do we care? I’ll give a two word answer. Arrogant assholes. Arrogant assholes like Jack Chapman who presume to know what we think. Who don’t believe us, actually they refuse to believe us. According to the arrogant assholes we are not only wrong to not believe in God, we actually believe in God!

Mr. Chapman, I could ask you the same questions. Why do you care what atheists say and do? Why are you wasting your time on atheists? And the question that confuses me, what is so offensive about believing your beliefs don’t exist?

Mr. Chapman, you are correct that some atheists are angry. However, we are not angry at something that does not exist. That would be rather foolish. We are angry at arrogant assholes. Arrogant assholes who say that belief trumps logic when it comes to what our laws should say, when it comes to the appointment of our judges, when it comes to voting for our politicians, and when it comes to what should be taught in our schools.

Mr. Chapman, you should try a little empathy. Try to put yourself in the shoes of an atheist and you may gain a little insight. You give the examples of a National Day of Prayer, a nativity scene, and the expression “God bless you.” Use your imagination. How would you feel about a National Day of something you do not believe in, little statues put up once a year in honor of martians, and people saying “May the flying spaghetti monster grace you” every time that you sneeze? Do you think that this would be silly? If you do, then you are beginning to understand the atheists' point of view. Thank you for that.

Mr. Chapman, if you do believe in God, why do you insist on making your God into an idiot? After all, atheists do exist. For God to not believe in atheists would really be rather stupid of him, wouldn’t it?

Dick Denial

Does Dick Cheney really think that he is a righteous, moral, and just person? Does he truly believe his strange and twisted ideas of what is best for this country? Does the fact that the majority of this country think that he is not only wrong, but also evil, have any chance of changing his mind? Or is he simply in denial?

Quit Screwing Around

I didn’t like it when George W. Bush made jokes and I don’t like it when Barack Obama makes jokes. Please leave the bad jokes where they belong, with professionals like Jay Leno, David Letterman, and Saturday Night Live.

The Dark Dick

Dick Cheney was on Face the Nation on Sunday.

From Dick Cheney's Faux Arguments by Conor Friedersdorf:

This is confusing. One minute, Cheney is arguing that it is wrongheaded to abandon a tactic that works, never mind strategy, because it’s important to do whatever it takes to get the information needed to save American lives. So Schieffer asks, “what you’re saying here is that we should do anything”? And Cheney won’t defend that proposition. He implies that no, we should only interrogate in ways that are in accordance with American law and international treaties we’ve signed. Except he clearly doesn’t believe that — actions speak louder than words!

Even focusing narrowly on the words above, Dick Cheney is unable to defend any coherent position. It is difficult to refute him, as he isn’t saying much of substance directly — much of his arguments are implied. But I can say this: certain assertions he is definitely making are factually wrong — the Bush Administration violated domestic law and the Geneva Conventions, the OLC be damned — and the arguments he implies are inconsistent with one another.

If this is the best case that can be made for the Bush era interrogation practices, they’re even less defensible than I imagined.

Unfair And Unbalanced

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a huge Bill Clinton fan. My opinion of him is mixed.

Jon Friedman has gone off the deep end over at MarketWatch.com.

From Recalling Bill Clinton's eruption on 'Fox News Sunday' by Jon Friedman:

Wallace has interviewed countless newsmakers over the years, but he is likely best known for the Clinton show. The former president, who ordinarily kept his cool throughout his pressure-packed presidency, famously erupted when Wallace introduced the topic of whether the Clinton White House had done enough to go after Osama bin Laden.

Clinton sparked what broadcasting insiders like to call "great TV." The exchange, readily available on YouTube, underscores what I appreciate about Wallace and "Fox News Sunday." He is always calm and tough, but fair and well-prepared. He also treats his subjects with respect.

In a profession where lesser broadcasters preen to get noticed, Wallace, 61, is part of a vanishing breed of ultimate, old-school professionals.

Clinton vs. Wallace

That Sunday morning, Clinton emotionally made his points that he had tried hard to kill bin Laden. He also accused Wallace of "doing Fox's bidding" and orchestrating "a nice little hit job on me."

When I asked Wallace about Clinton's outburst, he stressed his "absolute astonishment." He said his questions were "not at all inflammatory" -- and I agree.

"I was genuinely surprised at his eruption," Wallace said.

What was going through Wallace's mind when Clinton was haranguing him? "'Don't let him roll over you but don't get into a fight with him,'" Wallace told me.

Wallace was able to consider the magnitude of the moment. "As I got past the astonishment," he recalled, "I did think, 'This is great stuff!' We're seeing this side of Bill Clinton that we've never seen before on television."

What the hell is this all about? Is Friedman in love with Wallace or did Wallace pay Friedman to write this extremely biased claptrap?

At the time, others thought differently of this interview. Check Keith Olbermann Response to Clinton Fox News Interview and Clinton Kicks the Crap out of Fox News Part 2.

