The New Atheist

The Lies about Homosexuals

2008-10-22T18:45:00.003-04:00

I found this woman's blog via my web surfing. She initially had a really nasty post up saying that someone should blow up a school that supported tolerances of gay students. I think enough people flagged it and it was removed for threatening language. Anyways, her latest post is all about why, according to the bible, homosexuals are evil and not worthy of god's love and forgiveness. I was confused by a few of her statements, and commented to her as such, but I doubt that she will post my comment or bother to reply. I have copied here my questions for her:

You say "Homosexuality is totally unnatural behavior."

There is plenty of examples of homosexual behavior in "nature," meaning the animal kingdom. Perhaps you just believe that it is unnatural for humans? In which case blogging, or using a computer at all, is completely unnatural, does that make it evil? The very code you use to blog with was most likely created by a few people who call themselves homosexual, can you condone the use of their handiwork while damning them to hell? What is the criteria for an activity to be both natural and good in god's eyes, or otherwise unnatural?

You say there is a process that one goes through to be a homosexual, and the first step is that they know god, but homosexuality is found in communities of humans, throughout history and even to this day, where god was not known at all; how does this happen?

You use the bible as example of what a homosexual is like, but I know people who claim to be homosexual who are not like this; is this perhaps like when the bible says god moved the sun in the sky, when in reality it is the earth that moves around the sun?

You interpret that Noah was raped by his son, but it is not explicitly stated as such; is the bible open to lots of passages being interpreted this way, as to seem to support whatever I wish it to support?

Were not the old rules about what was or wasn't indecent expunged by Jesus with his new covenant? If not, why don't you follow all Jewish laws? If so, shouldn't you follow the word of Jesus and love all of god's children? Did he not say that was the most important commandment? Your words seem filled with hatred, not love, and Jesus said that to hate was equivalent to murder; is this not so?

Update: It seems that she's made the blog private. Oh well, I guess she doesn't actually have any answers, just hatred. So sad that people are so brainwashed. It's still on google cache for now.

It's been a while...

2008-08-13T22:18:00.002-04:00

I've not had the time or motivation for the blog in a while. Real life takes over sometimes.

Anyways, recently I spotted a feud of sorts between Possummomma and some christian woman who's made it her mission online to persecute PM (I say this only because her blog is actually named as No Possum Zone), and I found it somewhat fascinating.

Part of me thinks Nancy isn't really all she says she is; she seems too perfect of an anti-atheist in her descriptions of herself, and what points about PM she picks on; could she just be a troll? I've yet to decide what I think about it, but I've asked her some questions about her most recent post, and I'm hoping to see if her answers seem honest, or if I can spot any cracks in the story. I never take anything I read online at face value; it's just in my nature to dig further and form my own opinion on such things.

VA Catchphrase

2007-10-27T22:02:00.000-04:00

It's been a while since I made a post... and I feel a bit guilty about that, I've just had busy shit going on in my life recently.

Anyways, in lieu of anything important, I'm attempting a submission for a catchphrase for VA:

If I gave a shit, you'd be the first person I'd give it to.

I had a t-shirt once that said that, and it seems to suit VA's style well.

Militant Atheism

2007-09-17T16:44:00.000-04:00

Classically Liberal has an interesting post about the motives behind the seemingly recent atheist upheaval.

I would tend to agree that atheists don't normally have anything to bring them together, a lack of belief isn't something that binds people together. But then, just because a group of people were born Christian or Jewish, does that give them any more of a reason to band together? Perhaps just cuz they hold meetings once a week?

I think that atheists actually tend to be of a mindset that we aren't as socially needy. To be an atheist most often requires a bit of independent thought to begin with, and there seems to be a genetic predisposition to a belief in a deity, so perhaps those things go together. Group-think & atheism do not mesh.

But, given a common enemy, atheists are joining together, and raising their voices louder, and hopefully we can continue to speak for everyone's rights to be free from religious oppression.

I <3 Violent Acres

2007-09-11T16:25:00.000-04:00

I love V of violentacres.com. Today her post of crazy holy-rollers had me in stitches.

If you haven't seen her site, it's often a delightful read, and always captivating. Aside from her professions of being an atheist herself, she has a point of view on the world that I often agree with, or woefully sympathize with. I often wish I knew her, that we could go get lunch together and bitch about the world together. Though I'm sure she'd tire of my bitching quick enough. It's just that the few female friends I have are often too caught up in themselves, or how the world perceives them, to be their own woman, and I imagine V to be someone more inspiring to hang out with.

Did she just say that‽

2007-09-11T16:21:00.000-04:00

"Can you believe this shit? Hell has frozen over. Suck it, Jesus, this award is my god now."

I normally find Kathy Griffin quite annoying, but hooray for her to stand up & say this. I really didn't think there was much that would shock the American public these days, but apparently, I was wrong. The broadcast will be censored.

Edited for my bad links!

Perpetual Fear and the Promise of Salvation

2007-08-30T15:59:00.000-04:00

This is a powerful documentary by the BBC. I encourage you to watch both parts. In summary, it's an in-depth summary of the religious & political motivations that lead to Sept 11th & the current occupation of Iraq. The parallels between Radical Islam and Neo-Conservatives in the U.S., how each side uses religion as justification for their atrocities, and uses the religious beliefs of the masses to control them politically, are made obvious.

The Power of Nightmares Part 1: Baby it's Cold Outside

The Power of Nightmares Part 2: The Phantom Victory

Religious people are being used, many by virtue of their unwillingness to look outside their field of view for answers. The Bible/Koran has the answers for them, and by extension, those who teach the Bible/Koran have answers for them. A powerful few who think they know what's best for the masses use the religious as their warriors & voters. While the politicians promise us earthly salvation, the religious promise us eternal salvation. By using the religious beliefs of the masses to further their political means, and then blaming those that don't think like them for the downfall of society, those in power are attempting to turn their ideology into laws for the masses.

It's hard to avoid mixing thoughts on religion & politics, especially when they're so obviously mixed these days. And it's hard to see the good people do in the name of their religious beliefs when we're blinded with the truth of who really benefits from the group-think of the christian masses.

Religion is Propaganda

2007-08-20T13:19:00.000-04:00

I was reading this article on "How Propaganda Works," which I somewhat assume is directed at how governments use propaganda to manipulate the masses, but this seems to apply just as much to organized religions.

The article states the key to good propaganda is to appeal to 3 key human characteristics; emotionalism, tribalism, and narcissism.

Religion appeals to people's emotional needs through the imaginary solution of prayer; just talk to god and he'll tell you what to do. People don't have enough faith in themselves so they turn to a leader to make decisions for them. That leader may be their imaginary god, their holy book, or their local shaman/priest/rabbi/sheik. This often eliminates one's need to think for one's self.

People are best unified by their dislike for a common enemy, whether that enemy is real or imagined doesn't so much matter. The enemy of religion is not really the devil, or evil in itself. The enemy of religion is people of a different religion whom the leaders classify as the devil or evil-incarnate. A tribe might fight amongst itself, but it finds a cohesive force in it's want to fight outsiders.

And the last appeal of religion to a person's narcissistic side is to tell them that god loves them, god thinks they are special, god has a plan for them. Heaven is waiting for you, because you are part of this group. And while you are part of the group, you are an individual & special in the eyes of god!

Heaven provides an emotional coution for the devastation that is death that we must all eventually face. Muslim tribes may be fighting eachother in the middle east, but they'll often get together to fight the Jews or Christians. Christianity fights evolution not just because of the fairy tales in the bible, but on the grounds that they believe humans are better than and different from all of the the other animals on this planet.

I would never venture to deny any person their individual spirituality, but organized religion is pure propaganda and I only wish more people could see it as such.

Atheism in the news

2007-08-19T19:16:00.000-04:00

Atheism is more often coming to the forefront of mainstream news.

This week cbsnews had a piece on atheism that somewhat centered around the fact that Julia Sweeny is an atheist.

Honestly though, this article didn't bring up any new arguments, or ground-breaking atheist revelations. Julia Sweeny has been quite open with her beliefs in the past, and I hope she continues to be so. I'm sure there is much more to her life than her beliefs about religion; none of us should be defined by our beliefs, each of us must define our beliefs on our own.

Again though the comments at the bottom of the page make me cringe. The believers saying all we need is Jesus. The atheists calling all believers morons. And the people who are playing the odds by pointing out something like "if there is no god, no harm; but if there is a god, I win!" I actually respect the Jesus freaks a bit more because, at least they're just saying what they believe in their hearts. Anyone trying to make an argument that god is a better bet probably doesn't really believe in god, or they really just don't understand that believing in something that big isn't as much a decision as a conclusion.

I would much rather approach a religious person with logic & facts about the world. I really don't think, for many people, being uninformed about how the world really works is a choice. People don't know what they don't know.

There's also a recent article in Scientific American on Rational Atheism, and it has a good list of pitfalls & possibilities for atheists taking a stand. I think more atheists who are randomly commenting online about the whole debate should take a step back & read this article just so they themselves aren't accused of making science a religion, or being atheist evangelicals.

New day, new church bigotry exposed.

2007-08-11T09:31:00.000-04:00

Seriously, how the fuck do some people get off calling themselves Christians?

This article, about a how a church took back their offer to hold funeral services for a veteran when they found out he was gay, just really pisses me off.

Now, if Jesus died for everyone's sins, doesn't that mean many Christians believe that just believing saves them, despite their sins on earth? And didn't Jesus himself hang out with the "sinners" of his time? While the church doesn't need to condone anything it considers a sin, if churches turned away all of those sinners, there'd be nobody at their service.

And if they believe all sin is equal in the eyes of god, then just admitting to living a gay lifestyle can't be any worse than the person who consistently lies about their age.

It's just complete nonsense in my eyes. Lets make up a club that celebrates love & diversity so that we can exclude people we don't like! Yayy!

The Faith Continuum?

2007-08-08T17:13:00.000-04:00

When I spot an interesting article that causes a bunch of people to reply with really stupid comments, I can't help but reply to them! So of course, when I spotted "Faith, Reason and Science, Part X: Some Humor and Serious Ponderings By A Thoughtful Atheist" on A Guy in the Pew, I knew there'd be trouble. You can check there for my ramblings.

I do find his thoughts on science and faith a bit interesting, it seems to me he is one of those people who works his faith around reality as best he can. But the main problem is; those who want to believe mostly seek out books/articles that affirm that faith. I'm not sure if he's ever seen The God Who Wasn't There, just as I haven't read Jesus of Nazareth as he has.

He is prepared to reshape his faith based on evidance, and I think it here that I ask "how then can you have faith at all if it is so easy to change?" If you call yourself a Christian and yet pick & choose what makes sense from the bible, what happened to the rest of it? I had to say it needs to be an all or nothing choice, for while I can take some intellectual & spiritual guidance from the bible, I don't believe any of it to be divine. But can faith in religious doctrine lie on such a continuum?

Various links...

2007-08-07T20:14:00.000-04:00

While we aspire to be a tolerant society in the U.S., that also means we all have to tolerate people saying this we don't like, or that we disagree with. This is a good commentary by Rabbi Aryeh Spero on the subject of how fear of offense shouldn't lead us to criminally prosecute those expressing free speech.

Also, I wanted to link to a really good Q&A on the definition of Atheism & Agnosticism, as well as other common questions about atheism as a belief system.

And an interesting article on why evolution hasn't gotten rid of ugly people. It basically surmises that what makes men and women attractive are very different traits; yet we inherit our physical features from both our parents. I would also think that this would be a logical rebuttal to why homosexuality persists, despite it's obvious evolutionary flaw; gay animals aren't naturally reproducing. (I have heard religious people ask how homosexuality can be genetic if it wouldn't be passed on, or on the other side that evolution can't be real because homosexuality persists within the population.) While it's really great for men to be attracted to women, perhaps there is some factor to that attraction that can be passed from fathers to daughters, resulting in females with strong attraction to females. It'd be interesting to know if there are any studies in that area of sexuality & inheritance.

Obligatory Post on Harry Potter

2007-07-27T23:14:00.000-04:00

I spent most of my free time the past week with my nose between the pages of the latest & last Harry Potter Book. I promise not to give away anything here.

I did not wait in line at midnight, but even the next day when I did pick up the book, I noted that the woman in front of me in line had a painted wand & broom on her cheeks. Why do people feel the need to do that?

The Harry Potter releases seem to echo of Star Wars and Star Trek conventions, or Rocky Horror, where people attend dressed as a character. I wondered; is this a modern phenomenon, a side-affect of a society of too much time on it's hands? It is often referred to as a cult-phenomenon, is this a substitute religion? Are people trying to be more like their "gods"?

I also found this humorous take on Harry Potter by some Satan-seekers. The depth with which she finds meaning where there is none, or even mis-reads parts of the book to suit her theories that Potter is evil, is almost fascinating. I'm sure most 10 year olds would easily acknowledge the books are just a story, even while the paranoid adults are over-analyzing it all. Obviously the problem is they attack the books with the same fervor they examine the bible with, and while both are fairy tales, only one is even attempted to be passed off as truth by anybody.

I am guessing the reason some people are so threatened by books is because their lives are so entwined with that one particular book to begin with. If they take one book as literal truth, anyone else might pick any other old book to live their lives by! And we can't have that, now can we?

Listen to the Scientists... or at least the Simpsons

2007-07-26T22:14:00.000-04:00

This seems a little old, but I just came across it more recently:

In the video, Eugenie C. Scott gives a very good explanation of scientific theories.

And of course, if listening to Scientists doesn't convince anybody, perhaps we can all watch the Simpsons!

This statement is true.

2007-07-17T18:57:00.000-04:00

Do you believe it? It seems to me to be a form of the liar's paradox. There is no way to assign a true/false value to such a statement.

