Small Town Atheist

A Horseman Falls

2011-12-16T20:18:00.002-06:00

Life is keeping me busy and while I do plan to make future posts, I'm not entirely certain when.

Tonight I just wanted to put up a small, mournful post regarding the death of Christopher Hitchens. I'm not sure what I could add to the outpouring of remembrance posts that have flooded the internet since his death last night, except to say that I'm sorry I never got to met him. Hitch was an extraordinary influence on me during the time I began my road to recovery, as it were. He had such a captivating grasp of language and could craft a sentence that made my budding intellectual mind hum with intrigue. I've always wanted to be able to spontaneously generate such cogent strings of words like Hitchens could. Not only was he a great speaker, his arguments were -- are -- among the best presently available, and I doubt a similar figure will appear in my lifetime. I'm thankful to Hitch for being in the right place for me at the right time, and for delivering a wealth of counterpoints and kernels of thought that I'll can always go back to and study. We'll always have his work.

So tonight I'll raise a glass in remembrance of Hitch, an eloquent speaker and a wonderful human.

-STA

The Fat Lady is Sleeping

2011-05-21T18:11:00.016-05:00

Well, it seems the "end of the world" has once again come and gone. While the faithful are busy trying to rationalize their cognitive dissonance, reality continues -- as it always does -- forward. I am both enraged and saddened at Harold Camping for the casualties left in his wake of fear-mongering, and simultaneously filled with schadenfreude for the dumbfounded scratching their heads in disbelief.

Let's face it, none of raptor-ready halfwits are in any kind of "shock" right now. When the mind is addled with such a lack of critical thinking, it can come face-to-face with contrary or antipodes information and still assume it was right all along. The double-think involved is seen any many other areas of theistic ideology...it's like a staple or a necessity for it. In fact, I'd be amazed if I could find one of these May 21st people who would say, "I truly believed the world was going to end, and when it didn't I realized there was something deeply wrong with my thinking."

One can wish. Next up to get bitch-slapped by the world when it sticks around: the Mayans.

-STA
(Typed while listening to Ænema)

The Molestation of Pachyderms

2011-03-29T09:50:00.002-05:00

I was recently offered an old Indian parable by a theist as an attempt to befuddle me into accepting that different religions are all part of the same god. You know the one about the three blind me (or men in the dark) who are asked to describe what an elephant looked like by feeling it. The first man feels the leg and says an elephant is like a tree. The second man feels the tail and proclaims it to be a length of rope. The third feels the tusk and decides this long and sharp object must be a spear. You've probably heard it differently; there's many forms of the story. But the point is that this argument was presented to me as an attempt to show how we all see the same thing in reality, just from different perspectives. This particular theist was using it to further illustrate how science is just another blind man feeling around in the dark. The analogy may sound flowery, philosophical and convincing, but it is fundamentally flawed.

Religion is Blind
The point that was lost on my theistic friend was that religion is like those blind men. It feels around for something and immediately sticks to it's interpretation of what it finds (demons cause disease, anyone?). But science keeps going. It doesn't just proclaim "it's a spear" or "it's a tree trunk". It says, "well, this part resembles a tree trunk, but we need more data". Religion gives up. It has no reason to continue searching or to keep asking questions because it thinks (nay, knows) it has all the answers.

Another point the analogy makes is that the blind men are all wrong. Not only do they get the description of the elephant wrong, but they get the animal itself wrong as well (if you follow the version that is asking the men to describe what they're feeling). Religion says, "yep, it's a spear alright". Science says, "it might be a spear, or spear-like, but we don't yet know".

My theist friend failed to realize that the parable was not meant to be about how religions are the same, but instead about how religion knows nothing. As John Godfrey Sax's poem about it ends:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

Not The Same
Further points can be made against the New Age view that all religions are parts of the same whole. While this view is relatively harmless, I don't see it as intellectually honest, and would rather argue on the side of religion for the sake of religious integrity (however frail that may be). As my friend Todd Allen Gates points out in his book, Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer, the reasons for thinking "all religions are one" fall into five categories.

First, perhaps different religions fill different needs. God made all the world's religions, but he modified them to suite the needs of different regions. This might sound at first to be well and good, but flaws appear after a few moments pf thought. Does this mean that people who, say, travel to India, should observe the caste system? What about people whose divine directives say they should kill all who practice witchcraft? What happens when they travel to a country where the practice of witchcraft is believed to be a commandment from god? The bigger point here is: where do you go for guidelines? Who writes the standards for which doctrine gets observed when overlaps or contradictions occur?

Second is the "corrupted message" view that we see conflict in religions because God's original True Word(TM) has been corrupted by humans. This boils down to, as Gates says, something of a CEO who is too inept to keep unauthorized subordinates from editing the text and -- even worse -- a CEO who stands by idly when the corrupted messages are forged and spread even more widely than the original, true message. This give a contradictory view of God; he's powerful enough to create the universe, but can't seem to keep his mission statement from being tampered with.

Third is the "paradox hypothesis". God made different religions to confuse us on purpose, because those bewildered by conflicting doctrines will reap the benefits of expanded spiritual perceptions. This idea that God purposefully confused us might be supported by a small number of people who feel their spiritual lives have benefited, but when we look at the history of violence and bloodshed caused by this confusion, it makes a caring Creator who wishes such bloody disorder look inept and not so caring. As Gates so eloquently puts it, "it makes little since to believe that such a deity who could so successfully calculate the different respiratory needs of gills versus lungs, would have so badly calculated and miscalculated the effects of inspiring consecrated contradictions".

Fourth is the "emanation hypothesis", that the Creator of the universe didn't set out to inspire any religion, but holy truth simply emanates from it, and different humans in different time periods tap into these emanations. The idea is that there's one divine source, people just pick up on that source in different ways depending on their culture. This too falls into the same basic contradiction-quagmire as the previous two categories: that an all-powerful, all-loving being cares enough about us to want us to be delivered, but offers no way of preventing us from making up our own mind about which is the True(TM) way, however wrong it turns out to be. This deity continues to emanate truths without care as to how those truths are being interpreted and what violence it begets. This position may not exclude a deistic god, but it certainly discredits a personal one.

The fifth and final way in which New Agers claim "all religions are one" is that even though we humans perceive differences and contradictions in religions, that's only due to our limited, finite, or broken human understanding. But this cop-out answer is not the sole property of New Age spiritualists; fundamentalists will use this same rationalization to nonbelievers in their religion. Any difficulty can be explained away by it, but how is it that "we don't know" something can turn into "therefore we know"?

Can't We All Just Get Along?
It would be nice if religions were all parts of the same elephant. Even though they're not, those who wish peace between religions can only want a good thing. The bigger point is this: we don't need religion -- any religion -- to have a peaceful, loving, and productive coexistence. We're better off putting aside religion, or at least cutting out the "love your neighbor" bits and throwing away the rest. One thing is for sure: we're all in this boat together, and we're all a little blind.

-STA

Reasons for Everything

2011-03-23T12:54:00.003-05:00

My mother is fond of saying, "Everything happens for a reason." I agree with her, but not in the way you'd think.

She, unlike myself, is a theist. The "reason" she attributes everything to ultimately boils down to nothing short of a divine plan authored by some all-knowing being. As a loud, snooty man on Fox News is fond of saying, "the sun goes up and comes down", and that's enough to ascribe an invisible father figure to it all.

I'm somewhat of a determinist. Now I don't think there's an ultimate plan for anything -- I'm no fatalist. But I do think things happen for reasons we can either explain, or can't (yet?). Say, casting a handful of dice. Natural forces determine how the dice will fall; everything from the strength and angle of your hand, to its height above the table, to the material makeup of the dice and the surface, to air pressure, to the tilt of the earth, and any number of other factors. But that does not mean that it's written somewhere ahead of time "On March 21, 2011, STA will throw a 2, 4, and 5 on 3d6." We can't really process all the factors in a seemingly random event, like a dice throw -- that's why we use them to determine random outcomes. If we really could process it all, it wouldn't seem random.