If Wallace is such an outstanding journalist then why did he lie about Bush and Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda? Check out Chris Wallace Claims Bush Never Linked Hussein and al Qaeda and Fox News Host Chris Wallace Claims Bush Never Linked Saddam and al-Qaeda.

Watch the interview yourself. Judge for yourself. Did Clinton erupt? Or was he simply using his words in a very Clinton-like way.

Part One:


Part Two:


There is no way that anyone can paint this interview as some sort of win for Chris Wallace at Bill Clinton’s expense. And not everyone thinks that Chris Wallace is a great journalist.

Sensitive Americans?

From Cue the coconuts: 'Holy Grail' gallops on by Steve Johnson:

"Holy Grail" is only No. 2 in England, No. 2 in the eyes of the Pythons. Although "Grail" does better stateside, in England, "Life of Brian," the Pythons' 1979 satire of the origins of Christianity, is seen as the true comic classic. "The general feeling of the group is that 'Life of Brian' is their best work," says John Goldstone, the films' producer. "America seems to be a lot more sensitive about examining religion."

Keep Up The Good Work, Rush!

With Rush and Sarah in charge of the Republican Party the Democrats will probably retain power for quite some time. Is this the best the Republicans can do?

Seriously, I would welcome a rational and civil challenge to the Democratic Party. They aren’t perfect, you know.

From Limbaugh: Palin most “prominent and articulate voice” for conservatism by Jack Cafferty:

As the Republican Party continues to struggle, some of them are starting to sound silly. Rush Limbaugh is now suggesting that Sarah Palin is the most prominent and articulate voice for good old-fashioned American conservatism. Recalling the disastrous interviews Ms. Palin did with Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News during the campaign, ‘prominent’ and ‘articulate’ are not the words that immediately pop into my mind.

But the leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, thinks differently…

Why Does God Hate Republicans?

Why would an all powerful God allow the Republican Party to be such losers? After all, isn’t God a Republican?

From Pizza Party by Christopher Beam:

The question hovering over the proceedings—as over the party in general—was, should Republicans compromise or stand strong? Moderate their views or embrace conservatism? The answer coming out of this group seemed to be, Yes. On the one hand, said Cantor, "We should be an inclusive party." On the other, "the essence of being a Republican is a belief in free markets, a belief in individual responsibility, faith in the individual, faith in God."

Separation?

From Atheists fight to keep God out of Irish law by Henry McDonald:

A group that claims to represent the rights of atheists in Ireland has launched a campaign to expel God from the Irish constitution, starting with an attempt to block plans for a new blasphemy law.

The Dublin-based writer said many atheists found parts of the Bible insulting, but would not wish it to be banned or discussion about it closed down. "Parts of the Christian Bible suggest that women must not teach and must learn in silence, or that effeminate people are unrighteous, or that people should worship a god who threatens to make you eat your own children. But we do not believe the Bible should be banned, and neither should discussion of the Bible in terms that cause Christians to be outraged," said Nugent.

Atheist Ireland's campaign against the proposed blasphemy law has been backed by Index on Censorship, the global campaign group for freedom of expression. Padraig Reidy, Index's news editor, said: "Ireland's ethnic and religious make-up has changed dramatically in the last 15 years. If the country is to thrive, surely the state must create a space where we can talk more, and more vigorously, about our beliefs and ideals, rather than shut down conversation."

Nugent said blasphemy was not the only anomaly in the constitution. "You cannot become president of Ireland or be appointed a judge in the republic unless you take a religious oath asking God to direct and sustain you in your work.

"What an atheist is offered is an Irish solution - to ignore it, to pretend you believe in God. But this means, for example, that a new judge who is privately an atheist but swears to God is technically committing perjury.

The Worst And The Dimmest

From The "best and the brightest"? Spare me by Michael Lind:

"Is President Obama trying to kill Wall Street and drive its talent to London?" asked one blogger, Scott Reeves. Scott Talbott, head of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, has warned that "top salespeople, the lifeblood of any company" could be driven by TARP restrictions to work for overseas banks.

Where will the best and the brightest of the financial sector flee, to get away from regulation and earn obscenely high salaries? Not Canada, where tight regulation of banks prevented the kind of meltdown that has occurred in the U.S. Nor Australia, where similar strict banking regulations also spared that country's financial sector. London, Singapore or Dubai are sometimes mentioned as possible rival financial centers that would be eager to welcome the kind of overpaid financiers who wrecked the U.S. and global economy. Most Americans, I think, would agree that it is worth the risk. The voluntary expatriation of leading Wall Street geniuses might help to restore the U.S. economy and wreck potential rival financial capitals at the same time. The thought brings to mind the observation by a wag on the defection in the 1970s by John Connally from the Democrats to the Republicans: "He raised the IQ of both parties."

A Libertarian Point Of View

If Housepets Were Libertarians

500 Years Of Female Portraits In Western Art

Women In Art by Philip Scott Johnson:

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.