The bible asserts itself as true, and many churches state as the first part of their beliefs to be that the bible is true and unchanging, because the bible says it is. For example:

We believe that The Holy Bible is The Word of The Living God; true, immutable, steadfast, unchangeable, as it's author, The Lord Jehovah; that it was written by Holy men of old as they were moved upon and inspired by The Holy Spirit.

This is all based on 2 Timothy, chapter 3, verse 16:

Paul's Charge to Timothy
10 You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11 persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This came to mind today as I was reading a rather interesting review of Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, a book about some of the history of the bible, where Brown compairs the bible to Wikipedia.

Of course I am already well aware that the bible has many versions, was compiled by different scribes at different times from different written & oral traditions. But upon checking the reviews on Amazon for Misquoting Jesus, it is clear that many people are willing to stretch their faith a little; even if all the words aren't the same, they're still inspired, written by inspired men, goddamnit!

History and physics clearly conflict with the bible in more than a few passages. What I want to know is; how do people rectify their statement of faith with the facts? Of course, this is a silly question on my part, the obvious answer is just that many people ignore the facts. It's either that, or they don't really believe in their heart the bible is perfect.

People seem to think that their faith in the bible is all-or-nothing. Believers are assumed to believe it all; atheists are assumed to think it's all BS.

When their own declaration of faith declares that the bible is infallible, and when many believers look down on those who treat the bible as a buffet (picking what they like from it), I can see how all-or-nothing becomes a natural conclusion for many people. They conclude that they either ignore the facts of the world, or they don't truly believe.

What if I were to give you the following statement:

Bunnies are cute, one plus one is equal to three, there is life on Mars, an objects speed is the distance it travels over time, and this sentance is true.

Of course, not everyone agrees on bunnies, 1+1=2, we don't know for sure about life on Mars, speed does equal d/t, and that statement isn't completely true. But can't we say it's true since it was partially true? If it's not completely true, does that make it completely false? Can we even know for sure?

Even being atheist, I can't discount everything the bible says; I like some of the moral stories, I like some of the songs/poetry, I even like a lot about Jesus with his whole do-unto-others philosophy and I always liked many of the parables. But I can't see it as any more inspired than Harry Potter, The Odyssey, or Macbeth. A little truth, a little myth, a little magic, a bit of death, and a lesson for all of us to learn from.

Still I wonder why there are so many christians still so afraid to acknowledge that their chosen version of the bible has any faults at all? Is their faith so unsteady that one gust of wind might reduce it all to rubble?

Creationists fight Darwinian science; Scientologists fight Psychiatric science.

2007-07-13T11:29:00.000-04:00

So, there's a "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death Museum" run by the CCHR (which is really just a Scientology group) and watching the video tour, I can't help but soon see the similarities to Creationists fighting the idea of Evolution.

Note that they are sure to give you a history lesson, and in doing so, point out how bad things used to be. Pointing out that psychiatrists once idolized Freud is like pointing out that at one time some scientists believed in Lamarck's evolutionary theories. And the idea of eugenics is brought up when claiming the evils of both evolution-scientists & psychiatric-scientists. Apparently nobody believes there is room for improvement and learning and morals in science?

Why is psychiatry their target? Well, there's accounts that the founder of Scientology, L.R. Hubbard, was mentally unstable & spent some time in psychiatric wards. He became resentful and wrote a bunch of new-age self-help books that bashed the psychiatric industry. I'm interested in how extreme the "church" view has become though. Granted, I do tend to think that our society is a bit over-drugged, but this video clearly shows their HATRED for psychiatry and desire to brain-wash their own believers, not just a desire to truthfully inform the public.

While Scientologists don't worship a god that I'm aware of, though they do consider themselves a religious group, and their messages clearly show the dangers of organized religion. I almost think that they're even worse with no god to account to. They don't have any moral code I could find plus they discourage their believers from thinking on their own. At least the Judeo-Christians have the 10 commandments, so if they don't want to think about morals, there's some guidelines. There's something to it very reminiscent of the Catholic Church back in the day. A Catholic used to be able to buy his way out of hell with a few alms to the church, and Scientologists are constantly having to pay the "church" in order to advance in the hierarchy.

Nobody should have to pay cash for spiritual enlightenment.

Wait... they open the Senate with a Prayer?

2007-07-12T20:06:00.000-04:00

I guess, if I didn't care before that they opened the Senate with a prayer every morning, I guess I can't really complain about it now. But in case you haven't seen, a few Christians weren't too happy that this morning a Hindu was invited to pray.

Video at Breitbart.tv, & more info at CNN.com.

Catching up on other blogs

2007-07-12T11:53:00.000-04:00

Since I've been procrastinating so long, my google-reader got really full, and so I'm just checking the latest posts of those blogs near & dear to my heart. I apologize that I'll be ignoring some pretty good stuff that's just too late to comment on at this point.

Honest Doubter has a post on Fear Mongers, where the original video is down, but from the comments, I presume the video Brother Micah, and so I checked youtube for other videos of him. Boy... is it just sad to watch this guy rant:

The problem is, you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar; the way he's yelling at everyone, he's not going to convince anyone of his beliefs. He doesn't want to discuss his beliefs, he just wants to talk/yell about them... if he's really a Christian, why wouldn't he act a bit more like Jesus?

Also, Irreverent Musings has an interesting post on Reason, Faith, & Country. Some people say they put god before country, should atheists put reason before country? I note that some people want to put god IN government, and it's definitely hard get reason in there. I'm not sure how political I want to get in this blog just yet, but with the debates for the election in '08 already started, I'm bound to have a few posts political positions soon enough.

"My kids are going to school to learn, not to become a homosexual or an abortion doctor or an atheist."

2007-07-12T09:39:00.000-04:00

The article states: she went to the computerized card catalogue and typed in the keywords "homosexuality," "abortion" and "atheism." She was shocked by the dozens of titles that popped up.

Hooray for somebody with too much time on their hands! Now, even though I firmly believe in a separation of church & state, I don't think I'd object to any religious books that might be found in the school library. Yes, kids are going to school to learn, and religion is something I think all kids need to learn about, even if I wouldn't want my own kids to become religious, I'd like them to learn about religion.

But the best is the last line of the article:
"My oldest son doesn't believe in God," she said. "I guess he kind of thinks I'm stupid."

I get the feeling her oldest is supremely embarrassed at her actions.

I will survive!

2007-07-12T09:25:00.000-04:00

Ok, I've procrastinated long enough.

And then I found the best way to say "I'm back!"

Actual content will follow shortly. I've been saving up stuff, be prepared for a deluge.

2007-04-10T10:05:00.000-04:00

I wish this video was longer:

I'm pretty sure this is how my father would have reacted (and still would react even though I'm at least 10 years older than this kid) if I told him I'm an atheist. Hence, I just don't tell him. It's odd...the kid obviously lied to her & the bishop & whoever else because he wanted to keep it happy, and he probably knew this would be her reaction. And would this mother rather her child keep up the lie than express how he really feels? It's something I still struggle with; do I lie to fit in? Or do I make my beliefs obvious and piss people off?

Granted, the kid may just be rebelling... kids at that age do that... but yelling and threatening church is obviously not the answer (and not the Christian response either.... she needs to re-read her WWJD bracelet and think about what that means).

The part about threatening to take away Chirstmas presents is also hilarious.... ya know, cuz Christmas (with the Santa and the shopping and the electricity-hogging lights everywhere) is all about Jesus.

Proof that there is no god.

2007-03-26T16:58:00.000-04:00

I think I've been defining my own Atheism as coming from my rejection of the super natural. With the recent death of my grandmother, I have been reflecting a bit on my own ideas that perhaps there's a dimension of sorts where our souls still live.

In case any one thinks I've been expressing a belief in the supernatural, I want to make it clear that this isn't a belief I hold; it is just an idea. And my idea is that this might happen completely within the realm of what might be possible in the universe/multiverse; as I do not expect anything super-natural to happen to our "souls". There is a scientific theory that information can not be destroyed, and while this may apply to physical information, I do often wonder how far this idea could be taken. But I am no physicist to test this, and I wouldn't disagree if someone could knowingly/truthfully explain to me that this is just absolutely not possible.

But my ideas about what might happen to the information that makes up us as individuals still is without a god. Why not have ideas about a god that could fall within the natural laws of the universe? Well, as we define god as an all knowing and all seeing, what I know about the universe says this is impossible.

I present as exhibit number one an explanation of the Double Slit Experiment:

Observation changes the outcome. If a god existed then the probability wave would not be observed because he would be watching, and he would know which slit the particle would go through, and therefore eliminate the probability. As it is, only our direct observation eliminates the probability, so I would conclude that nobody else is watching.

On funerals and rituals.

2007-03-23T14:30:00.000-04:00

I was glad not to be there when my grandmother passed, bodies creep the beejebus out of me. (I'm not sure if this is due to instinct or childhood trauma. I've almost always had someone else dispose of dead pets because I don't want to touch the bodies.)

My mother said, before she left the room after my grandmother had passed, a nurse came in to open the window. She said they do this to let the soul out. I liked the idea of that ritual, although I don't think souls (if they existed) could be confined that way. I found comfort in this ritual, despite knowing it's pointless. Despite my efforts of purging supernatural superstitions from my life, it's hard when there is still that flicker of hope somewhere within my mind that our existence is more meaningful.

I went with my mother to prepare for the funeral, and meeting with a funeral director is quite an experience. I've watched 6 Feet Under, and Family Plots, so I thought I new what to expect.

If it was up to just my mother and myself, Grandmom would have been cremated, end of story. But some of the family felt need for closure, which meant a church service and possibly a viewing. This means picking out prayer cards, caskets, and clothing for the deceased. We still wished to have her body cremated, and the funeral director said we could "borrow" a casket, but then before burning, her body would be removed from it, and he didn't think that was respectful. In my own mind, I was thinking; really, how respectful is the process of embalming a body to begin with? And why would it matter? As for my own body, aside from someone molesting it, or stealing parts of it, I really wouldn't care, and definitely wouldn't care if someone burned my body without a casket.

The services included a church ceremony the night before the "viewing", with bible readings and remembrances said. I've always believed a funeral is for the living, not the dead, so if some find comfort in a church service, I cannot justify begrudging them that at this time. The service at the funeral home the next morning turned out to be closed casket. When my mother and uncle went to check out the mortician's handy-work, they decided against it. My mother said "it just wasn't Mom." We had brunch after the services at the funeral home, as she was being cremated and buried at some other time.

Times like this spark conversation about our own deaths. My husband and I discussed our wishes for what would be done with our bodies at the time of our death. That conversation basically ended with, "you'll be dead, and I get to do what I want with it." To me, it would depend on the time in life and circumstances of death what I would do to my husband's body. I would only find a viewing of him necessary for his family, or if we had children, but not for myself.

On the other hand, he had very set ideas of how a funeral should go down. All funerals he'd ever been to were the same, and he thought that was the way they all should be. A wake the night before, viewing the next morning where nobody says anything, a church service, and then brunch as nobody visits the grave site at that time. With all this in mind, he thought that my grandmother's funeral was quite strange, but I found that having the ability to order things however we wanted made it much more meaningful for everyone.

Hopefully I won't be the one making these types of decisions for many years to come.

This post: On death and dying.

2007-03-23T13:59:00.000-04:00

It's been a bit of a whirlwind in my personal life recently. As I mentioned, there's been a death in my family, that combined with a motherboard failure on my home PC put me out of blogging for a while.

A little less than two weeks ago my grandmother, who has already been dying of cancer, fell and broke her hip. She survived surgery, but stopped eating after that, and soon went into kidney failure. She was still in the hospital and placed under "comfort care," as she didn't want any feeding tubes or to be put on a ventilator. Her children flew in to be with her, staying with her 24-7 until she passed. I would visit each day, but was not there when she passed.

My one uncle is very religious, and had been praying for her, and the priest has been to visit her. I have never known my grandmother to be much of a religious person, but she did attend church in her younger days. My own mother is very science minded, and from my conversations with her, does not believe in an afterlife (at least, not the heaven/hell type place in the bible). While it is really rough on everyone, I found these different approaches to her dying somewhat fascinating. My uncle called upon the priest and god to ease her suffering, while my mother called upon the nurse and morphine. From my point of view, neither seemed all that effective, in the end, all we could do was hold her hand in her suffering.

It's a tough process watching someone's body fail them, and seeing how much pain it is causing, with almost nothing you can do for them. At her age of 88, with all of her ailments, if not for modern medicine, she would have died long ago. On another occasion, several years ago she was in the hospital and in pain, when I asked her what I could do for her, her response was "kill me." On one hand, it's really rough knowing someone is in so much pain they wish to die, and yet incapable of facilitating that on their own. It's not something I dare assist her with, out of fear of the consequences, though I somewhat wish I could have.

Watching her own suffering makes me wonder if I would be more likely, when I got to her age, especially if I knew I had a terminal illness, to take myself out while I could. Depending on their beliefs, and the situation, would death that way be any worse on the family? I often view suicide as a selfish act, but when someone is already suffering their last days, is it more selfish to deny them quick release?

Next post: Funerals and rituals.

I'll be back shortly....

2007-03-22T17:41:00.000-04:00

I've been gone for a while, for anyone who might have noticed.

There was a death in my family, which I'll elaborate on more later. It's got me thinking quite a bit.

In the meantime, I'd like to share this with you:

As my mind is still on the loss of a loved one, this video is a good summery of what I like to contemplate, a hope without basis, for a higher dimension. Sometimes I think it's silly, but still I think how wonderful our natural universe is already and perhaps it's not beyond capability for the sum of information that makes us who we are could be preserved somewhere in spacetime.

Don't blame the lesson, blame the teacher?