Therefore, I don't really believe in randomness. We might not know or understand all the circumstances for an event, but I don't think we can accurately say a thing just randomly happens. Even quantum mechanics might have some extenuating circumstances that lie beyond a certain complexity boundary for its seemingly random goings-on. I see randomness as a label that we put on too-hard-to-calculate events.

Sure, things happen for a reason. But those reasons have reasons themselves, and they've nothing to do with gods or magic. There may be a reason for everything, but it's just a whole lot bigger than you or I can comprehend...without the need for God.

-STA

More Pointless BS from DC

2011-03-22T18:34:00.005-05:00

H.Con.Res. 13 is up before the House of Representatives. This proposal, with 66 co-sponsors, seeks to allow government buildings and public institutions (including schools) to be plastered with "In God We Trust". Let us see what is in this very much needed proposal, shall we?

The overall goal is stated as, "Reaffirming `In God We Trust' as the official motto of the United States and supporting and encouraging the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions."

Here's their confounding arguments why:

Whereas `In God We Trust' is the official motto of the United States;
Not before 1956. How short-term is this right-wing pundit memory of theirs that we have to keep reminding them of that fact. The injustices of the McCarthy era weren't justified then, and they're not justified now. These days, instead of a big "fuck you" to Russia and the scary Communists of the world, they want to give the finger to Muslims and us non-religious types. It may be "official" but that doesn't make it right. Besides that, do you really need to be reminded that you trust God so badly the phrase be everywhere?

Whereas the sentiment, `In God We Trust', has been an integral part of United States society since its founding;
What this issue (and all the others like it) really comes down to is the incorrect assumption that the God of our deist founders equals the God of the Christian bible. As I've explained many times before, many of our founders didn't believe in a personal god, and they certainly didn't believe in Jesus's Daddy. The vagueness of the word "God" makes it easier to spread this religion, because it generalizes the idea of deities. Thus, if a man 200 years ago says something about "God", people 4000 years from now can interpret it by the God of their understanding. Simply, our founders weren't talking about YOUR god when they referenced "our Creator" (read: nature).

Whereas in times of national challenge or tragedy, the people of the United States have turned to God as their source for sustenance, protection, wisdom, strength, and direction;
In times of great strife, people turn to whomever they can to seek help. But let's look at the facts: God didn't send people into the burning World Trade towers to get people out. God didn't send food, medical supplies, and water to Sudan or New Orleans. God didn't send aid to Japan, and God didn't take down the Tucson shooter. However you want to define it, "God" hasn't helped with any national challenge or tragedy. People have. Humans provide sustenance, protection, wisdom, strength, and direction. It's demonstrable. And even though many do look toward a higher power for those things, they don't all turn to YOUR God. So presupposing that all Americans trust in YOUR God is arrogantly presumptions.

Whereas the Declaration of Independence recognizes God, our Creator, as the source of our rights, `We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.';
The Declaration of Independence isn't a founding document. It could say, "Jesus Christ is the nation's Lord Almighty" and it wouldn't matter. This nation was founded based on secular documents meant to keep the government out of everyone's personal beliefs. But again, that Creator they're talking about isn't the biblical God. It's the idea of how humans arrived (again, read: nature).

Whereas the national anthem of the United States says `praise the power that hath made and preserved us a nation . . . and this be our motto: in God is our trust.';
The motto could be, "We are a White Nation" and it wouldn't be true nor accurate. And it wouldn't matter if it were our national government-approved motto because again, it may be official but that doesn't make it okay. That's why we try to put away official ideas when we realize they're not honorable (slavery, anyone?).

Whereas the words `In God We Trust' appear over the entrance to the Senate Chamber and above the Speaker's rostrum in the House Chamber;
It doesn't matter how many injustices they cite, they're still trying to inject religious beliefs into government -- our collective government. Government isn't a private business that can reserve the right to serve who they like.

Whereas the oath taken by all Federal employees, except the President, states `I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.';
The phrase, "so help me God" is purely optional, as mandated by Article IV, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution. It doesn't matter what imaginary being someone wants to seek help from to tell the truth or uphold an oath to. And what if the "God" someone swears by are the Pseudologoi? How would you know?

Whereas John Adams said, `Statesmen may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.';
Those who would think that their God is the god of everyone in America also think that morality comes from God. Morality isn't the property of, nor authored by, religion, and it certainly holds no monopoly over it. It's demonstrable that non-religious people are quite capable of being moral.

Whereas if religion and morality are taken out of the marketplace of ideas, the very freedom on which the United States was founded cannot be secured;
Our Constitution makes it clear that government is meant to stay out of religion for the sake of freedom. Do you really want the government to start endorsing religion? It might seem great, but which religion? You can't get members of the SAME CHURCH to agree on everything, so how do you propose we get government to do it? How free do you think we'd be if, say, they started plastering buildings with Mormon ideals (like God punishes people by darkening their skin)? Even if they keep the vague "God" sense, there comes a point when their God isn't your God anymore, but government's claws are in too deep. I'm an atheist and don't think religion is a good thing, but I wouldn't want my government telling a religious person how to worship. Freedom is the distance between Church and State, for ALL OUR SAKES. I see this Whereas as saying "if you don't have God then you don't have morality, and we can't guarantee your Freedom of Speech or your protection under the Fourth Amendment".

Whereas as President Eisenhower said and President Ford later repeated, `Without God, there could be no American form of government, nor, an American way of life.'; and
Whereas President John F. Kennedy said, `The guiding principle and prayer of this Nation has been, is now, and ever shall be `In God We Trust.'
It wouldn't matter if the current president said, "Those who have no God should be shot". If these clowns would read the Constitution and the words of those who helped create it, they'd see the reasons for keeping religion out of a secular government.

So to recap:

"God" doesn't always mean your god, and for our government to assume so makes us all look like asses.
Government is meant to be kept separate from religion. You don't want Washington telling you what prayer to use over dinner, and I don't want my public school to feature a prominent statue of Brahma.
Presidents and other members of government can be as religious as they want, as long as they leave their religion at the door when making policy that affects our nation (roughly sixty million of which aren't Christians).

The House needs to kill this bill. Get in touch with your representative today and politely let them know -- even if you're a Christian -- that this type of legislation doesn't' belong in a government of our kind, and that you support everyone's right to see God how they want to.

If you want to go further, write them a snail mail letter (sometimes more effective than an email) and tell them how you would instead like to restore "E Pluribus Unum" as our national motto, because it more accurately reflects America: "Out of Many, One".

-STA

Atheist Ruins Another Christian Holiday

2011-03-17T13:12:00.001-05:00

Today is day when we collectively mark the remembrance of Ireland's patron saint. He spent nearly forty years converting Ireland to Christianity, and today is his feast day...

And I'm gonna ruin it!

That's right, I'm not going to remember St. Patrick for his spreading of religious dogma. I'm not going to attend church service, and I didn't practice Lent, so I don't have this day of lifting restrictions to cherish. No, just like every other Christian holiday (and those they think are theirs), I'm going to celebrate it without celebrating the religious meaning behind it. I'm going to do what a majority of Americans are doing. I'm going to dress in green, pinch those who aren't, and drink GREEN BEER (or perhaps beer from green bottles):

God bless the Irish!

-STA

For God So Loved The World

2011-03-16T15:16:00.117-05:00

...He Stood By And Watched
The recent crisis unfolding in the island nation of Japan is frightening and heartbreaking to witness. In this age of hand-held computers and instant communication, we are able to see first-hand the destruction our planet is capable of. We can use our phones, netbooks, game consoles, and other devices to offer monetary aid and coordinate relief efforts.