2007-03-06T17:19:00.000-05:00

Recently I posted that I really need to read the Koran, after some stories in the news and seeing a video on hate-speech found in the Koran.

Here's a good rebuttal video to that.

Christianity teaches love & kindness too... but we can find slavery, rape, and god taking sides in the bible as well. It's all in what you pick & choose... and in my book a fundie-christian preaching hate is just as despicable as a fundie-muslim preaching hate.

In the end, it's not about what Christianity or Islam teaches in it's purist forms.... it's about what those who preach religion are teaching.

"No one is less tolerant than those demanding tolerance."

2007-03-06T13:48:00.000-05:00

I wish to be an equal-opportunity skeptic. I don't like any of their religions or any of their gods. And I can take threats of going to hell in stride cuz, hell, I don't believe in hell.

Reading Doug Marlette's article on being a tool of satan, where he observes "No one is less tolerant than those demanding tolerance." I thought to myself that is a profound statement, it really struck home with me.

There is only one thing I feel I am completely intolerant of; ignorance. Now, I'm not saying that I know everything (heck, if was omnipotent, I wouldn't be an atheist, because I believe in myself...), but I do my damnedest to do a bit of research on any given topic before I wish to talk about it. And I feel infinitely embarrassed when I realize I'm mistaken on something I thought to be true that wasn't.

But stories like Doug Marlette's make me all the more protective of my points of view in my every day life. Here, I am generally anonymous, and I'd be afraid to voice some of my opinions to family, friends, neighbors, for just these reasons. The tolerance police might otherwise come after me.

Know thy enemy...

2007-03-01T16:03:00.000-05:00

And what better way to get to know them than to read what they have to say about you? I like to get myself all worked up with things like that, and so I found creationwiki.org. Just reading what they have to say about creation vs. evolution gets me kinda hot & bothered in a not-so-good way. Stating that "theory of evolution is a philosophical perspective that stems from an atheistic worldview," as they distinguish between biological evolution (which they're ok with?) and the theory of evolution (I guess no longer calling it micro or macro evolution?).

From their writing and use of the word atheist, it seems that they choose the word with the intention of implying that certain scientific theories were developed under the belief that no god exists. "General Theory of Evolution...was derived from atheistic presupposition." I'd imagine leaving god out of a theory would make it "atheistic" in the sense that, well, the theory isn't theistic (Atheism is derived from the Greek word "atheos" - "a" meaning no or without and "theos" meaning God). The general theory of relativity would also be an atheistic theory in that sense.

Clearly the reality is not that scientists said "we made this theory on the belief that there is no god," but instead "we made this theory based on observations without considering if there's a god or not." The creationist sites word things, with clear understanding of the connotation behind the word "atheistic," in order to use the negativity around the word to their advantage.

I think the overall feeling I have gathered from reading this site is that they believe if you don't say "god did it" then you are saying "god didn't do it." This is why they want creationism taught in schools, they feel that without saying god was involved, they think their children will really be learning god wasn't involved.

I can't say I disagree; the more people learn about evolution and science, the less they believe that god is involved. I don't think that atheism reigns supreme in the scientific community for any other reason that people who once were deists aren't seeing any evidence for god, and yet are seeing evidence that clearly contradicts what they did learn about god as children. The site even acknowledges "the ability of the teaching of evolutionary biology to turn people away from a belief in god."

Funny how the truth and knowledge does that, isn't it?

Generation "Me"

2007-02-27T18:45:00.000-05:00

Apparently, narcissism is on the rise. I don't doubt it in the least. From children's soccer games where nobody's the looser to American Idol, our society has kids shouting "Look at me! I am special!" The results can be seen in the popularity of websites like myspace and blogger.

Parents are letting their kids be kids, instead of treating their children like they'll be adults one day. Even schools are avoiding leaving anybody behind. But we live in a world of 6 billion people, where 100 is the average IQ score, where the reality is not everybody is good enough, smart enough, or well liked. This isn't Lake Woebegon.

This self-esteem delusion can backfire. Parents seeking special lables for their children who are having difficulty in school. Telling kids they're smart too often can actually discourage them from skills that require hard work. College kids spend more money than they have with expectations of getting paid more than they will when they graduate. Relationships can come with expectations of "fairy tail romance," and are difficult to maintain when each person is so self-centered. Adults acquire mortgages for houses higher than they can comfortably afford with expectations that their house value will rise.

But there are also benefits to this type of thinking. People don't just see themselves as another cog in the wheel. While being self-centered might prevent one from doing volunteer work, it might also incline one towards believing they can make a difference in this world, and acting on it. And I would also say that the same sense of self importance is also pushing young adults away from that old-time religion.

Atheism is on the rise. Now, this surely has to do with an age when information of all kinds is directly at our fingertips. It is clear that many people who deny evolution just don't know how evolution really works. But I'd say that a sense of independence is just as important to this new wave of people denying the existence of the holy spirit who are not too scared to say so.

Religion is a form of control of the masses; strict rules with strict retribution (in the next life). Religion teaches you that you are one of many, and that you can't save yourself, only god can do that for you. Atheism frees a person to make their own decisions and choices in life, and face those consequences on their own. I think this way of looking

I'd like to think that, as kids grow up and reject the religion of the masses, they will also realize the weight of personal responsibility in this world. As they learn to think for themselves, I'd hope they keep in mind that we are all connected, and that helping others can be a way of helping ourselves.

People get aggressive when god says to.

2007-02-23T14:05:00.000-05:00

I came across this really interesting article about a study on the affects of religious texts on people's aggression levels. Both the religious and secular get more violent when they are subjected to god's words telling them to take up arms.

This is highly intriguing, and it would be an interesting follow up to see if the opposite was true. If they read a passage on people helping each other, and one version said "The Lord commanded Israel to take their brothers in their arms and comfort them before the LORD," would the people who were commanded by god to be good be any less violent?

And since the bible contains conflicting messages (god loves everyone, but smites people who upset him) how might people's aggression levels correspond to similar passages?

Back to hell...

2007-02-22T17:35:00.000-05:00

I saw this today... couldn't resist sharing.

The idea of an actual physical hell never really stuck with me as a kid. Early on I assumed that people though hell was below the earth, full of burning & fire, basically from observation of volcanoes.

I did get the idea of hell being more or less the absence of love, this makes much more sense than hell being some kind of physical reality. I always did like the idea that our souls are like droplets of rain, to be collected in a puddle, and recycled back into the atmosphere only to fall as rain again, no droplet ever containing all the same molecules ever again. I could envision hell as a puddle where all the bad parts of souls wound up. I'm sure we all ponder reincarnation, either as a wishful thinking, or perhaps based on those stories we hear of little children recalling events from past lives (the video does give me the willies a bit).

I do wish that there is more to our existence than what we are able to perceive during life, but I still don't think that means there has to be a god up there running the show.

Female Pakistani minister shot dead for 'breaking Islamic dress code'

2007-02-20T18:00:00.000-05:00

I really have to sit down and read the Koran at some point. I know there are plenty of people who would say, since I'm an atheist, why does it matter? But there seems to be two sides to the Islamic world, and I'm confused how people get such extremes from the same book. And I understand it's not just their holy book, but their history as well.

I am under the impression that the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic idea of a single god all stem from the same Abraham, yet all 3 religions are extremely distrustful of eachother. How the heck does this happen? It's like the Christians and Muslims said "hey, Jews, thanks for the god, but he's working for us now."

So there are peaceful Muslims who just want to live their daily lives like the rest of us, and then there are these Muslims killing eachother because they don't dress the way they think god wants them to dress? Granted, Christians can be pretty awful to eachother too, with the gay-bashing, and the blowing up women's clinics, and all (and if all sin is the same in gods eyes, why do they pick out certain sins as if they're worse?).

Anyways, I feel a need to read the Koran in order to better understand what is going on in our world, even if I know it really won't help me understand Muslim extremists any better than I understand Christian extremists having read the bible.

To hell with that

2007-02-19T13:35:00.000-05:00

I was reading someone else's argument against Hell. It makes me think a little more about the subject. I posted my own reply:

If god is all good, all knowing, all powerful, and everywhere at once, and we were supposedly created in his image, exactly what part of god are we like then? Humans obviously aren't all good, don't know everything, and are confined by the laws of physics, time and space. Like [he] said, I don't think anyone but a psychopath would be comfortable condemning another human being to an eternity of suffering after an 80 year test, so if we're supposed to be like god in some way, why would god be comfortable with that?

If god created hell, he's not all good. If god created earth as a "test" for us, he's not all knowing (or else he'd know the fate of our souls before he created us, and this "test" would be pointless). If god didn't create hell, he's not all powerful. If hell is just the absence of god, then god isn't everywhere at once.

If all you have to do to go to heaven is believe, why be good? If all you have to do is be good, why believe? If you're only motivation to be good and believe is fear of hell, does that count? If you need to be both good and a believer, who's really that perfect?

Also, what if someone I love is cast into hell, but I've gone to heaven, but heaven isn't perfect for me without this person?

I'm not totally sure there isn't such a thing as a soul, perhaps there are other dimensions where our energy can continue to exist... but only science could ever tell us for sure. Religion is really just a way of controlling the masses.

I thought some more about what I said, and I realize this is only a reply to those who believe in a literal fire-and-brimstone hell and a pearly-gates heaven. (I have a feeling that these people will be sorely disappointed.) If one might acknowledge that love is "god" (a=b therefore b=a), living one's life without love could be some kind of hell. But it is not just a self-inflicted hell, people can inflict hate onto eachother as well. Perhaps the only sense of heaven we get is, as we die, we die with a cumulative sense of the love we've experienced in life? This could be incredibly unfair to a child brought up in an unloving home, but nobody ever said life was fair.

100th post

2007-02-16T15:10:00.000-05:00

Wow... I've actually gotten in 100 posts! I managed to keep at a pretty good pace of a few posts a week for the past few months. I can't believe I've actually been keeping it up so long & mostly regularly, and I'm proud of me, because I'm good enough, I'm strong enough, and dog-gone-it, people like me.

I've learned a lot about atheism, as well as the religion around me, in the past few months. I've become much more conscious of the religion around me, how it affects my life, and what I want to do about it.

Anyways, I'd like to say that so far, it's been really interesting, and I appreciate everyone who's taken the time to read what I've written, and I also highly appreciate everyone who's taken the time to comment! It's such a good feeling getting feedback, I think that's what keeps us all blogging.

Well, lets see how long it takes me to make another 100 posts.

Where do I get my ethics from?

2007-02-12T16:58:00.000-05:00

Well, I watched the CNN Paula Zahn that re-visited the atheists in America issue. (Soon as I see it on youtube, I'll have to post it here.)

I was glad to see their panel was more expansive, but Reverend Peterson brought up a question that I was already thinking about today:

Where do I get my ethics from?

Or, to put it a different way: Why do deists insist that there are no morals without god?

The U.S. started it's war on the "godless" with the cold-war because the Communist countries didn't allow religion, and our government put "under god" in the pledge and "in god we trust" as our motto in order to re-enforce the idea of freedoms in this country, especially the freedom of religion. And at this time, many people were being accused of being communists and this lead to much unpleasantness for the accused, so many people tried to conform as best they could to the capitalistic and christian in order distance themselves as far from the communistic and godless as possible. It wasn't really all that long ago that the wall fell, so this association of atheism and evil-communism is still somewhat prevelent in our society. (There is quite a thought provoking article on the Regan Doctrine by Isaac Asimov.)

So, while some deists claim that they have a view of atheists as "militant" from their insistence that all mention of god be removed from government doctrine, it really wasn't all that long ago that militant Christians pushed for god to be included. In a country where god and state are supposed to be separate by law, deists prevail only because they are in the majority, not because they are in the right. Those of us in the minority only shout so loud because it is so hard for us to get our voices heard in the crowed.

But I digress.

Where do we get our ethics from?

The easiest answer to this question is; from our parents and from our society. Ethics can be culturally specific, the purist definition of the word has no reference to any religious works that provide for all ethics. We learn what is good and bad from our parents and our introduction to these concepts is not our parents sitting down with a copy of the bible or any other book, as explaining good and bad in such complex terms would never really work for a two year old. All we really need to know about life, we really did learn in kindergarten (see Robert Fulghum), and so we really acquire our sense of what is ethical, what is right and wrong, through trial and error as children. Ethics help us get along in society, they don't come from above, but from the human collective, perhaps from human instinct, and what is ethical depends on what collective you were born into.

I acknowledge that the words "good" and "bad" can be subjective, but somehow, most of us know what we are talking about when we say "good" or "bad," and people without a sense of these concepts can often be labeled with a mental or psychotic disorder. It can often be a fine line, for while many of us think it is unethical to murder, what if your own life is in danger? What if you are at war? Many what-if's can blur that line of right and wrong for most people.

So why is it so hard to believe that mankind can be good without god looming overhead to punish them in the afterlife? I often find the answer to be that people who hold this point of view are actually expressing a belief that they are superior to the rest of humanity. I have no doubt if you asked most people if they would be good without the bible telling them to be good, most people would say "yes." But those people who are saying the bible is the source of all ethics are essentially saying they don't believe any of you would be good enough to be ethical without it having been spelt out for you.

As I research it, the only Christian sect to have it's doctrine that man is saved through works and faith is Catholicism, all of Protestantism rejects this idea. So, if Protestants believe that faith in Christ alone is enough for eternal salvation, why should they have any need for ethics? Perhaps they think through their faith, god makes them good? But if only god can give one the grace to believe or not, why would one who doesn't believe need fear punishment from god for something god never gave them?

In the end, I don't believe that ethics and morals are ever crystal clear, and while the 10 commandments may be a good guideline, it's not the only guideline in this world. I will try my best to live by the Golden Rule, it is not where I get my ethics, but instead it best sums them up. It has been repeatedly discovered throughout history as a simplistic way to emphasise how essential it is for us to love one another to our own best ability.

Just for a bit of clarification....

2007-02-11T14:03:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I feel I use creationism/ID and "christian" interchangeably. Not everyone who claims to be a christian takes the bible quite so literally, and they are standing up for themselves, and for Darwin.

It's a good reminder to me to try harder not to paint everyone with the same brush.

Atheist banned from youtube for Qur'an vid?

2007-02-11T14:00:00.000-05:00

Atheist banned from youtube, but I've seen rumors he was banned for the music he used illigally, instead of for the content... but there are a lot of ppl out there on youtube using music they have no right to, so I dunno if I buy that. Anways, here's the video that got him banned (others have re-posted it):

And a word from the author:

Schlussel reacts

2007-02-07T19:03:00.000-05:00

Ug, Schlussel responded to her barrage of atheist e-mails with a post... I took the time to comment again, but really, I probably should have just yelled at a rock for a while... would have had the same effect.

Update: Dawkins will be on Paula Zahn tonight. Ought to be interesting.

Evangelical Africans don't want to see Turkana Boy

2007-02-07T17:57:00.000-05:00

Despite CNN being on my "bad media" list (oh wait... most of TV news is on that list... how about that...) I bring you their story of Evangelical Africans protesting a display of the skeleton of a hominid boy who died 1.6 million years ago.

Turkana boy, as the skeleton has been named, is obviously in direct conflict with the story of creation in the bible, and that mankind must have been created not much longer than 6000 years ago.

I'm really still confused why, aside from the whole bible thing, Evangelicals keep protesting evolution by stating that they "aren't descended from monkeys." Apparently, telling someone that several million years back in their heritage line one would find other species of animals is the worst offense ever. I just don't understand why this is so offensive... perhaps it's just in the implication that humans aren't special. I mean, there's 6 billion of us on the planet, even if humans as a species were special, it takes a heck of a lot of effort for any one of us to really be special.

Generally speaking; you're not special. Get used to it. I mean, I'm only special because I have my own blog...

Rev. Haggard isn't gay any more! Yayayaya

2007-02-07T17:43:00.000-05:00

They sent him to a de-gay briefing apparently, ya know, to get all the gay out. So Rev. Haggard isn't gay any more; he's prayed the gay away! Shouldn't we all be happy for him? I mean, obviously his wife is happy for him.

Eh, if he's not fucking a gay prostitute up the ass, he'll keep fucking up his parishioners the uncomfortable way.

Update: Comments in response from the man Haggard used crystal meth with and who's cock he sucked.

CNN's view on Atheists

2007-02-06T17:28:00.000-05:00

In case you haven't seen, I'll link to the CNN clips below from Paula Zahn, Jan 31st:

Here's where I found them at:
TPO's Myspace Blog

In the first video, they present the view that Atheists aren't liked because they present lawsuits against things like: prayer in school, god bless america, one nation under god, in god we trust, etc.

I'm pretty damn sure the christians out there would be upset if any one of those things were changed from god to Buddah, or Vishnu, or Flying Spagetti Monster, but Atheists just want them removed, not replaced, in order to maintain seperation of church and state. The gov doesn't need to remind people what religion they are, and it's not like we're advocating the gov promote atheism; just don't promote any super-natural being!

The second clip... where would I begin? I guess I'll begin with; piss poor panel! How about a balanced view? (But I guess they use this same panel for a variety of issues.)

So... Karen Hunter says we need some better PR and some Halmark Cards eh? And Prayer equals morality? I wasn't aware of that. Debbie Schlussel keeps insisting "this is a christian nation" and that's just as stupid as saying "this is a straight nation" or even "this is a white nation." At least Stephen Smith had the balls to say that even though he disagrees with atheists, he understands the struggle.

This bigotry shall pass too, but only if we fight for it just as other minorities have. You don't have to accept my point of view, but in America, you have to respect my right to have my point of view and my right to not have god pushed down my throat. But I think most atheists are too nice about it, and I don't think that's a bad thing to be nice about it, but it's the sort of issue where the squeaky wheel gets the grease. It's sad, but someone's gotta stand up and be an asshole about it for the issue to get any attention.

The Anti-Christ will bring peace?

2007-02-03T18:52:00.000-05:00

There's a good article over at Lew Rockwell's site on why we should all fear those who fear the rapture.

If they are correct, why should any of us bother trying to make the world a better place? Dispensationalists get very annoyed at this question. They say, "Final peace on earth will only come through Christ!" They basically insist Christians trying to do good in the world should only focus on "spiritual things." Trying to change social institutions for the better is futile and presumptuous. Apparently the only two options are handing the world over to Satan or believing that humans can do everything in their own strength. Not much room for nuance here.

Ironically, many dispensationalists are involved in the Religious Right movement and want to stem abortions, ban gay marriage and make America more Christian. But at the same time they believe in a theology that says the world can only get worse, that there’s nothing any of us can do about it, and that it’s about to get so bad Christians are going to be taken off of the earth. If the ship is irreversibly sinking, why try and patch up the leaks?

How are we supposed to know the difference between the second coming and the anti-christ? Could he really be in Florida?

And below, the thinking-man's rap: Extian (The Verse from Atheist Nation Pt III).

Jesus loves Osama Bin-Laden, but Hates Gays?

2007-02-02T17:09:00.000-05:00

I find this an interesting way of attracting new parishioners... tell them if Jesus loves Bin-Laden, he must love them too?

I totally understand that these aren't the same people that say God hates homosexuals, but I still find it funny how different people are using the same book to give completely conflicting points of view. Go-go magic bible!

Canada saves 3 Jehovah's witnesses....

2007-02-01T17:47:00.000-05:00

A Canadian couple who were Jehovah's witnesses, had sextuplets, but 2 died because the parents refused them blood transfusions. The Canadian government took custody of the remaining 3 babies in order to save their lives.

I am not sure how I feel about this... and I really don't understand how a parent could feel that their child being "violated" was worse than the baby just dying. I'm also curious how someone naturally has 6 babies? First off, people usually only have that many children at once on fertility drugs, are Jehovah's witnesses allowed to take fertility drugs? (I guess since there's nothing in the bible about it, they can.) Or did they just pray a bit too much? And then, at birth, I would assume that a c-section would be ruled out because of the blood-loss in surgery? (Though they could use their own blood.)

This Canadian article explores the reason's Jehovah's witnesses don't take transfusions.

Bless me Father, for I have sinned.....

2007-02-01T17:37:00.000-05:00

Confession is one of those joys of the Catholic church I no longer experience. I didn't think it'd go over too well if I went in to talk to the priest and said "well, I don't believe in god... does that count as a sin? Since, since I don't believe in god, I don't believe in sin either?"

Someone did take on this experiment though, and picked Italy of all places! They gave various priests various "sins" to see their response. I find that a hilarious, and yet really intriguing experiment. Needless to say though, the Catholic church is a bit pissed. They take the whole sacrament pretty seriously.

Confession was usually a joke. When I was a child, we didn't have to go so often, even in Catholic school. But I've heard tell stories of children who were supposed to go every week before church (you couldn't receive communion without a clean soul) and these kids would make up all kinds of bad behavior, just to have something to talk to the priest about. When my friends and I would get out of confession, we'd always compare how many prayers we had to say. I don't think any of us ever had anything horrible to confess, but I was always curious what the conversion chart of sin-to-prayer was. If, in 4th grade, I had told the priest I had killed someone, or perhaps just something, what would they have done? It's something I often wish I had had the courage to test.

Well I'll be damned... and if I lived in Massechusets, I'd be fined too.

2007-02-01T17:26:00.000-05:00

How about that, it's against the law in MA to blaspheme! CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER

Gee... I better check my own state for such vice laws... Nope, the only laws that refer to god in my state are to do with oaths ("so help me god") and "acts of god". Woo hoo!

I wonder if an insurance company could deny someone damages if they stipulate that they don't believe in god?
"That there tree fell on ma trail...er...house durin the twister! It's an act of god!"
"Sir, we here at Insura-corp don't believe in god, so technically, you're not covered."

Rational Response Squad makes Nightline

2007-01-31T17:09:00.000-05:00

Check it out, there was a piece on the Rational Response Squad on Nightline. (Rational Response Squad's home page.)

I don't know that I feel the hostility from Christians in my every-day life so much, because I don't challenge them openly that often. The very few times I've said to my friends "you know, I just don't believe in that any more," I generally get that they don't either, but some of them keep going to church either because they go with their family, out of habit, or perhaps out of the expectation that one day they'll feel something. But none of my friends/family are such that they would cut me out of their lives because of my beliefs.

And I'm just a tad afraid to confront strangers. As the guy from the Rational Response Squad says; they get death threats! I don't think atheism is worth dying for. Religion is the type of thing people die for, but since I don't believe in an after-life, I want to make the most of the life I have here. If arguing with one single person would threaten my life, I think I'd back off... I know what I believe in my mind, and nobody can change that.

I'm also not really sure why other people would take personal offense with what I might do with my "everlasting" soul.

I like my car too much to put stickers on it, I spend my money on better things than t-shirts about atheism, and I don't go out of my way looking for converts. Should I? I almost feel compelled to share my views, but then I think; isn't that a little like witnessing? And isn't that part what I'm against?

The Bananna: The Fundamentalist Christian's Nightmare

2007-01-30T10:32:00.000-05:00

Yea, I said it before; the banana isn't an ideal fruit made by god; it's been selected and cultivated by man and without man's intervention, it would disappear off the face of the earth because bananas don't produce seeds; they're all clones.

Anyhow, there's new news that within 10 years, either we won't have any bananas or they will be very different from the bananas we now eat. This already happened once within the last century when the Gros Michel went extinct due to fungus and the Cavendish was introduced as a fungus-resistant variety, but the Cavendish is now under threat from the same fungus. For those Fundies who don't believe in evolution, here's a fungus that has adapted and evolved in less than 100 years to now threaten another species of banana. It is becoming resistant to the fungicides. It is only through more intervention by man that the banana might live, the banana must be genetically modified to resist the fungus, either GM in the lab, or GM by selective breeding of the few seeds that can be found.

2007-01-29T17:28:00.000-05:00

I've often thought that the Sunni/Shia differences in Muslims were probably not unlike the difference between Presbyterians and Methodists, or Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, none of which I fully understand.

And so, while I don't fully understand the differences in Christianity, which is familiar to me, understanding the differences in Islam seems far beyond my reach.

But here is a simplified explanation to the schism between Sunni and Shia, for others who might be curious. This kind of religious intolerance, spread over 1400 years, is almost unfathomable to me! People kill each other over this? And dying for such ideas is a matter of pride? I don't get it... I really don't.

Does anyone know if there's a word for anti-religious? Since atheist means that one doesn't have a belief in god, is there a word for those of us who think that "organized" religion is, er, crazy? If not, can we make up a word?

The definition I'm looking for a word for is approximately: one who thinks that organized religion is more about controle of the masses than spiritual enlightenment, and therefore rejects any religious dogma instead favoring a personal moral code.

I don't remember if I linked this before, but it's still good.

Funny clip..... not much else today.

2007-01-26T16:42:00.000-05:00

Google video doesn't like me, so you'll have to follow the link.

War On Everything: Funny Christian Part

Two English guys busting on what seems to be southern-U.S. Christian TV. It's quite funny.

The Super Bowl is coming up, but did you jinx your team?

2007-01-24T13:53:00.001-05:00

I had an ex-boyfriend who decided that I wasn't allowed to attend the local Pro-Hockey games any more. Every time I went, they lost. He was dead serious about this too. Needless to say, we had other issues and the relationship didn't last. Since then I have been to several more Hockey games, Hockey being my favorite sport, and I can't recall the home team winning once when I've gone. So there's a teeny-bit of me that does wonder, is it me?

There's a NY Times article on such superstitions, who has them, when we acquire them, and how they can be good for us.

I think an aspect that this article ignores is inconsistent reward. Superstitions can arise even when they aren't consistently rewarded. B.F. Skinner famously studied this, and has been studied since, revealing that, while consistent reward yields more consistent behavior, superstitions persist when reward is inconsistent. Gambling is often used as an example of this phenomenon in humans, many have ritual numbers, seats, trinkets, or motions while gambling.

I have no doubt that prayer works the same way. Many people are convinced it works based on their preference for memories of times when prayer worked. While most of us know our ritualized behaviors don't offer us any better "luck" in life, we are often compelled to continue them. Call it a prayer or a wish, magic or god; belief in the super-natural is persistent across all of human existence, despite much evidence to the contrary.

So, despite my atheist convictions, I still cross my fingers and put on my jersey when I go to a game, with hopes that perhaps this time my luck will change.

The Super Bowl is coming up, but did you jinx your team?

2007-01-24T13:53:00.000-05:00

One well-written essay...

2007-01-23T11:55:00.000-05:00

Please check out this link to an essay about "what I want for christmas" written by the child of an atheist mother, and read through the comments. Possum Momma also has responded with more posts on the topic.

After reading this, I wish to one day be a mother like her. Possum #1 is both eloquent and empathetic. She is not a sheep, and we need more people who think for themselves in this world, despite the possible consequences. She took a stand.

For the teacher to say that atheists are incapable of having feelings for others, after her daughter clearly stated in her essay that her mother is atheist, is deplorable! Her teacher essentially told Possum #1 that her mother doesn't care about her! The way I see it, it's often that atheists are more caring for their fellow man, because we know god isn't going to take care of us; we have to take care of eachother. Atheist may be synonymous with godless, not ruthless.