Yet, there are many who use this technology to do something that is a lot less helpful. Twitter tweets, YouTube videos, and Facebook comments have exploded with droves of prayers. The religious-minded in all countries have looked at this tragedy and in lieu of lending money or a helping hand to clean up, have instead turned to -- in their mind -- a deity who has all of this under control.

As an atheist, I get laughed at when I ask the simple, "Where's your God now?" questions to theists. They don't seem to appreciate the logic and instead take it as an emotional attack. But I'm serious...where was God when the Tōhoku earthquake and subsequent tsunami slammed Japan, killing 20,000 and washing away entire villages? You'd think that for a being of unequaled love, keeping that way of reaching the shore would be a no-brainer. If you could have stopped it, would you? I know I would, and yet an All-Loving being is supposed to be overseeing -- or at worst, planning out -- this kind of destruction.

And yet, religious people everywhere seem to perform backbreaking mental gymnastics to rationalize to themselves that the All-Powerful creator of the universe has His/Her/Their reasons for not intervening. Free will and mysterious ways are high up on the list, for not only things like earthquakes, but also rape victims, or those afflicted with childhood leukemia. For an All-Loving God, he seems to be on the sidelines a lot.

...He Commanded Hatred
Since I'm in the bible-belt of America, I'll address what I hear most about this "God" thing everyone seems so keen on sharing. More importantly, I'm to aqueous to His love for me and my fellow man, and "trust only in Him". But love and trust are earned, and so far God's track record does not show a loving being. (It actually shows a world operating without such a deity, but I'm getting ahead of myself.)

The testament to this God's supposed love is found in the Holy Bible. A book where, even a cursory read should show atrocities that would anger a rational person. Genocide, mass murder, and other forms of hatred are not only committed by God, but are commanded by him. If God loved the world so much, why did he drown nearly every living thing in it?

...He Created Atrocities
But many of the religious will holler, "That's not my God!". Indeed, many theists don't profess the bible has any bearing on the nature of their deity -- even if they do call themselves "Christian" or "Jewish". But even if your god is a Magic Hamburger in outer space, you probably subscribe to the idea of a deity who created the world. This deity created rainbows, gravity, puppies, and the laughter of babies. But this deity would then also have had to create birth defects, cancer, and scores of viruses that can kill us in ways that would give you nightmares. Perspective again seems to be lost on the theist.

...He Never Existed At All
So instead of falling victim to a fallacy or wearing yourself out trying to jump through the hoops it takes to make a 100% Good God do evil things, instead comfort yourself with the thought that there was never any divine plan for it in the first place. You'll see that the universe wasn't made for us, but we have what it takes (so far) to be in it. You won't have to try to come to grips with why God won't heal your dying mother of cancer, something that is truly comforting. It's nice to know that no one's intending for bad things to happen, or that someone is deserving somehow for the ill that befalls them.

We're in this boat together, and it's up to us -- not any gods or magical creatures -- to do what's right, to help, and to provide. Please, give $5 to help the people of Japan, or find other ways to help. We don't need God, we need you.

Happy 3/16

-STA

The Future Looks Bright

2011-03-01T16:33:00.000-06:00

Greetings friends! Due to enumerable setbacks, including family emergencies, computer trouble, house-hunting, and the preparations for a new addition to the family, I've been unable to contribute anything of value as of late. But do not fear...family members' members are mending, computers have been upgraded, and houses have been located, and after a few more days I will be able to post more, make more videos, and continue to educate and discuss all things atheist-related. Thanks for your patience and understanding, and don't forget to read the back-catalog to keep yourself sated on STA.

And here's a fantastic video to ease your sorrow:

-STA

The Reason

2010-12-15T13:13:00.008-06:00

It's that time of year again, isn't it. The time when we come together as family and friends and express our love and appreciation toward each other. Many of us celebrate family traditions of one type or another in a festive and happy atmosphere. There are some, however, who are frothing at the mouth and angry over how others choose to spend these several weeks in the middle of winter. They are the ones who rant about "the reason for the season" and how everyone is ruining the "true meaning of Christmas".

What these folks fail to realize is that most of what they believe constitutes the "true meaning" is actually an aggregation of many different traditions and rituals from multiple religions, pagan customs, and secular sources.

Deck the Halls
Take for instance, the iconic Christmas tree. The practice of cutting down a tree and bringing it indoors during the cold winter nights is derived from several solstice traditions. The Romans decked their halls with garlands of laurel and placed candles in live trees to decorate for the celebration of Saturnalia. In Scandinavia, apples were hung from evergreen trees at the winder solstice in remembrance that spring and summer will come again. The evergreen tree itself was the special plant of their sun god, Baldor. In fact, the Christian bible expressly forbids believers to practice this tradition or act like the pagans do. As late as 1800, devout Christian sects like the Puritans forbade the celebration of Christmas because it was thought of as a pagan holiday.

Mistletoe, another iconic "Christmas" tradition, finds its roots as an ancient Druid custom during the winter solstice, complete with the concept of kissing underneath it. Mistletoe was considered a divine plant and it symbolized love and peace.

The Scandinavian solstice traditions had a lot of influences on our celebration besides the hanging of ornaments on evergreen trees. Their ancient festival of Yuletide celebrated the return of the sun, during which the Yule log (the center of the trunk of a tree) was dragged to a large fireplace where it was supposed to burn for twelve days.

Oh Holy Night
The "birth of the sun" was an integral part in ancient times, because the concept of year-around food was unattainable. The hope of an early spring and the return of long days of bright warm sunlight were things anyone eeking out a meager existence in freezing cold climates with no central heating would wish for. The early Christian church was tired of trying to get the pagan believers to stop celebrating the birth of Mithras, the Persian sun god (a deity of light and truth). So in 320 C.E., Pope Julius formally selected December 25 as the official birthday of Christ, to circumvent Mithraism. If Jesus was born at all, it would likely have been some time midsummer.

Santa Claus is Coming to Town
Even our traditions of Santa Claus have little, if nothing, to do with Christianity. The 14th century St. Francis of Assisi is the likely model of Santa, a benevolent character who is popular for giving gifts to the poor and needy, mainly women and children. The name Santa Claus is derived from the Sinter Klass, which is the Dutch pronunciation for St. Nicholas, who is said to be the patron saint for many groups of people including children, orphans, thieves, sailors, students, pawnbrokers and countries like Russia and Greece. He did a lot of work to spread Christianity among the people of Rome. This may be part of the reason why Santa Claus is similar in nature to the stories of Jesus, and the legends and myths that expound from such historical events can easily become pseudohistory for those who do not wish to investigate it. Flying reindeer too likely come from Norse legends of Thor flying through the sky in a chariot pulled by magical goats called Gnasher and Cracker.

Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire
The Roman celebration of Saturnalia provides a large part of our modern traditions, including large feasts and gift-giving. The pre-Christian holiday of merriment honored Saturus, the god of seed and sowing. The festival was marked by the exchange of good-luck charms and other gifts, and great feasting in which even the slaves would be allowed to participate. God bless us, every one indeed.

The Reason
Many of our current traditions began more than 4000 years ago, and even their beginnings were more than likely the result of other superstition and traditional beliefs that came before them. So the next time you hear about how Walmart or atheism is destroying the meaning of Christmas, remember this: the SEASON is the reason for the season, not a bronze-age myth that has been formed out of the debris of myths that preceded it. After all, you're not a Celtic who takes to animal sacrifice to ward off evil spirits, right? So why celebrate Halloween? And, you don't hunt colored eggs or eat chocolate bunnies to celebrate the fertility and advent of springtime in honor of the Saxon goddess Eostre or the Norse equivalent Ostara, do you? So why celebrate Easter? And even if you don't want to celebrate the birth of America, having a reason for picnicking and shooting fireworks is enough to party on July 4, isn't it?

For whatever your holiday, for whatever your reason, at the bare minimum you should acknowledge it as a time to be close to the one's you love, because we're all only here for a little while. Have a great solstice, everyone! And may the New Year bring you joy, peace, and reason.

-STA

Season's Greetings

2010-11-29T03:00:00.001-06:00

I just wanted to stop by and wish everyone a festive and happy holiday season. I've got a lot on my plate, not counting the additional stress/workload of the holidays. I'll be writing again before long, but in the meantime have a look through some of my past holiday blog posts, like

Be safe, be happy, and take care of each other. I'll talk to you soon.

-STA

Pickin' Cherries

2010-10-17T08:21:00.001-05:00

Do you like Red Lobster? What about homosexuals?

Most bible-believing Christians don't realize that the same chapter that condemns homosexuality also prohibits eating shellfish. The point being that many Christians (as well as believers of other religions) pick and choose what they believe. They'll say "well, that was the Old Testament" whenever atrocities such as genocide, rape, incest, slavery, or murder are brought up. Yet, they'll cite things such as the Ten Commandments or the condemnation of homosexuals without care that they're referencing the very same Old Testament.

I've been thinking a lot about this buffet-style approach to faith recently, and I'm sorta on the fence. One the one hand -- and this is probably due to an afterglow of my once held faith -- but I generally tend to look down on wishy-washy believers. (Here's an old semi-tongue-in-cheek post on moderates.) They can't commit to the whole meal that they ordered with their chosen faith. It's like saying you're a KKK member only because they have great barbecue parties, and ignoring "all that bad stuff" they do. They can't stomach the evil or idiotic doctrines in their faith, so they pretend like they're not there.

To me, you should be aware of the where and the why for the things you believe about your god. Those who claim to be "not religious but spiritual" come to mind here. It's strange to think that someone can have all these words, phrases, and ideas without realizing where those things originated, regardless of how much the believer alters them on their own. In a way, it's just rebooting and rebranding a story, and I guess that tends to irk me (thanks, Hollywood).

On the other hand, I see it as the only possible way a sane human being can live in this day and age and still believe in the nonsense of religion. As Matt Dillahunty frequently points out, science has dragged religion kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century. Just look at Galileo, the man that proved the earth rotated around the sun and was not, as the Church vehemently claimed, at the center of the universe. Now, in the modern world where things like the germ theory of disease and the heliocentric theory are practically common knowledge, you see religious people trying to claim that they had it right all along, and that those other people weren't True Believers™. Religious people in the modern civilized world are bearing such a huge cognitive dissonance that they almost always have to cherry-pick parts of their faith's cannon in order to function. Imagine a religious doctrine that goes something along the lines of "Water can't freeze. Everything in this book is the word of the creator of the universe, and is 100% correct." Now think of the mental hoops that someone living today would have to jump through in order to adhere to that belief and still be an otherwise rational, sane person. When you know for a fact that certain claims made by religions can be proven wrong to a monumentally high degree of certainty, but you believe with all your heart that the evidence is contradicted by what you think is the direct word of God, there are only so many ways the situation can resolve itself.

For many, realizing those claims are a mix of fairy tales, folklore, misunderstandings, allegories, and attempts by ignorant people to explain nature is enough to drop the "100% Truth" label altogether. For others, their interpretation concludes with some of it being allegory and some being truth, and the current unknowns get to remain "true" until science show them to be otherwise, then they get become "allegory-all-along" in the believers mind without skipping a beat. The moment science advances and shuts a gap that God had previously filled, the believer must either accept reality or ignore it. Often enough, once ignoring it becomes impossible, they claim their religion had it right all along.

So yeah, I find myself coming down on both sides: you should be a fundamentalist if you're going to believe in a thing. Don't half-ass it; try to understand everything it encompasses and do everything that entails. On the other hand, it's a good thing to be a moderate believer. You're showing that you're not a complete nut-ball, and that you understand how reality can be determined.

-STA

It's The Cheesiest!

2010-10-06T11:30:00.084-05:00

Do you watch Glee? I do...religiously. (What I did there, did you see it?) While I would consider myself a Gleek, I realize that the show doesn't appeal to everyone. The cheesiness over-the-top caricatures are too much for a lot of you. So if I'm going to talk to you about Glee, I'll need to be sensitive to those who are not fans.

But why am I talking about Glee?

Well, last night's episode dealt with religion, a topic that many successful television shows either fail to tackle or handle so incredibly poorly that you're left screaming at the TV. The Glee episode in question had potential that wasn't entirely fulfilled and at the same time wasn't entirely horrendous. Since the show's staples are an often grating mix of satire and blunt honesty, I was prepared and able to decipher the parodied character types and stereotypical situations to get to the messages in the episode. And those messages weren't all that bad.

NOTE: There will be spoilers, so if you're a fan who hasn't seen the episode yet, you might wanna skip this post. Try this one instead. Also, I realize this is a long post but hey, I've barely written in a while. Be happy!

I knew that the episode had potential when I read its title: "Grilled Cheezus". Finn Hudson, co-captain of the high school glee club, makes himself a grilled cheese sandwich upon which he thinks he sees the face of Jesus. After eating half of it (he was hungry, after all), he makes three wishes to the remaining Cheezus. I told you the show is over-the-top with the zaniness. When these wishes start coming true, Finn professes his belief in Christianity and asks that he give praise to God through the glee club song selections.

Meanwhile the show's openly gay character, Kurt Hummel, is devastated when his father suffers a heart attack. Most of his friends in the glee club are of some faith, so they immediately set upon him during this trying time, urging him to seek comfort in God. It is at this point we learn that Kurt is also an atheist (by some definitions, a "strong atheist" -- he says he knows there is no God).

Let me step back and address some of what's already running through my mind at this point.

The satirical situation of Finn finding Jesus on a sandwich is hilarious and a great way to show that the writers of the show find that sort of idea ripe for parody.
Oh boy, they're portraying an atheist on prime-time TV! Too bad that usually leads to gross misrepresentation.
The believers on the show are already coming at this situation the wrong way, in my opinion. But they're believers, that's what they do.

Since the show constantly makes stereotypical characterizations, I'm so far okay with the way the religious and non-religious characters have been depicted. Not all believers behave in this fashion, and neither do nonbelievers. Yes, I said "nonbelievers"...plural. Cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester is an atheist too!

Holy shit! Not only one but TWO nonbelievers on a popular show?! WOW.

Yeah, let's not get too happy just yet. Let's see how they handle themselves first.

We atheists don't believe for different reasons. While many, like myself, are nonbelievers for intellectual reasons, some don't believe out of being misinformed, misanthropic, or having had something terrible happen in their past. Sue seems to be the latter kind. Her sister has Down syndrome and Sue's personal way of handling the problem of evil is to, in effect, "blame God" for letting her sister contract (or inflecting her with) her condition. Like I said, we're atheists for different reasons, and while I think the problem of evil is truly a valid philosophical issue that is irreconcilable with a loving god, Sue's rejection of belief isn't couched in philosophy. She can't explain the reasoning behind why such a problem is indeed a problem that points to evidence against a traditional idea of God. Instead, she's angry with the idea that such a god would even do such a thing, and as a child her prayers for her sister went unanswered, therefore there must not be a God. Sue doesn't want to be a nonbeliever. Her sister tells her "God doesn't make mistakes" and offers to pray for Sue, to which she happily agrees. She wants to have this same peace that her sister has.