I can't believe the response from the religious people who wish to pray for her and her children because they don't have god in their lives. This woman has raised a child who very eloquently expresses empathy for her classmates, thinking more about others than what material objects she might receive over the holidays. This is actually the most christian of actions, yet the christians feel that her children will still burn in hell without god.

I don't think I'll ever understand the concept of belief over action. I think that's the main thing that turns me off about faith. I have no doubt that the commenter's who express their prayers for her family really do fear that she is condemning them to eternal fire, their fear is apparent in their words. To them, it isn't about who you are or what you do in life, it's about what you believe above all. I never understood this. These types of people are more afraid of hellfire than anything in this world, and they fear reason because it could lead them to doubt, and therefore to that hellfire. I really do think this is evidence of brainwashing.

So they seriously believe that all the people in this world who aren't christian, the billions in China or India who have never even had the opportunity of hearing the name of Jesus Christ, who live good lives despite that, will burn in eternal hellfire as god rejects them from his kingdom? How does this make any sense? This though is why they go out as missionaries to bring salvation. They truly believe that their god will send people to hell if these people aren't introduced to Christ. What kind of loving god is that?

Getting into Heaven....

2007-01-22T16:21:00.000-05:00

I flip the radio stations frequently, and my one radio is analog, so flipping the radio stations means finding that sweet-spot on the dial. Unfortunately one of my preferred stations is right next to a religious station, and I get sucked into listening every now and then out of sheer fascination.

This morning, I heard a pastor explaining that science doesn't know what it's talking about. He said; if you ask what holds particles together, science can't really tell you. He said; scientists use words that go above your head, so they seem to sound like they know what they're talking about, but there are things they just can't explain. (Like they can't explain exactly what animal instinct is, he says.) He said; but the bible can explain it.

He was making some correlation between the book of revelations in the bible saying that the universe will be destroyed by fire and re-built by god, and that breaking atomic bonds (he actually said particle bonds once, and protein bonds once, but I'm pretty sure he was talking about atomic bonds) by fission causes "huge explosions."

I couldn't listen to much more considering how many wrong things I heard in all of 30 seconds.

*sigh* I'm no expert in nuclear physics, so I can't really get into explaining the forces at work within atoms, or how fission works, or even animal instincts, you can read up on that if you so choose. But obviously, there are explanations for these phenomenon.

I try my damnedest to be sure that I get the facts straight when I'm arguing for or against something, and I know I make mistakes, but I do try to do a bit of research, I try to quote the bible correctly, and I really wish that them preachers would quote science correctly. I wish preachers would have the same consideration or they should just avoid talking about things they know nothing about instead of just lying.

To them I say:

1) Just because science can't totally explain it doesn't mean god did it.
2) Just because you can't understand it, even if science can explain, it doesn't mean god did it.
3) Just because you ignore the science doesn't mean god did it.
4) You can't retro-actively attribute the bible to "knowing" things about science after science discovers it. You haven't predict shit from the bible, (yea, I'm talking to you with the "the end is near" poster) and until you do, I'll just act like that the earth will last forever and acknowledge we should take care of it as-such.
5) You can't pro-actively induce biblical predictions and call it god's will.

Atheist Ethicist: The Source of Hatred

2007-01-19T14:54:00.000-05:00

Atheist Ethicist: The Source of Hatred

I have often asked the question how christians can get away with ignoring most of Jewish law and still consider themselves followers of the same god. They do not protest prostitutes, they do not protest war (even thou god said thou shall not kill), and, like the Atheist Ethicist says, they do not protest people who work on Sundays. Yet they perpetuate hatred towards gays.

I think this article will help one understand their point of view, and where in the bible it says it's ok to ignore the Jewish dietary laws and some other laws god put down on the old testament:

http://www.pccmonroe.org/Homosexuality/Bible.htm

and also:

"In Leviticus 18:22, God clearly commands, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Pro-homosexual scholars argue that Christians are no longer under the Mosaic law. But we must carefully distinguish the dietary or ceremonial laws (abolished in the New Testament - Mark 7:19; Heb. 10:8-10) from the moral laws (reinforced in the New Testament and still applicable today --Mark 7:20-23; Matt. 5:27, 28)."

I'm not saying I agree with any of that, it's just that we need to understand what they are basing their claim that god and the bible says homosexuality is a no-no.

So, many christians interpret the new covenant Jesus made to have done away with the old dietary laws, but not having done away with homosexuality being bad.

I really find Mark 7 quite the ironic choice to quote. Jesus is condemning those who have "let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." Isn't bashing homosexuality a tradition of man?

I also find it ironic that christians continue to call the bible perfect and infallible and god never contradicts himself, but here it is clear that their god takes back what he said earlier!

But, back to what Atheist Ethicist says. I agree, hatred of gays is learned.

But he still hasn't answered the question "why?" Yes, it is a taught hatred, but why does it prevail? Hate often stems from fear. This is the real question we need to tackle: what is it about homosexuals that these christians are afraid of?

Why Your Perfect Little Angel Should Still be Required to Get Vaccinated Against HPV

2007-01-18T12:41:00.000-05:00

I saw this coming a mile away.

There is now a vaccine against 2 of the viruses that contribute to the STD HPV, which is a major factor in cervical cancer. But parents are objecting to action by a few states to make the vaccine mandatory. Despite that there are measures in place to allow parents to deny vaccinating their children for religious or health reasons.

Obviously it's mostly Christian parents objecting. Why should their chaste little angels, who would never have sex before marriage, get vaccinated?

Well, let me give you a few good reasons.

First, the most realistic reason: nobody's kids are perfect. Only 5% of people in the U.S. are virgins on their wedding day, and by the age of 44 99% of Americans have had sex. Most likely, your little girl will have sex before she's married, no matter how good of a parent you think you are.

Second, the scary reason: Your child could be raped. This happened to a friend of mine, and not only does she live with the burden of the memory of the assault, but she now lives in fear of cancer since she caught HPV from her attacker.

Third, them damn boys: If your little girl does happen to make it to her wedding day as pure as newly fallen snow, what about her husband? Are you telling your sons to keep their dick in their pants as well? Because that's the other half of how HPV is transmitted.

For this third reason, I think if states are going to make the vaccine a requirement for teenage girls, they need to make it a requirement for boys as well. Males aren't as likely to get cancer from HPV, but they are carriers and HPV can be transmitted by males even without viable outward signs.

So, all in all, this is yet another reason religion is so scary and dangerous to society. People think their families are immune to the harms of the world because they are religious. They are in denial if they truly believe that little girls who make a promise to Jesus first surely will keep it. Abstinence only right? Hiding from the truth, that kids are having sex, just means that their children know less about their own bodies, less about how to make a good decision when to have sex, less about how to protect themselves from disease and pregnancy when they do choose to have sex, less about what to do if they do have a sexual problem, and scared to ask!

I imagine there would there be the same objections to an HIV vaccine if it were developed. I smirk a bit though to think that I can see a future where STD's are only acquired by "good and moral" religious folk who never got vaccinated.

Death and ethics.

2007-01-17T15:25:00.000-05:00

I came across this video on google today, and for the squeamish (or dog-lovers) it might be a tad disturbing.

Experiments in the Revival of Organisms

There is debate about if it is real footage. (If you haven't the stomach for it, they first show dog organs living outside of the body, then a dog head alive without a body, and finally, a dog that they drain all the blood out of, and then revive after 10min.)

Even if it's not totally true, watching it makes me asked myself two questions:

1) When does death occur?
2) Are experiments like this ethical?

Death seems so final to us at first glance, but with modern medicine we can not only keep death at bay longer and extend our lives, but we can revive those who have lost all signs of life. Death is at the core of religious faith, as most religions are concerned with what happens to the soul after death based on actions in life.

Only 100 years ago, and in many parts of the world still, death is called when breathing and heartbeat stops. But we know this doesn't have to be final, many people have been "brought back to life." So death has been re-defined in this day/age to mean cessation of brain-activity. These videos are from the 1940's, and with today's technology and knowledge a similar procedure is done on humans for up to an hour of near-frozen lifelessness during surgeries.

Are they dead? I haven't heard any personal stories of people who have been through this procedure, and I think it would be interesting if they experienced anything at all. If there was a soul, what is keeping it inside the body during this procedure?

This also has implications for how one experiences death. If the brain can stay alive for even a few minutes after the body has ceased to function, how much of death does one experience? Without blood flow to the brain, one quickly passes out, and this can induce out-of-body-experiences, but how long does that take? In cases of actual death, we will not be getting information from anyone who's experienced it.

The question about weather or not experiments like these are ethical is just as complicated. Are the dogs in pain? (Probably a bit.) Is killing animals for the betterment of human lives ok? I mean, we kill animals to eat all the time, or does it depend on the animal? And then, is it ethical based on what these experiments imply for the future of human society? Is it really ethical to just keep someone alive simply because it's possible? How much interference with the "natural process" is ok? In a day and age where I can easily take a vaccine for a virus that would have killed a person of 100 years ago, can we really draw a line?

Further experiments I've found, which involved grafting puppy heads onto full-grown dogs, don't seem as ethical to me. These dogs did not survive long after such procedures.

The line I think I would draw is at pain; if these experiments can be conducted while keeping pain to a minimum for the animal (but how could we tell?), and there is a greater purpose to the experiments, I could consider them ethical. It would personally cause me mental anguish to preform such an experiment, but I can understand that there are people out there who don't feel such a way.

If the product of the research will lesson the pain of humans, are our lives more important? Is there a line between keeping a paraplegic alive vs. keeping just someone's head alive in a jar?

I kind of just hope I don't ever have to actually answer most of these questions.

(For a little more history/information, this is a good article as well.)

Comical

2007-01-17T13:11:00.000-05:00

Nothing beats a good illustration of the point. Both of these I came across within the past week.

I'm not sure where the Intelligent Design Zoo image originated, but it's an instant classic:

The second illustration I had to share was this past weekend's Doonesbury:

Enjoy!

America, molded by god

2007-01-12T17:11:00.000-05:00

I was reading the article Through A Glass, Darkley, by Jeff Sharlet at Harpers. It's throughly disturbing what's he's witnessed as the "Christian Soldiers" are prepared for war. Fundamentalist christians are isolating their children, teaching them their own version of history with god at the center, just like they're teaching the "science" of god. (Not that I fully believe that public schools teach an unbiased view of history, but teaching children that the history of America is the way god wanted things to go just makes me want to vomit.) In their minds, god is molding the American way of life, and they are called to keep it in line with (what they see as) god's will.

He refers to a christian site that provides literature and toys for followers and those who home-school their children. At first, it seems to promote a wholesome view of the family. But it doesn't take much flipping through the site to see there is a fascination with keeping their daughters holy and training their sons for war. Why is there such fear? And such a call to arms? I don't think I will ever understand how war and the commandment "thou shall not kill" are compatible in anyone's mind.

These people are "doing gods bidding" and have removed themselves from themselves. They free themselves from all responsibility in life; what good they do is god's good, what evil they do is the devil. It reminds me of the Milgram Experiments. And apparently, 40-some years later we still haven't learned anything, people are still willing to do evil things to eachother under the guise of "he told me to do it." Fundamentalists are the ultimate in followers it seems to me. They may say they are leading others on a path to god, but it is a very well beaten path at this point in human history, and it's not a hard path to find.

How many of us in this day and age are willing to stand up and take responsibility for ourselves? For our own actions? This is what I think I find the most troubling about the religious way of life, and why I reject it so harshly. I wish to retain the ability to say "this is wrong" without having to look to a superior or to a book for the answer. I wish that all people could think for themselves, and about the others around them.

As far as I see, christian fundamentalists who home school their children, in the isolation of their children from those who don't agree with them or who might introduce them to other ideas, are perpetuating a lack of empathy for the world around them, and a selfishness that only their point of view should be portrayed in the world.

Blogging the Bible

2007-01-11T13:21:00.000-05:00

What happens when an ignoramus reads the Good Book?

David Plotz is a Jew who has gone back to the Bible, reading it and commenting as he goes. It's an interesting commentary, and you can follow along.

Isn't that the point of An Inconvenient Truth?

2007-01-11T11:54:00.000-05:00

I really need to watch An Inconvenient Truth, but I'm pretty sure I know most of what the movie gets at.

Some (christian) parents in Washington State are objecting to the movie An Inconvenient Truth being shown to their children in school. Apparently the movie presents Scientific Facts instead of what the Bible teaches about the earth *shudder.* Apparently the school board agrees that a credible opposing viewpoint must be presented. Is a young-earth-creationist's point of view that the bible is the truth credible? It definitely can't be presented in school. The only way to dispute facts is with lies... lies are never credible. I'm kind of tired of hearing this "Students should make their own decision" BS. That means presenting them with every crack-pot theory out there!

And other parents object to the movie on grounds that it's presenting the viewpoint that American's are "bad."

"From what I've seen (of the movie) and what my husband has expressed to me, if (the movie) is going to take the approach of 'bad America, bad America,' I don't think it should be shown at all," Gayle Hardison said. "If you're going to come in and just say America is creating the rotten ruin of the world, I don't think the video should be shown."

Oh for the love of gawd! I'm sure this woman has one spoiled little brat of a child, because this leads me to believe she doesn't want her child to ever feel he/she has done something wrong! This is not how to raise children. As children we all have to learn how to deal with being at fault and loosing the game, because if children don't learn these things, they find blame and loss hard to deal with as adults! You wind up with adults who don't apologize and get lawsuit-happy because it's not their fault they tripped on the sidewalk in their 6" heels.

I think that's why it's no longer called "Global Warming," it's called "climate change." (I won't get started on the games politicians and the media play with semantics right now...) People (Americans) don't want to feel like it's their fault or that they should make sacrifices. But isn't that the point of "An Inconvenient Truth?"

I remember as a child watching NOVA and hearing that, if trends continued, the planet would be significantly warmer by 2050. That perhaps much of California and the East-Coast would be under-water. I grew up with Global Warming looming overhead. I'm sorry that I can't say that I've done much personally to prevent it, but it seemed like such a world-wide problem, my efforts would just be like a drop in the ocean... I should remember that every drop in the bucket counts.

Yoga is just an opening for the Devil....

2007-01-10T16:20:00.000-05:00

Apparently, some christian people would rather have fat kids than have them exposed to such evils as Yoga.

I've done my share of Yoga, and I don't get anything religious about it. But lets examine it a little further.

Yoga originates in Hindu philosophy. Most westerners think of Yoga as some stretching and breathing techniques. It depends a bit on your yoga-teacher how spiritual of an experience they choose to make it. Actually, I have had to choose my yoga classes carefully, because certain nights of the week they have Christian Yoga! Is that an oxymoron perhaps? (Apparently some Christians think so, and have developed their own alternative to Yoga.)

In the end, I'd actually say that it'd probably be better to avoid Yoga in school. While the Yoga we know is far removed from it's religion, just like Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny, and I don't really think that Yoga could convert anyone to another religion (if it does, you weren't that set in your religion to begin with), I wouldn't want it to get turned on it's head and have Dianetics taught in school. In any event, exercise should be taught by professionals for safety. Perhaps stretching, breathing, and exercise can all be pulled out of Yoga and presented in a way that wouldn't be called Yoga and doesn't involve finding you're center.

In addition to that, I don't think that many of those positions would be appropriate for a class of kids hitting puberty. I remember giggling my way through health, and biology, I'm just imagining, if I had yoga in school, being stuck on a mat behind the flatulent kid while attempting downward-kneeling-dog, or worse, being stuck in front of the nerdy kid with a crush on me who's now getting a great view.

The Free Thinking Organization

2007-01-09T16:09:00.000-05:00

There's part of me that wants to start an atheist-organization that could replace religion in this world. I do understand that for the most part, atheism has a lot to do with free-thinking... and free thinking and organization aren't the most compatible concepts... but I could call it The Free Thinking Organization!

FTO wouldn't be a religion or cult, just a better way of (controlling people's) thinking!

I would make an excellent leader of the FTO because, being a free-thinker myself, I could best direct people's thoughts towards free-thinking! I wouldn't do it because I wanted people's money, or their allegiance, I'd do it for the better good of the world. I could get everyone to think the same free-thoughts.

Wouldn't you want to belong?

Carl Sagan Explains Natural Selection

2007-01-08T13:24:00.000-05:00

I'm still not totally getting how to post google videos, their system for posting go blogger doesn't seem to work well for me.

Anyhow, here's a good bit by Carl Sagan on natural selection.

And a good cartoon;

Play God

2007-01-03T15:52:00.000-05:00

Way back when, I had this game called Sim-Life. I loved it. I could sit for hours and play with the little creatures. I had wondered why maxis hadn't yet updated it, considering that they'd updated sim-city, sim-coaster, the sims, etc.

But apparently, they've just been biding their time...

I now await Spore.

I've always loved the idea that one gets to play at evolution. Even the game Sim-life makes it a little easier to understand how evolution happens and how habitats work. It's a bit rudimentary now, but back on windows 3.1, I thought it was the greatest thing since Intellivision.

It makes me think; if I were god, I could make organisms any way I wanted! They wouldn't be limited in their design by what they evolved from. Mammals with 6 legs, cold-blooded-birds, purple people, purple people eaters, etc... but our world isn't like that. Fortunately, we have computers!

Here's the 35 min presentation on Spore, and here's to hoping that it will be released this year.
Until then, I'll just keep watching & waiting.

Faith in Mankind

2007-01-03T10:32:00.000-05:00

I believe in the power of the individual. You get people in groups, and ideas can get muddled, people make decisions based on how others will see them instead of how they really feel, and might doesn't always make right.

But one man can make a difference, and history is full of individuals who stand out from the crowd.

I still have faith in mankind, and for any person who thinks that faith in mankind is misplaced, I give you this story from NYC: A Man Down, a Train Arriving, and a Stranger Makes a Choice.

It's just inspiring. One man made a choice, probably without time to think or pray about it. Some people are calling him an "angel," but any one could have done what he did. The only question is; how many of us actually would?

Atheism is getting more attention

2007-01-02T13:52:00.000-05:00

Atheism is getting more attention in the news, as this article examines. Is the challenge of atheism a good thing for religion? Could it make the religious think a little harder about what they believe and why?

The theological question that needs to be explored in both church and state is this: Can God be understood in some way other than through these infantile and tribal images? Can Jesus be seen in some way other than as the divinely appointed sacrificial victim who paid the price owed to God for our sinfulness?

Another place atheists are getting more attention is on Youtube. Since www.BlasphemyChallenge.com came around, more people are denying the holy spirit in exchange for a copy of The God Who Wasn't There. I already have my copy of the movie, but I'm not sure if I would be willing to sell my soul for a DVD... (Perhaps for some Alf Pogs thou...)

I'm still contemplating if we really do have a soul at all, thou I'm pretty sure if we do, saying "I deny the holy ghost" isn't going to have any bearing on what happens to it when I die. I'm pretty sure my actions in life will always speak loudest and to truly deny the idea of the holy spirit, one would have to commit some atrocious actions in life, things which I wouldn't be comfortable with. Even as I deny the idea of god, and I have no fear of spending my after-life in flames since I don't believe in hell, I get the feeling that denying the "holy spirit" is more like denying that idea of spirit in each of us, and I'm not ready to do that; I still have faith in mankind.

Here's to hoping the popularity of atheism isn't a passing fad.

Old Rocks

2007-01-02T11:11:00.000-05:00

Religion teaches it's followers not to trust everything they see; god or the devil could have lied to you to test your faith. So they believe that rocks on earth aren't really millions of years old, because the bible says differently. There is a bigger lesson there for us all to learn.

Honesty is difficult. It requires heroic efforts of introspection and self-awareness. This honest portrayal of reality is at the heart of the conflict between science and religion. While science is a natural response to reality, religion demands that we distrust our senses and our intellect, instead relying on a supernatural explanation. In this way, faith robs us of the best tool we have for learning about our world and understanding our true position within it. Religions, especially fundamentalist religions, get stuck because they are based on an immovable, unchangeable, unquestionable authority. But without doubt and questioning, there is no way to acknowledge, much less correct for errors. That is how a 6,000 year-old rock becomes dangerous.

In the New Year....

2006-12-26T11:09:00.000-05:00

I'll get back to posting in the New Year... this week I'm on vacation, and I'm going to spend it relaxing!

In their own world....

2006-12-21T16:57:00.000-05:00

I don't deal with Christians on a daily basis. I mean, I'm sure a lot of the people I deal with daily are "Christian" but not to a pushy extent. I'm lucky in some sense that I live in a part of the country where it's normal to be different. I pass by churches and congregations as I drive through my community; but I don't really feel they make their presence known to me. I rarely get a knock on the door with an invitation to church.

But I think I would find it interesting to participate, as this man did, in uuber-Christian activities; to see what it is like.

The people (kids especially) he talks to who are very into their religion seem to have lived very sheltered lives. And they make a point of sheltering themselves; instead of making themselves stronger by facing the world, they just avoid the world.

4862 gods I don't believe in....

2006-12-21T16:54:00.000-05:00

It's an interesting list of 4862 gods to not believe in, and while some of the names on the list are different names for the same god, a lot of the names are just gods nobody believes in any more.

Think about it....

2006-12-20T12:31:00.000-05:00

What you believe really depends on where you were born... think about it.
The history of organized religion in just a few seconds.

We're Made out of Meat... think about it.

If you're in the mood for more thinking, here are some imponderables.

Or, if you're in the mood for some other fun stuff to watch, the Simpsons episode where Homer joins the Movementarians is always priceless.
Hopefully it'll stay up online.

Stewardess makes fuss: no bibles allowed on flight?

2006-12-20T12:26:00.000-05:00

You'd think, as an international flight attendant, you'd get used to rules of different countries:

On its web site the Foreign Office says of Saudi Arabia: "The importation and use of narcotics, alcohol, pork products and religious books, apart from the Koran, and artifacts are forbidden."

But nooo... she's gotta make a fuss. If it was part of my religion to carry around a stick of dynamite, could I sue for not being allowed to take it on a plane? How about if I always carried around a bag of fruit or had a pet I wanted to take with me on the plane for religious reasons? (Note: often foods & animals are quarantined for health/environmental reasons... someone brought a bunny to Australia once, and that was a bad plan) How is this stewardess making such a fuss over something that isn't even the airline's rules?

Tell on thy neighbor.

2006-12-20T12:21:00.000-05:00

Oh my gawd! There's gays everywhere! Flush them out!!! You remember the New Live Church in Colorado right? That's the one where they fired Ted Haggard for having had homosexual-relations. They're now trying to flush out more gays, with another one found already! The website for the New Life Church has the policy for reporting bad-behavior. How...errh...Christian of them...

I really don't understand why some people are so afraid of homosexuality. For all of the sins listed in the bible; why does this one threaten them so? If they found one amongst themselves to have committed murder, would the Christians shun them as well? I kinda remember somewhere in the bible Jesus saying "let he without sin cast the first stone," no?

And now that the gays want to get married, that's just an abomination! *sigh* I still stick by that marriage is a government contract; weddings are what people have in church. And while I think that some people are hung-up a bit too much on the vocabulary, (it must be called marriage instead of civil union) the people that think gay-marriage is gonna ruin the fabric of society are just delusional.

I have only one reason I'm against gay marriage; the straights will take advantage of it. Seriously, that's the only hang-up I can think of; Adam has good health care, his roommate Steve doesn't have any health-care, but if they get married, Steve will chip in more money towards rent and they can share Adam's health-care. They'll get a divorce when one of them finds a chick.

Aside from that, it's not like gay marriage could ruin an entire state or anything...

Commen questions to Atheists:

2006-12-19T13:12:00.000-05:00

I wander around the web now & then and post comments on Christian blogs, and recently have been getting the same questions over again. I was wondering how to answer those questions best.

There's an interesting site, Digital Freethought.com, and they have a video series on answering questions commonly posted to Atheists. (I'm not the biggest fan of their website layout... it's kinda annoying.)

Anyhow, I've posted part 1 of 6 here:

And you can find the rest back at Digital Freethoughts video links, or at youtube.

Not that all of their answers pertain to my own personal beliefs, but it's a good place for me thinking about my own answers.

Teacher talks christianity in class; tells kids they're goin to hell.

2006-12-18T13:27:00.000-05:00

This kid is brave. Matthew LaClair recorded his teacher's inappropriate teachings. Read about it at the NY-times, and do check out the audio as well.

While Matthew does seem like a bit of a "trouble maker" (previously he caused some stir because he wouldn't stand for the pledge), he has a valid point and shouldn't be threatened by other students & teachers for voicing it.

I don't know how anyone could defend this teacher. From the sound-clips of the teacher, it's obvious to me that the teacher is crossing a line. Even if he is being a bit "baited" he should know better than to continue to talk about his personal faith in scripture in class. It's just not the proper setting.

The question about teachers voicing their political/religious opinions was put to the person-on-the-street in the local paper. And I honestly think that a teacher could get away with voicing their opinion of they said "It is my opinion that... blah blah blah ... but there are cases against this. If you want to know more, ask me outside of school. Lets get back to the topic at hand." Some more opinions previously posted on the Observer are archived at Google.

There is also a letter from Matthew's father posted on the Observer's editor's blog. His parents aren't suing; they just want acknowledgment. I have to respect that. If some teacher began discussing his sex life in class, and it was recorded, parents would definitely sue.

It's also interesting to note that the teacher in question, Paszkiewicz, has a poor opinion of public schools and home schools his own children. Why is he a public-school teacher then?

2006-12-18T10:08:00.000-05:00

I was listening to NPR (like usual) this morning, and they had a new "This I Believe." Todays was a piece by Richard Rohr titled Utterly Humbled by Mystery.

I wasn't paying too much attention, I was weaving in/out of traffic at the time, but this was the part that my ears perked up at:

"My scientist friends have come up with things like "principles of uncertainty" and dark holes. They're willing to live inside imagined hypotheses and theories. But many religious folks insist on answers that are always true. We love closure, resolution and clarity, while thinking that we are people of "faith"! How strange that the very word "faith" has come to mean its exact opposite."

While I'll freely admit to never being able to know if there is no god, I still believe there is no god. I often come into conflict with people of "faith" who say they KNOW there is a god, and claim they have seen his works. If someone has truly seen the works of god; do they still have faith? Isn't it then no longer faith since they feel they have proof?

On another note, if you haven't listened to the "This I Believe" essay by Penn Jillette, titled "I believe that there is no god," I recommend that as well.

I love PBS

2006-12-16T14:24:00.000-05:00

I grew up attending church on a weekly basis, and attending catholic school as a child. My father was very into having me grow up a good catholic.

But my mother was a science teacher. Many nights, I would curl up beside her on the couch and watch PBS specials, Nova, Scientific American Frontiers, Nature, and the like. Our coffee table was piled high with Nature, Discover, National Geographic, and Scientific American.

With a foot in both the religious supernatural, and the scientific quest for the way the natural world works, it didn't take me long to internally question faith. I began to need to rationalize the Bible (the flood story was probably derived from Gilgamesh, Jesus probably didn't raise from the dead but most probably his body was stolen, etc.).

To this day, specials from the BBC & PBS fascinate me and spur on my desire to learn. And so, I present you with a wonderful special on M theory, as found on Youtube.

(ETA: Ooops... I posted #5 twice...)

Politics over Science....