So while I'm not going to go into a no-true-Scotsman rant about how Sue isn't a true atheist, I will state that this portrayal of atheism in entertainment media is as old as time. No wonder we nonbelievers are bombarded by religious people asking questions like "so what happened in your past that made you so mad at God?" or "who hurt you?" or "why do you feel like God let you down?" Makes me wanna scream.

But back to the recap. So Kurt's dad is in the hospital, comatose. Kurt has been pelted with pleas to find strength in faith, as the other kids sing gospel and spiritually-laden songs. Kurt pushes his friends away, asking them to keep their views to themselves. Coach Sylvester urges Kurt to make a formal complaint to the school, citing church-state-separation issues.

Here's where the show makes a gross error in judgment. Either due to Sue's own personal take on First Amendment rights or by ignorance on the part of the show's writing team, Sue claims it's a violation for the children to sing about Jesus in public school. This is not the case. While they do have a problem if a student complains, there is no law against such a practice. It would only be against the law if it were teacher-lead, and we see the glee club teacher, Mr. Shue, realize this and try to tone down the religion-specific songs to just "spiritual" songs. (If you'll recall my previous post, 67% surveyed said that teachers are not permitted to read from the bible as an example of literature, something the law clearly allows. A lot of right-wing conservatives I've talked with falsely claim that kids can't even pray in school. I'm wondering if Sue's tactics are based in this line of thinking.)

Throughout this episode, the views of both sides are expressed through characters' actions and dialog. There are characters who express new-age beliefs like "God is all religions" and "God exists, just not in any man-made religion". Here are some other examples:

The show attempts to show different views of religious theology. Puck and Rachel are both Jewish, Mercades and Quinn are Christians, Kurt hires a Sikh acupuncturist, and he also makes a reference to the FSM. Oh, and Kurt's version of Russell's teapot not only had me in stitches but also applauding the writers, some of whom surely either are atheists or have had intelligent conversations with one.
Yes, Kurt hires an acupuncturist! I was pissed off at first, but I've come to see it like this: he's still just a kid! He's in high school for crying out loud, and he's not (yet) a full-fledged rationalist. And you should all know by now that being an atheist doesn't automatically make you a skeptic or critical thinker.
There are some great quips in the dialogue:

After simply stating his nonbelief, Kurt is barraged with questions like "Why don't you believe? You can't prove there's no God!" and "We shouldn't be talking like this...it isn't right!", Kurt politely says to his friends, "You all can believe whatever you want to, but I can't believe something I don't. I appreciate your thoughts, but I don't want your prayers." It's also funny to see that the simple act of one person saying "I don't believe" causes an entire room full of people to start claiming they're being oppressed or silenced.
When guidance counselor Emma Pillsbury sits down with Sue Sylvester to ask her why she's trying to take away the other children's means of comforting Kurt in one of the shows best scenes, Sue responds with, "Asking someone to believe in a fantasy, however comforting, isn't a moral thing to do. It's cruel." Emma retorts with, "Don't you think that's a little bit arrogant?" and Sue hits back: "It's as arrogant as telling someone how to believe in God and if they don't accept it -- no matter how openhearted or honest their decent -- that they're going to Hell. That doesn't sound very Christian, does it?" (I'd have to disagree here and say yes, it's perfectly Christian, as Christ is supposed to have delivered the doctrine of eternal hellfire for infidels himself.) The riveting scene ends with Emma saying, "If that's what you believe, fine, but please keep it to yourself" and Sue replying with, "So long as you do the same." High-five Sue!

Finn's eventual confession to Emma that Grilled Cheezus has granted him wishes is met with healthy skepticism and a round-about explanation of coincidences and self-fulfilling prophesy. If only she could apply that ALL of her beliefs...oh well. Finn finally "loses his religion", probably becoming/returning to colloquial agnosticism, and eats what's left of Grilled Cheezus.
Kurt finally gives in to Mercades's pleas and goes to her church with her. This scene is important on several fronts, mainly for the episode's surprising conclusion.

As Kurt's father lays comatose, several members of the glee club ignore Kurt's wishes to keep their religion to themselves and show up at the hospital to sing gospel songs and pray. As Mercades says, "We're each from different denominations and religions, so we figured one of us is bound to be right!" And we're the arrogant ones?! Kurt is of course outraged and asks his friends to leave.

So far the show has been building up to a familiar pattern and I was fearing the worst. [sarcasm on] Here we have a kid going through one of the worst times of his young life, and his friends are only trying to comfort him with their religious beliefs. But he harshly refuses them (soooo close-minded), pushing his friends away every time they bring it up. He obviously doesn't believe in anything, and we all know that if you don't have God then your life is an empty, hurtful void of meaninglessness. If only he'd just give prayer a chance! [sarcasm off]

Then comes the scene where the atheist goes to church. From the pulpit, Mercades tells him, "I know you don't believe in God or the power of prayer and that's okay, to each his own. But you've gotta believe in something...something more than you can touch, taste, or see, 'cause life is to hard to go through it alone without something to hold on to, without something sacred." She and the choir then sing as Kurt ponders her words. Oh no, I'm thinking, here we go...the immenient conversion.

At the show's conclusion, Kurt is sitting at his father's bedside, holding his hand and crying. He tells his comatose father that he should have let his friends pray for him the other day. Any minute now, he's gonna start praying. But he doesn't.

I told you the conclusion was surprising.

If I'd been paying closer attention I could've caught it sooner. The clues in the dialog...the writer's tricks laid bare for all to see, but I was too caught up in this valid attempt at a network show to seriously address religion. You see, just before his heart attack, Kurt's dad was scolding him for planning to miss out on family dinner night, something he said was "sacred". That word was the key, and it was planted in the first few minutes of the episode. Kurt does believe in something sacred: love. The love for his father, who accepted his homosexuality, and who was there for him when his mother died. Kurt tells his father, "I don't believe in God, dad. But I believe in you; I believe in us."

I couldn't have been more happy in that moment. And I'm really not too let down with the show as a whole. Like I said, I don't like how some of the arguments were handled, but I think that both sides were equally portrayed. Nobody's ideology "won", and for every argument there was a counter argument. Kurt says he should have let his friends pray for his dad; that it wasn't about himself, but about his father, and it was a nice gesture. I feel the same. When most believers say they'll pray for someone, they're not trying to be snide or arrogant, they're doing it from a place of love. It's a nice gesture, but please, do it on your own time -- don't force it on us. And that's what I think Kurt meant at the beginning of the show, when he told them he didn't want their prayers. If they would have prayed in their own church services or on their own time, it would have been fine.

A lot of ideas got at least partial treatment, and for that I'm thankful. No one converted or deconverted (except maybe Finn, but his "faith" was more of a parody to spring-board into the topic). Of course I personally think that the believer's best arguments could have been easily crushed if the atheist characters actually put forth their own, but obviously that's not the show's goal (think of the number of viewer's they loose...and the hate-mail!). I'm happy they at least got some of our arguments out to the general public, and that they didn't rely on the usual, misinformed portrayal of atheists. I'm happy that it showed that atheists don't all "believe in nothing" but that we seek out the love of our friends and family in times of trouble. And that's something we can all do, whether or not there is a god.

Since this is a show about music, I'll leave you with the apt words of Rush (from their song, Faithless):

I don't have faith in faith
I don't believe in belief
You can call me faithless
you can call me faithless
But I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that's faith enough for me
that's faith enough for me

-STA

We Know What We Don't Believe

2010-09-28T20:29:00.003-05:00

A new survey given by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has shown something I have found to be pretty much the norm: atheists know more about religious than believers do. Yeah, we know about the claims of religions -- that's why we're atheists!