2006-12-15T15:14:00.000-05:00

On the Union of Concerned Scientists website, they have a list of scientific research that has been manipulated, suppressed, or distorted by the U.S. Government.

I'd actually recommend the alphabetical view.

Read them. Be concerned. If it's that easy to manipulate science, just imagine what else is being manipulated.

Why are we attracted to shiny objects?

2006-12-13T15:41:00.000-05:00

Belief and expectations aren't always about god. Popular social opinion influences our lives to a larger degree than most of us would like to admit. And often enough, that opinion has been implanted in us by those seeking to make money off of us; corporations, churches, governments.
My analysis of the way we feel we are expected to live our lives doesn't always apply to just religion. Recently, probably because of the movie Blood Diamond, I've seen a lot of press on the diamond industry.

Diamonds are not that rare. And the reasons we value them are just as fabricated as reasons we buy Hallmark-cards. Read about the history of the diamond engagement ring, and why a diamond "is forever" in this article from 1982. These ideas, fabricated by DeBeers, are set in your mind so that you bury your mother with her jewelry, and buy new jewelry for your own bride. Today, many women EXPECT their fiancé to spend several month's salary on such a token of their love.

The latest attempt at selling more diamonds is in making right-hand-rings all the rage. Single girls should have their diamonds too!

How do we get diamonds? Here's a Photo-Essay by Time.com, and another from ForeignPolicy.com.

So, psychologically they've conditioned us that: 1) a diamond is a sign of love, 2) a diamond is a sign of wealth/power 3) a diamond is forever; you shouldn't buy them "used," and you shouldn't sell them.

The last part, selling a diamond, is quite difficult because individuals only want to buy diamonds "new" and from a jeweler who they trust will give them a quality and valuable rock. Jewelers don't want to buy diamonds back from the public, and often refuse instead of giving low-ball prices. Unless you are an expert with a magnifying glass, it is very hard to tell the quality of a diamond.

Being that carbon is one of the most plentiful elements on the planet, these days diamonds are easily made, and you can even have your cremated remains turned into a diamond. The man-made alternatives are diamonds in every sense of the word, but all man-made diamonds are laser-inscribed, so that at a glance a jeweler can tell. There are also differences in the way man-made diamonds refract u-v light, and DeBeers also uses this to it's advantage. (Thou I cannot really see the problem an individual would have with this, as it's not really like they could re-sell a natural stone either... but it's the psychological aspect, some people feel man-made diamonds aren't "real")

Still, they have accounted for women who object to the idea of diamonds:

Through a series of "projective" psychological questions, meant "to draw out a respondent's innermost feelings about diamond jewelry," the study attempted to examine further the semi-passive role played by women in receiving diamonds. The male-female roles seemed to resemble closely the sex relations in a Victorian novel. "Man plays the dominant, active role in the gift process. Woman's role is more subtle, more oblique, more enigmatic...." The woman seemed to believe there was something improper about receiving a diamond gift. Women spoke in interviews about large diamonds as "flashy, gaudy, overdone" and otherwise inappropriate. Yet the study found that "Buried in the negative attitudes ... lies what is probably the primary driving force for acquiring them. Diamonds are a traditional and conspicuous signal of achievement, status and success."

Being an atheist means I bow down to no god. But still, it's hard not to subject ourselves to the judgment of others. It amazes me how much industry, religion, and politics, is built on that concept. While the psychological impact of the diamond industry's advertisements bothers me, I still fall pray, feeling the need to explain my lack of desire for them and feeling a bit of inadequacy, as I know the expectations & assumptions others make about me by what kind of jewelry I may or may not be wearing.

More on the diamond industry at American Radio Works.

Be pissed off

2006-12-12T13:18:00.000-05:00

Probably a bit unsuitable for work, but gotta love this rant by Rollins:

Get pissed off, because freedom is something we all should be entitled to in the U.S.A. If we let fear rule us, that just perpetuates the use of fear to control.

Jesus vs. Jesus

2006-12-11T14:24:00.000-05:00

When I first saw ads for the new movie "The Nativity Story" I really did think to myself "Oh good! They're Middle Eastern!" And now Newsweek has an article on the history of the white-Jesus phenomenon.

Christians of all sorts build up a Jesus in their own image. The movie Dogma proclaims that Jesus was a brother, and I have seen all types of statues with Jesus on the crucifix.

A few years ago, Popular Mechanics had a good cover-story on the "real" face of Jesus. In reality, it was a reconstruction of a face from the the area and time of Jesus. I'm not sure how much I buy that either, because I am of the persuasion that, if there really was a Jesus, he may have been half-Roman.

I've always considered the crucifix & many images of Jesus idolatry. My one grandmother had a picture of Jesus in her house to watch over her, and that always struck me as odd; isn't Jesus supposed to be watching everybody anyhow? And in the Catholic Church people kneel before the host (the little piece of bread that is supposed to actually be a piece of Jesus' body) but the host is often in front of (or under) the crucifix. I wouldn't go as far as the Muslims that absolutely forbid any images portraying Mohamed, but I do think that many Christians look at the crucifix or picture of Jesus in their home and pray to that as an idol. I understand the origin of picture-stories in the Church, to teach the illiterate, but it can be misleading. There was a crucifix hung above the door in my house growing up, I always thought it was for luck, like a horseshoe.

I'm not sure what the fascination with the religious icons is. I was just wondering this weekend what a young Jewish couple from the middle east 2000 years ago would think about the lighted display that surrounds us these days in celebration of their son's birth. Apparently, since he was probably the first to re-create the scene, it's all due to St. Francis that so many lawns around my neighborhood have glowing crèche, or other assorted displays.

Evolution of lactose tolerance

2006-12-11T14:22:00.000-05:00

It's now being found out when the genetic advantage to drinking milk evolved.

There are many, many web sites out there that will tell you not to drink Milk, for various reasons. If I think about it, yea, it is kinda weird to drink cow-juice... but any more weird than to eat any animal-product? I honestly think the vegans probably are eating closer to what humans historically evolved to eat, and are probably healthier for it, but I'm not vigilant enough (read: I'm lazy, I admit it) to watch my food intake in such a way.

Being of European decent, my mom & grandmom are both lactose-intolerant. My mom only became Lactose-intolerant after I was born. I'm not sure about myself, I haven't always had the happiest tummy, and I've mostly cut out drinking glasses of milk, but my stomach seems to handle milk-products (cheese, sour cream, ice-cream) just fine so far. I wonder if I'll stay that way.

A Child's Mind

2006-12-10T09:45:00.000-05:00

Reason magazine has two good clips I won't re-post here. The first is a little girl arguing that violence in this country isn't due to video games or rap music. She goes on, but it's not the best argument. It's really just not. I'm not sure if the parents fed it to her, which would seem most likely, or if some of what she's saying is what she's gathered from her education. If someone fed her the argument, then it really implies she herself doesn't have a formed opinion, hence we don't treat children like adults, so it's very self-contradictory. The Bastard Fairies aren't anything special, they've got scantily clad women & provocative songs, but that's not new, and the songs aren't anything that great in my opinion.

Anyhow, I think it's even more ridiculous that Riley responded to it, and called it child abuse at that. If that's child-abuse, EVERYONE abuses their child's mind. Everyone puts words into their kids mouths, either consciously or unconsciously. Children are taught what to believe by their parents, and I don't think this child's extreme views are any worse than those kids at Jesus Camp. I mean, she's kinda pissed off, but she's not preaching hate and she's not crying hysterically in the delusion that millions of people are going to hell because they aborted their babies. Or how about the christian kids being baited on the marriage issue.

Not that I'm all for abortion, if safe-sex was preached more, we'd need less of them. It's a pretty crappy procedure, and even without the whole god-involvement, I'd be concerned about it. I think any woman who's had sex has had the chance to consider it, even for just that 1 day their period is late. But seriously, when the options are to either have an abortion, or leave a newborn baby in a truck because you're too christian to have had unprotected sex.... I think the kid would have been better off never having been born. If not for the neighbors, it would have died really unpleasant death, and who knows how many babies do die like this but were never found?

Many tragedies are in the name of religion, and that's the sad truth at the end of the day, no matter who says it.

God bless those Pagans.

2006-12-08T13:17:00.000-05:00

At a school in Va. the Churchies complained that they couldn't put their flyers in school-kids take-home "mail." So the school officials caved-in & said that fliers for religious events could be put in the kids take-home-mail as well. Then the Pagan Unitarians sent home a letter for a Yule celebration... oh, don't ya know the Churchies complained?

I originally found the story at the Americans United weblog.

Not that I totally agree with the NatureSpirit ideas, but heck, anything that makes the kids think about their religion is a starting point.

Christian vs. Christ Follower?

2006-12-07T11:03:00.000-05:00

These are pretty cute. It's a parody of Mac vs. PC, but it's Christian vs. Christ-Follower.
These videos really point out the most annoying traits of uuber-Christians.

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

(Honestly, their other videos aren't that bad either. I had to laugh at the guy hanging out with Jesus for the day, when they're shopping for hats.)

I first saw these videos and thought they weren't that bad. Despite my belief that there is no god, there really aren't a lot of negative things I could say about the parables of Jesus. They are quality lessons, good to know. It's the Christian dogma that has built up around Jesus that really gets under my skin. I thought even I could be a Jesus follower without believing Jesus was anything divine, just as I could follow Buddha, or Sagan. As far as I always read the bible stories, Jesus himself didn't seem that big on the dogma.

So I looked them up, and I was disappointed to find out the people that made these videos are still typical Christians. I read up on their "what we believe" site & they still believe the same-old-same-old; "We believe the Bible is entirely accurate, complete, and reliable." And that just doesn't fly for me, no matter how cute their ad-campaign is.

It actually made me wonder what the point of their ad's are? They're alienating some Christians, while they won't really attract anyone who doesn't believe in the Bible. Are they just preaching to the choir?

Ten Verses Never Preached On

2006-12-06T17:27:00.000-05:00

1. Deuteronomy 25:11-12 NASB
If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

I never heard this in catholic school! Shit man, I'm not allowed to grab another mans 'gnads in order to keep him from beating the crap 'outta my husband? What other graphic details does this bible have? Oh. Not a kids book is it?

God is real. And he's unbelievable.

2006-12-06T16:35:00.000-05:00

Classic.

http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

Is god unbelievable or what?

A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion

2006-12-06T13:35:00.000-05:00

The original article is from the NY times: A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion

But you can read the whole article here.

And the responses are decent.

My own response is that Religion should not be above attack. The more people that belong to a religion, the less it is attacked, scrutinized, and analyzed. While there are many faith-based charities, there are plenty of non-religious charities as well (Off hand I think of amnesty international and the International red cross/red crescent).

I'd really like to see some examples of "the tone of this Charge of the Atheist Brigade is often just as intolerant — and mean." I would never think to personally attack someone based on their beliefs, thou I may attack their beliefs. And I'm not sure that calling an atheist "fundamentalist" is appropriate at all, due to the lack of set belief system. Atheism is a belief that there is no god. While religious fundamentalists have strict dogma they follow, atheists have only one common belief. When your one belief is their is no god, and you look to proven scientific evidence for everything else, how would you be able to compromise on that?

Shall we say 2+2=5? If we say 2+2=4 and we do not waver, are we fundamentalist? Or are we "intolerant & mean" for disregarding some peoples' belief in high values of 2?

"'Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.' The mind, of course, is not the individual mind, but the mind of the Party, 'which is collective and immortal.'"

South Park is such a great show

2006-12-05T15:32:00.000-05:00

"The show is saying that there is a middle ground, that most of us actually live in this middle ground, and that all you extremists are the ones who have the microphones because you’re the most interesting to listen to, but actually this group isn’t evil, that group isn’t evil, and there’s something to be worked out here."

-From Interview with Reason Magazine.

I love South Park. They offend everyone and they make you think about it while they make you laugh about it.

Scientology: Day 1 - 4th of July Event

2006-12-01T15:30:00.001-05:00

In context with the last video on Scientology I posted a link to, this is a prime example of real-life use of the techniques they learn in those sessions. This isn't about communication; look how close into the face of the camera-man they get. And see how angry they get; that's not healthy. It's about intimidation & control. They keep asking the same questions; trying to "break" him. I only found interbulate in the urban dictionary.

For all they're against psychology, they sure as hell use a lot of psychological coercive-tactics.


Scientology held an open event on a street actually renamed "L. Ron Hubbard Way" by the city of Los Angeles. I tried to attend the event and was stopped from walking down a public street. This video contains an excellent example of "bullbaiting" which is something Scientologists drill to do. The idea is to try to cave in the person who is being assaulted.

Know your Bible!

2006-11-30T12:25:00.000-05:00

I find this guy's illustration of bible verses kinda funny, but some of them are highly disturbing/NSFW. You have been forewarned.

Know your Bible!

It's something that makes you think about how absurd taking the bible literally is by pairing pictures with the verses.

A look into what them Scientologists do

2006-11-30T12:14:00.000-05:00

I've been a bit fascinated with Scientology as a religion. As a relatively new religion, it's interesting to see how it is spreading & growing. If this is what they really go through, how is Scientology attractive to anyone? (I can't get the google videos to clip right into my blog... I'll have to figure out what's wrong with that.)

These drills are supposed to be for communicating with people, but it would seem to me rehearsing communication would tend to make any communication in-authentic.

I'd never want to join a club that would put me through these kinds of drills. Especially because there is no rationale behind any of it. It reminds me of busy-work, but with more of a goal of breaking down one's personality. I got bored just watching this! I can't imagine actually experiencing these trials. I'd quit pretty damn fast.

I dunno how Scientology got to be a religion, I guess it's just because they believe some crazy supernatural things, and enough people joined to bump it above cult status. Their orientation video doesn't provide me with any desire to become a member of their craziness. As far as I can tell, it's just a system for selling crap books... there are plenty of Christian "churches" who are more than happy to sell you their crap books/materials as well. I'm very wary of any group (religious or otherwise) that, in order to join/move up the ladder, has me buy their crap.