Questions were asked to people of all faiths, including atheists and agnostics. While most of the reports I've seen stat that on this survey label "atheists" as "people who say there is no god" and "agnostics" as "people who just aren't sure". If you're a long-time reader (or someone who's remotely familiar with the issue), you'll know that those definitions aren't entirely correct. But for the sake of this survey I'll let it slide. The study found that that on average, most atheists and agnostics scored higher on all questions (average 21 correct out of 32 questions), while religious people scored poorly on questions about their own religion and even worse on questions about other faiths. These were multiple-choice questions where things like, "What religion was Mother Teresa?" or "In what city was Jesus born?".

We atheists tend to be a thinking bunch. We are generally well-educated and highly analytical. As Pew director of research Alan Cooperman said, "[Atheists] are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."

And we do. We care more about whether or not what we think is true rather than if it makes us feel good. We want to know how the world works. We listen to claims of religions (and scientists, politicians, ghost hunters etc.) and we think critically. Most religious people either can't be bothered to -- or have been trained to -- not analyze what they're being told. The just accept it as truth and repeat it. In Brian Flemming's documentary, "The God Who Wasn't There", he asks random church-goers questions like "Have you ever heard of Dionysus?" or "Who was Mithras?" and the believers just respond with umms and aahhs and "All I know is Jesus, man; it's just all about Jesus!"

Some believers also seem to think that they can spend two minutes on the internet and are thus qualified to tell a field scientist he's wrong. This is particularly popular with Evangelical creationists, but no believer is immune.

So if you are a believer, ask yourself why. Ask yourself if you can name one of Hinduism's holy texts. Do you know who Joseph Smith is? What were the first Ten Commandments given to Moses? In what century was Mohammad born? You don't have to be highly intelligent or all that educated, just learn when you don't know something, and learn how to look into it.

Actual survey here (PDF) or test yourself here.

-STA

Second Nature

2010-08-17T09:54:00.004-05:00

Now, Tell Me What You See Here
We are pattern-seeking animals -- we have to be. It's what keeps us alive as a species. Avoiding danger and finding food are our rewards for successful detecting patterns. Take Pavlov's dogs for instance. Once they could recognize the bell had a direct correlation to food, they salivated upon hearing the bell. They, like many sentient beings would, had a reasonable expectation that BELL = FOOD.

We're so good at detecting patterns that we can find one even where none exists. The more certain among us are called superstitious. Studies have shown that people tend to be more superstitious when they are in situations where they lack control. We do what we can to influence the outcome, however trivial it may seem. The greater the perceived lack of control, the more superstitious people tend to become. Humans aren't the only animals to experience this, either. Take for example Skinner's pigeons. B. F. Skinner ran an experiment in which he placed a series of hungry pigeons in a cage attached to an automatic mechanism that delivered food to them at random intervals. The birds, however, began to exhibit signs of superstitious behavior. They appeared to think that they were somehow influencing when the treat would be delivered based on what they were doing right before the previous drop. The pigeons were soon performing all sorts of "rituals", such as turning two times counter-clockwise, then bobbing their head back and forth and pecking the cage twice. The birds behaved as if there were a causal relation between their behavior and the presentation of food, although no such a relation existed. But the pigeons believed it. I'm sure if they could talk, many would probably stand by their strong convictions even in the face of evidence. Sounds familiar, huh?

Humans have evolved not only to perceive patterns even if there are none, but we've also evolved a sort of upgraded version of that pattern-seeking software that specializes in faces. Again, this helps us survive. If we can detect a face hidden in the bushes, as well as discern the faces of our family (our tribe), we stand a much better chance at survival. Pareidolia is the phenomenon whereby we see patterns where there aren't any. How many times have you saw a face in the wood grain of a door, wall, or desk, or seen faces in the clouds? How many times has the likeness of Jesus or Mary appeared in toast or other places?

Oh, I See What You Did There
Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine, has coined the term "Patternicity", the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise. When doing so, two types of errors can result. Type I errors are false positives, believing a pattern exists when it doesn't. Type II errors are false negatives, not believing a pattern isn't real when it actually is.

We want to believe, it's evolutionarily our default position. Consider and early hominid hearing a rustle in the grass...is the hominid skeptical and thinks it's just the wind, or are they cautious and believes its a dangerous predator? We listen when we're told by our parents or elders that, for example, don't swim in the lake because there are snakes. We automatically listen to and believe what we're told -- we can't afford not to with a risk as high as death.

Shermer has discovered that you'll find meaningful patterns in things when the cost of making a Type II error is less than the cost of making a Type I error. It's easier to not believe in Bigfoot (especially if you live in the city) than to not believe in Hell, because the perceived cost or personal danger is much higher. We evolved down a path in which the more cautious survived. In the earlier example, if the rustle in the grass was indeed only the wind, then the cost to assume it was a dangerous predator is low -- you just move away and be more observant.

It's the Everywhere
We tend to attribute agency in scenarios like this as a result. The major difference in assuming an unknown sound in the bushes is another animal as apposed to thinking it's harmless wind is that the latter is inanimate, the predator is an intentional agent. This is why we attribute agency to many unknown things, and why our lives are filled with ghosts, gods, angels, demons, aliens, and even malevolent government conspirators. Things that confuse us or baffle us by their complexity often get ascribed to an agent. And it's easy for such a thought to arise -- "She can run faster than me, and he can run faster than her...there must be someone out there that can run faster than all." Powerful beings beget powerful ideas, and before long you have a being of ultimate speed, might, and power. And if it's that powerful, then it must be responsible for this currently unexplained phenomenon.

These reasons make it difficult to use skepticism and science, because they're against our nature. Studies have shown that children start to apply purpose-based meanings to things at about the time they begin to recognize man-made tools that really do serve a purpose, such as cell phones. But science has proven itself to be the best tool we can use to determine reality. If we can understand ourselves, if we can recognize the places where we are more prone to these kinds of errors in thinking, then we can start changing for the better. After all, if we can find patterns so well, finding the patterns in our error-making habits should be...second nature.

-STA

Day In The Life: The Long Goodbye

2010-08-11T19:16:00.000-05:00

A Great Loss
These past couple of weeks have borne many emotions for me, many of which I still find myself trying to deal with. I have recently shared in the suffering of a great loss for my family. While the passing of a loved one is never an easy thing to abide, the surviving family members can often make matters worse simply by attempting to console one another.

My stepfather's mother finally succumbed to cancer last week. Having exhausted all medical options, she was sent home to await the inevitability we all knew would come soon. It was both a comfort and a curse, for while the family knew that her time was short, it was good for her to be in her own home surrounded by her loved ones. We each had the opportunity to say our final goodbyes in those last days, and this too was comforting. It was also the hardest thing I've ever had to experience. Nothing can compare to the heartache of leaving the room of a cognizant person whom you (and they) know you'll never see again.

MASSively Unnecessary
Yet most (I dare say all, save my wife and I) think that we will indeed see Grandmother again. She belonged to a catholic church for the last 40 years of her life, an obvious venue for her funeral. The large church was complete with the trappings of the catholic faith: the holy water, candles, lavish alter under a huge statue of Jesus nailed to the cross and solemnly looking skyward. The three priests wore their adorned coats and were catered to by alter girls while they performed their sorcery and chanted their rituals. All of this I held in silent contempt for the respect of my family and their loss.

On that day, I didn't abhor these religious people for their belonging to a group of respected pedophiles, nor for their tedious adherence to strict, formal worshiping practices, nor for their ignorance . On that day, I detested them for their complete disregard of the loss this family had suffered. If you've never been to a catholic funeral, here's what to expect: a few amazingly beautiful and sad songs, several readings of scripture, each followed by a collective "Thanks be to God" from a seemingly entranced congregation of sheep. Then the priests will perform a long ritual whereby they take turns putting this ingredient into that chalice, kneeling, saying magic words and gesturing like a Vegas performer until finally they transform a cracker into flesh and then eat it. Once you realize how sick that sounds, you'll understand the discomfort of someone like me watching all this play out. Then the congregation may come up and partake in this cannibalistic practice -- that is, those who've had the proper training. Apparently, if one were to engage in any of these sacraments without the said training, one's head may just catch fire (or some equally frightful thing). Afterward comes more chanting and praying, until finally the casket is brought up and is blessed with smoke in a fashion similar to what a jungle shaman might employ.

In all of this, you're lucky if you get five minutes worth of mentioning the deceased and what their life meant. I will say that what the Monsignor said about Grandmother was apropos and brought tears to my eyes. But this brief mention was overshadowed by the rites and practices of making sure you bow this way and say these exact words and do this and that to make sure YOU get into heaven and don't piss God off, that it might as well not have even been considered a funeral at all.

Of course, the reason for all this hullabaloo was, as I said earlier, was because they believe this is not the end for Grandmother, and that she either is in Paradise, was going to be there as soon as we put her in the ground, or would return on the "Last Day" (I don't think they ever decided which one it was; or like the Trinity, it was all at the same time). I suppose that if you thought this way, then all this would be better than simply sitting around telling stories and remembering the life of selfless, kind, caring woman -- a woman who put others before herself so much that the day before she died she used the last of her strength to fill out birthday cards to friends and family up to the end of the year. That kind of selflessness wells me up even now. The faithful cannot claim that this is due to her catholic beliefs, for this is just the kind of person she was. More mention of that would have been nice, instead of awkwardly sitting through a Eucharistic liturgy.

Once the procession was moved to the cemetery, there was another short ceremony where the priest of the church related a story whose moral summed up Grandmother's life, and I suppose the idea of it was apt. After this, the priest went on to "ask God to bless the place of her burial", but I had had enough. Me and several others went to the cemetery's family center for food and conditioned air while the rest of the throng went to watch the matriarch of the family be placed in the ground.

That Grim Specter
Throughout each of these religious ceremonies, we were asked by the priests to "comfort each other through words of faith" -- translation: "lie to each other and fill the heads of the mournful with wishful tales". The priest also used the very familiar technique of letting the faithless know that we have no hope and that our lives are worthless without Jesus Christ.

I'm not about to launch into that triad (I'm sure you can find out what I think on the matter somewhere on here, and if not, email me). I'll just close by reiterating the point I made earlier. To those of us who cherish life for the special thing it is, filling the last occasion in a person's life with droning prayers and mindless rituals misses the point of the exercise entirely.

And this ties in with the second point I made regarding doing more harm by attempting to heal with religion. It's a helpless and lonely feeling to realize that what people in this situation do to try to cope with death only makes things worse. The fact that they can't deal with death or finality is draped across their tear-shined cheeks and soak the words they use. These kind of situations ultimately end in self-reflection for many people in which they search their own hearts for meaning and confront the realization of their own future demise. None of this is helped by religion. It's not an easy thing to do by any means, but telling someone they'll see their loved one again and that they suffered and died because of some grand plan is the least comforting thing you can do. It should be obvious that the best course of action is to look it in the face and try to understand it, not shut your eyes and ears and think of your happy place.

When I die I don't want anything remotely compared to the farce of a memorial I was present at. Come, pray if you want (there will be no formal group-led prayers), eat crackers and proclaim they're someone's flesh, do whatever religious exercise you feel you need to -- but do them on your own time. I simply want a small ceremony in which I am remembered. Perhaps some writings of my could be shared, along with tales of past deeds and memories from those who wish to share. After all, that's what it should be about, and that's the only way I'll "live on"...through the memory of those I touch.

As for Grandmother, while she held many beliefs that are at odds with my own, she certainly touched my life, and I am thankful to have known such a thoughtful, kind, loving person. She will be missed.

-STA

Jesus is Anti-American

2010-07-04T18:14:00.004-05:00

Well, it's the time of year when many Christians in this country become neocon patriots focused on letting everyone know how important Jesus and his daddy are to the creation of our country. (If this generalization doesn't fit you or your situation, please tell me where you live so I can move there.)

What most Christians fail to realize, unsurprisingly, is just how anti-American Jesus actually is.

1) Jesus Is Your "Lord"

When the colonies declared independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain on July 4, 1776, they ceased bowing to lords. And while many people still had "masters", the practice of subjugation was whittled down and stripped away because of the very ideals the nation was found on: the right of every human to seek happiness in life, and to have the necessary liberties needed to attain it.

The Christan religion, however, teaches that Jesus is a master and ultimate overlord to his subjects. This antiquated, small-minded idea is clearly against American values. We are a free people. We have no lords, no masters.

2) Jesus Pervades Everything

With Jesus, it's an all-or-nothing deal. As Bush would say, "Your either with us, or against us". Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23 share the same sentiment. This all-consuming approach to your religious ideologies are what drive vehicles like the Religious Right and, more importantly, becomes so pervasive that it starts seeping out into daily life. People in power many decisions based on their religious beliefs (with exceptions, a personal favorite being JFK, who truly understood what it meant to put personal beliefs aside for the bigger picture). But with the tunnel vision such a mind-frame puts you in, it's obvious that if God is your whole life, you'll be spreading it around everywhere you go...and indeed the practice is expressly encouraged.

The founders of America understood this. They had been the subjects of British religious intolerance. They didn't have a choice. They also understood that the only way for all men to be free was to keep the business of governing separate from the business of the church -- from any church. We can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from it, and America's separation of church and state makes that fundamental dream a reality. It's sad and sometimes a little scary to think just how many ignorant citizens are working to change that basic idea. They rant and rave about the men who died to give them liberty and freedom, but then bitch and moan when we want to undo the polarization effects of removing "IN GOD WE TRUST" from our currency or striking "Under GOD" from the allegiance pledge. Do they truly know what "freedom" is?

3) The Ten Commandments vs Founding Documents

Once we get past the argument about which ten commandments are "the" Ten Commandments, we're left with the inane drivel that the nation's laws were derived from these ten lordly decrees. I have a lengthy and perhaps vitriolic post from a few years back that deals with this very issue, so I'll direct you there. Suffice it to say (for those of you who might be skimming these lines between rolls of your eyes) that there are zero "commandments" that became law because they were commandments. The ones that did, such as not killing, did so with stipulations and conditional requirements -- something kingly overseers fail to consider -- and they just happened to be good ideas. But just because a crackhead mentions it's good to put water out for your dog, does that mean you'll let him babysit you kids? Sure, the bible got some things right but that doesn't give it a free pass to scrutiny, nor does it entail some privileged information.

The Christian nation myth will most likely abound right now, just look around. Be sure to check local businesses for signs saying "God Bless America" too. I just saw a local news channel show some redneck blubbering about how the nation was founded on God. Did the "news" station provide any opposition? What do you think?

These were just three reasons, but being free from religion, to me it's clear: the Christian religion -- the one claimed by so many to be the foundation of the United States -- does not secure the blessings of liberty to anyone.

Happy 4th!

~STA

Languidly Persisting

2010-06-14T19:17:00.000-05:00

It would seem the New Year's high has worn off and this blog, my YouTube channel, and all my other online endeavors are suffering from a stagnation. The lack of content is not the result of any change of heart, a sudden conversion, or angry Muslim payback; sorry to disappoint. It's merely my apathetic nature coupled with a lack of topics. I have pages of ideas for topics, but it seems I'm always finding time for other things in my life. Life gets in the way occasionally, and at least for me, "real life" will take precedent over the virtual realm any day.

This is not a goodbye of any kind. I'm simply on another indeterminate hiatus. I appreciate the comments and views on all my internet outlets, and thanks especially to Fastthumbs and other constant readers of the STA blog. There will be more to come...and perhaps soon. I've been mulling over a future YouTube video, so if my computer cooperates and I can get the words to come out of my mouth correctly (it seems my fingers like to talk a hell of a lot more than my mouth does), I'll be uploading that before long. Thanks again for the support, and always feel free to drop me an email or hit me up when I'm on Stickam -- you can now do that right from this blog!