Does religion in school promote rejection of religion?

2006-11-29T12:07:00.000-05:00

This is the sort of thing I really wish I had statistics on. Do kids who had religious education as part of their school curriculum grow up more likely to abandon that religion as adults?

I was not aware that kids in England had mandatory Religious Education in schools. And I am not certain about how most Christian kids get their religious education, thou I have seen parts of the Jesus Camp Documentary:

& Reviews of it:

Does this making Jesus/God fun for youth, instead of just educating them about their religion, make these kids more hard-fast in their beliefs? (Aside from the obvious brain-washing some of these kids are experiencing.)

I went to Catholic school. I was educated about my religion. Religion class was about memorizing prayers and a work-book with a smiling, very anglo-looking, cartoon-Jesus. We didn't sing rock songs; we went to mass on holy days & sang old-time hymns. It wasn't exciting in the least (except when one of the boys made fart-sounds with his shoes mid-mass, and we'd all try not to giggle). And since Religion was part of my education, I felt compelled to actually think about it. Religion wasn't fun/games, it was serious stuff, with lots of rules to follow, lots of formality.

Would I have stayed religious if it was more fun? Would I have thought less about religion if it wasn't taught in classes in school?

Watch some Creation Science Evangelism

2006-11-28T18:28:00.000-05:00

They take the Bible literally & try to debunk evolution using the Bible.

Really, watch it. This is what people believe. Many listen to Dr. Kent Hovind. (This guy's been avoiding his taxes.)

Watch, listen to his "evidence" and at the same time read along for explanations of his lies.

First, you can tell they just don't like the idea that humans aren't special:

I don’t know why anyone objects to having evolved from simpler life forms. Creationists are always making fun of great-grandparents being monkeys, or here; soup. What's wrong with that again? My body is made completely of chemicals that are found in the earth. By this point in my life my body has replaced my entire skeleton at least once, and my skeleton is made of calcium... gee... lots of rocks are made of calcium. Every other chemical in my body got there cuz I ate it at one point or another. I eat the cow, the cow eats the grass, the grass grows from nutrients in the ground.... ok, so I'm a more complicated rock with chemical processes going on inside. What's wrong with that?

They claim the earth isn't over 6000 years old (because if you add up everyone's age in the bible, that's around when Adam shoulda been born):

Today's estimates of world population extend to at least 8000 BCE. The population boom we currently are experiencing is due to technology; better medicine & better food. Even 100 years ago many more women died in child-birth, many more children died of diseases we now get vaccinated for, and many more adults died from things doctors now cure with routine procedures. It took almost all of the 6.5 million years humans have been around for us to move beyond hunter/gatherer. (And agriculture might not be the best idea for human nutrition anyways, but that's a different topic.)

So the charts he presents as a time-line are not accurate and therefore prove nothing.

They claim the earth isn't over crowded since there's 6 billion square feet in Florida:

But it's not about how much earth one can stand on; it's how much earth (farmland) it takes to feed a person. Sustainability. Most of the open land he talks about is either 1) barren or 2) already used as farmland to feed those billions. Only 13% of the land on earth is suitable for growing crops. And crops like corn, potatoes, and rice, don't have true nutrition variety. The world’s oceans were once full of nutritious stuff to eat, but we know that's not going so well these days. And this guy obviously hasn't ever stepped foot in India or Beijing... just telling people to move isn't the solution when these people can hardly afford to eat (half the world's population live on than less $2 a day) let alone to pack up & move themselves & buy land elsewhere. Global estimates of the number of squatters (people who don't own or rent; just occupy their living space) over one billion people, with 200,000 added every day.

So these Christians beliefs are more than just anti-evolution; they are anti-population-stabilization & anti-environmentalists. They think their god is telling them to keep breeding, he will provide (with government subsidies). It's very scary, and as far as I'm concerned; very selfish. What's so wrong with a world of better people instead of just a world full of more people living insufferable lives, waiting to die of starvation & disease?

(He briefly brings up vaccines, with links to where you can buy his books on the subject; www.tetrahedron.org, www.billsardi.com I think I'll avoid that subject for right now.)

Then he moves on to space & galaxies. This is going to get more complex than I can explain decently. Talk Origins does a LOT of debunking. The above is just what was easy enough for me to discover on my own. I may take the easy way out for some of these though & reference Talk Origins where I can, since I'm not even 20min into the video at this point.

He thinks spiral galaxies should loose their shape. Not true. (Note also he is quoting scientists from over 20 years ago; science has progressed a lot in the past 20 years, he should take the time to read some updated books, but I'm sure he's just used to the bible that hasn't changed in the past 2000 years)

He questions novas/super novas. "If the universe is billions of years old, how come there are less than 300 super nova?" That's just wrong. Astronomers find between 300 & 400 supernovae a year! And of course that's only the ones we have seen out of the ones we can see from earth.

Then: stellar evolution. Even thou it's referred to stellar evolution; only living things truly evolve. Stars are chemical processes and a single entity. True evolution involves living beings (plural) and evolution isn't losing or gaining; it's becoming better equipped to the environment. (Plenty of animals that now live in caves or deep waters once had sight but evolved to no longer have eyes because they were unneeded.)

He specifically refers to Sirius being a white dwarf, because it's color being disputed. This is probably because stars were only seen with the naked eyes until the 1600s. Why does he quote ancient astronomers who had no telescopes? And how do old accounts of a single star prove anything?

Now on to the planets!

First; all the planets are still cooling off, they started off really, really hot, and totally cool is 0-degrees Kelvin; nothing ever gets that cold. Further explanation on the cooling of Saturn & Jupiter at Talk Origins.

Saturn’s rings don't have to be as old as Saturn itself.

What's up with the distance of the moon from earth? Oh yea, the moon doesn't have to be as old as the earth either. (Note, he accepts that the moon goes around the earth... so he doesn't think the earth is flat... despite a few bible references one could find that might suggest such.)

What's about comets? (He even admits that short-period comets have a life of 10k years... isn't that more than the 6k he thinks the world has been around?) Well, some of them are old, and Oort's cloud isn't out of the question. (Oh yea, and a proposal isn't the same as a prayer/hope/wish in the least. I hate when people make-up or ignore definitions.)

By the way, how far into space can we see?

"The Hubble Space Telescope can see out to a distance of several billions of light-years. A light-year is the distance that light travels in 1 year. Since light has a speed of 186,000 miles per second (light can travel about 7 times around the entire earth in 1 second!), light travels about 5,865,696,000,000 miles in just one year. You can attach 9 more zeros to the end of this to get 1 billion light-years and another one for 10 billion light-years. The farthest that Hubble has seen so far is about 10-15 billion light-years away. The farthest area looked at is called the Hubble Deep Field."

(To me, this in/of itself proves him wrong & the universe is BILLIONS of years old. If the universe (everything god supposedly created) was only 6000 years old, we would only be able to see 6000 light years around us.)

Here's Matson's web arguments for anyone interested (Which probably do a better job than my own, but I still like my own arguments too.) And here's where the specific quote by Matson is taken out of context from. He's not shifting the burden of proof; he has proof for his cause so therefore creationists need to provide counter-evidence.

The earth's magnetic field? It's just fine the way it has been going, but it does wander a bit.

Why is Pangea smaller than today's land surface? Oh yea, because the earth might have been warmer then... more of the ice was water... so the sea-levels were higher.... and there's that problem of earth's plates shifting over/under each other & up thru the earths surface giving us them damned mountains everywhere.

A 14hr day isn't a problem a few billion years ago... ya know, before life? And I'm sure single-celled animals didn't have a problem with it for a few billion years. By the time land-dwelling animals came along 400 million years ago, the day was probably around 22hrs 45min long.

The Sahara isn't the oldest desert on earth, but it is 2.5 million years old, but the Namib Desert is 80 Million years old.

What about oil? It actually does squirt outta the earth on it's own sometimes. And it can be made faster by man, but not by the earth.

What about the pilots buried under the ice? Yea, they were on a glacier, in a different part of the world, which isn't the same as a stable ice-field, much farther north.

Why isn't the full Gulf of Mexico full of mud by now? Partially because the delta used to be further inland (that's why Louisiana sticks out some)... plus the Mississippi is actively being maintained where it is by man. Naturally it would change it's course thru history.

Why isn't the ocean saltier? Minerals settle at the bottom & fresh water keeps pouring in.

And then he goes on & says there isn't a big leap between fresh & salt-water gators... but you can't mate them together; they're different species & that's what evolution is; developing of new species. Spread out such small changes from one species to another over several hundred million years & sure enough evolution works out.

Stalactites & stalagmites grow at different rates in different caves... different amounts of water & different amounts of minerals.... Stop comparing them!! Arrrgg...

Does the Ground ever fall up? Well, nothing falls up, but earth-quakes & volcanoes sure as hell bring the earth up from below. It's called Plate Tectonics. As earth falls into the ocean, earth is being pushed up & over & all around.

Why were the first known languages so complex? Oh, cuz nobody could write down the simpler ones; they had to develop a good spoken language before someone figured out how to write it down. Same reason for calendars; nobody could write down what year it was until they figured out how to write. There are many simple languages still in existence, many of which didn't have a written form until the past several hundred years (I think of Native-American languages off hand).

And example of brainwashing is really a brain-teaser. When people aren't given all of the information; they will do their best to figure out a solution with the given facts. Sometimes they can be misled if they have made the wrong assumptions in the beginning. This is where critical thinking comes into play and we learn to question our own assumptions. This is why people question the bible. Children's books say lots of things that children don't always grow up to believe. In the end, even if teaching children is a form of brainwashing... how is his rhetoric less brainwashing?

Questions I'd have for him about this flood of the bible:

Where did all of this water come from & where did it go back to so suddenly?

If almost all the animals on earth died at once in a flood, wouldn't there be an awful smell?

Wouldn't we have found conclusive evidance of something that catastrophic?

When everyone got off Noah's boat; what did they eat?

Where did all the land plants come from? Noah wasn't told to have plants/seeds on the arc.

In general; how did people/plants/animals spread across the earth so fast?

And how come almost all of the marsupials are in Australia? (And other animals wound up in highly specific locations.)

How did native people get to North America if they didn't cross the land-bridge during the last ice-age?

And where did all the human races come from?

Etc. etc. etc.

Maybe I will have to look up some of these questions on Christian sites. I'd love to know their ~~excuses~~ answers

Is it really about "god"?

2006-11-27T22:00:00.000-05:00

"Why...are the enlightened so conspicuously up in arms these days, reiterating every possible argument against the existence of God? Why are they indulging in books — Daniel Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell,” Sam Harris’s “Letter to a Christian Nation,” and Richard Dawkins’s “God Delusion” — in which authors lampoon religion or rail against the devout under the banner of a crusading atheism?"

Entire article from Richard Shweder, NY-Times.

I do understand that the battle against religion that is being waged by many atheists these days is a bit more than just about the "god" issue. In order to actually believe there is no god, one must be more than slightly educated. It doesn't take much education for one to find truth in bible stories, and most of us want to believe in them. But turning those stories on their head is science, and science isn't something that's as easy to understand, and it doesn't provide us with easy rewards. This adds to the feeling that many deists have that atheists talk down to them.

I was reading some-one's rant on vegetarians, and it made me think that maybe it's not so different with Atheists. There is a general smugness felt from vegetarians, whether they give it off, or it's just assumed because I know they're kinda right, is hard to say. They have to do more work for their food, but I really do feel if we all ate the way they ate, the world could be a better place. It's healthier, it takes less energy to feed a vegetarian than to feed a cow to feed a herbivore like myself, there's that issue of how animals are treated.... And the more one educates themselves about how their food gets from the farm to their plate, the more likely one wouldn't want to eat some of that food.

I'm not a vegetarian myself, but I think about it a lot. Somehow to me, the idea of god never tasted as good as a thick juicy steak, though I'm sure I could live a healthier life without either.

Scientists Talk About Religion: Part II

2006-11-27T15:21:00.000-05:00

A few days ago I had a post about a forum for Scientists to talk about Religion. At http://beyondbelief2006.org/ you can watch some of the presentations. I haven't gone through them all, but they are absolutely wonderful. They definitely give me a lot to think about, and there are opinions from all sides of the issue.

Wonderful telling of Bible stories

2006-11-25T11:44:00.001-05:00

What would someone tell their children if they took all of the bible literally?

Although Beth was a good girl who said her prayers every night and always paid attention to her elders, she still found many things in life confusing. It was during these times of puzzlement that Beth sought a warm seat on her mother's lap. There, teased by smells drifting out from the kitchen, she would listen her mother's soft voice dispensing wisdom and kindness and love.
And so it was that Beth came home from school one day with a question for her mother.
"Mother," Beth said, "one of the kids at school told me that way back a long time ago people used to be monkeys. Is that true?"
Her mother smiled gently down at her, caressed her golden hair with one hand, and spoke in a soft, comforting voice. "Of course not, Dear One," she said. "That's a silly idea. People don't look much like monkeys, do they?"
"Well, no. But then where did people come from?" Beth asked.
"The Bible holds all the answers, Dear One. All you need to do is listen to its words and not ask too many questions. Come sit on the couch with me and I'll tell you a story from the Bible that will show you what I mean," said her mother....

Read on.

Dawkins Answers Questions

2006-11-25T11:41:00.000-05:00

He handles questions on everything so nicely.

Swedes trust Ikea more than church.

2006-11-25T11:21:00.000-05:00

I have to say, in the past year I've been to Ikea more times than I've been to church (weddings). And Ikea has some good cheap food too!