Stay skeptical,

-STA

Draw Muhammad Day

2010-05-20T09:53:00.007-05:00

(It's Muhammad, the prophet of the Muslim faith. He's really, really far away.)

-STA

Put Down Your Old KJV Red Letter, The Good Book Just Got a Whole Lot Better

2010-04-29T15:13:00.004-05:00

The Holy Bible. It's been translated into 2400 languages and over 300 English translations alone, but when you get right down to it, they all contain the same boring, outdated, hard-to-get-through dry text.

But not any more!

How Many Meters in a Foot?
Now there's a way to read about the loving power of the Ultimate Father-Figure in Kyle Holt's "The Bible in Rhyme". Yep. Rhyme.

How many ten-year-olds can stand to sit through a dreary sermon that involves phrases like: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Ugh. Can't you feel your eyes glazing over?

Now take a gander at this little ditty from Genesis 3, with rhyme:

"Never will your kind view Eden again.

All are shut out for your cognizant sin.

Man, you shall toil and work in the earth.

And woman, your pain will come giving birth.

You’re banished! Get out! All three of you go!"

Then God set a guard at the Tree of Life so

we’d not be let in, but always we’d know

that this was how woman and man fell so low.

You can't help but try to sing it as you dance and smile, reading about God's wonderful forgiving spirit. Be sure to pick up your copy today, and get your kids involved! They'll have a great time learning how to regurgitate doctrine while beginning a long-lasting emotional attachment to ideas that make them feel good. 'Cause come on, I dare you to read this and not feel good:

Though everyone knew of the things God had spoken,

the men muttered angrily, "Our God is broken!

Why worship Him? Can He not see our power?

We're greater than Him. Come, let's build a tower

and show Him that He should be worshiping us."

But God saw their plan, and was filled with disgust.

"Man never changes, so I must change him."

So he twisted their tongues and confused all of them.

And he scattered mankind, confounding the rabble

and that's why it's called the Tower of Babel.

(From page 7, Genesis 9:18 - 11:32. And remember kids, the perfect word of the Living God contains ZERO contradictions or errors because it was inspired by a god who does not author confusion!)

I dread how they sugar-coat the Numbers conquests.

-STA

Why Some People Need A God: Ignorance

2010-04-20T17:51:00.000-05:00

In conclusion of this three-part miniseries, we take a look at what is most likely the main reason for some people to need gods or god-like figures in their lives: ignorance. I call it the main reason because it ties together nearly all other reasons. In part one, we discussed the fear of the unknown that drives some people to seek invented and unsupported answers -- in other words, being ignorant of the causes and reasons for those unknowns. Part two discussed companionship, bred from ignorance of the unknown future, and the need for father-figures and "soul-mates".

You Don't Need Empty Answers
Staring into the maw of the unfamiliar and trying to make sense out of it is something we humans do pretty much constantly. It should be no surprise that there should then arise a grand answer to fill those unsettling gaps. There are those who chose to remain purposefully ignorant of scientific knowledge and understanding, and that's a shame. But there are a large portion of moderate believers who are clinging to religious beliefs in order to not have to learn or attempt to learn the answers to life's deep questions.

But once you remove yourself from the realm of religion, you begin to see the reality of the world, and fear actually diminishes. You start realizing that the world is what you make it, how you behave and live your life is ultimately up to you, and the way you treat others matters in this one and only life you get. Sure, we'll all be ignorant about something at some time or another, but it's how we handle that fact that determines the course and nature of our lives.

You Don't Need A God
If you've read this series and are a believer of some kind, I encourage you to challenge yourself with the following exercises. Think about what you would need to change in order to live without God. Think about what God actually "does" in your life that you can't find any other way of accomplishing. Try taking off the theist mindset and view the world -- perhaps only momentarily -- without the need for your deity. Imagine you and your family and friends having to live and help one another through hardships on your own, with the help of only each other. Hopefully you'll find that you do much of this already, you only give God the credit. Maybe you'll grow closer to becoming a person who doesn't need a god.

-STA

Why Some People Need A God: Companionship

2010-04-09T09:38:00.006-05:00

We are by nature social creatures, and when we are young sometimes it's difficult to find other children to play or "practice" with. Just as our brains create dreams probably to function as training grounds for exploration of situations and emotions, our brains also dream up daydreams and imaginary friends to help us learn to socialize.

Talking to Yourself
Or perhaps it goes a little deeper than that. Perhaps the child with an imaginary friend needs said friend for companionship. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins reprinted the classic poem by A. A. Milne, "Binker", to illustrate the point of how children create and use imaginary friends to serve needs for companionship. The child in the poem plays with his imaginary friend, teaches him to talk, and shares sweets with him -- all the while realizing that grown-ups don't "get it".

This deep-seated need for companionship gets expressed in the embodiment of so-called spiritual things. Gods, Great Spirits, and other deities serve the basic social needs of some people. Once we see a god as nothing more than an imaginary friend, we realize the same power exists: to comfort, to commune. God fills the gaps in people's lives who need someone to talk to; to understand what they're feeling or explore questions. God relieves the tension we feel and supports our natural desires for companionship.

You See it Too
Not only that, but another layer gets added on when believers fellowship with each other. Suddenly, a very real person with the same imaginary friend becomes a companion, and subsequent stories can be shared that reinforce the feelings supplied by the deity. Where the imaginary entity fails (in the lack of physical embraces, for example), the other believers succeed. This is a powerful social reality that has direct, lasting consequences and effects in the lives of real people, and is not to be overlooked.

Even if you, reader, are a believer in a god (or perhaps an imaginary friend), I encourage you to think about the idea that your deity is nothing more than a concept you invented. Think about what that would entail, and note the similarities if that were the case. I think you'll find, probably initially to your horror, that the similarities are immense. Your God hates the things you hate, loves the people you love, and will understand you deeper than any other person. How is that any different than Binker?

-STA

Why Some People Need A God: Fear

2010-03-27T11:50:00.000-05:00

In this, the first post in a three-part miniseries exploring some of the common responses from theists to the question, why do you need a god?

Help Me...Someone?
Many of those responses include, at least in part, a desire to be safe and secure. We all need a Superman every now and then; someone who can "take the wheel" as it were. Even those of us who have no illusions of magical beings that interact with or even guide our day-to-day activities occasionally yearn for a break.

At the heart of it all lies fear -- generally of the unknown. People are afraid of death, afraid of not knowing what tomorrow will bring, afraid of being helpless in any given situation. To a lot of these people, their deities come to the rescue.

As with most of the reasons theists give for being theists, however seemingly innocuous, this reason hinges on the idea that you cannot help yourself. How many of you (theist or otherwise) have heard phrases like, "put it in God's hands", or "God has it all planned out"? It is true that there are certain situations in which we all find ourselves unable to cope or do something to better are predicament. Those helpless situations reveal two distinct types of people: those who resort to fanciful ideas and talk of magic, and those who find comfort and strength in themselves and their fellow humans. While it may not be easy to be the latter, it is certainly more honest and, I think, ultimately better than wishful thinking.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying nobody should ever hope for anything. I'm saying stop lying to yourself and saying that you can't get out of bed without Jesus, or you could have never ran that obstacle course without the strength of the Lord. Start doing things for yourself. Find self-confidence and throw away these primitive notions of doom and antiquated doctrines that tell you you're worthless and undeserving of happiness. You don't need that bullshit, and you don't need a God to find help, happiness, love, peace, or an end to your fear.

-STA

Divine Slang, or How "Soon" Means "A Really Long Time"

2010-03-02T12:40:00.005-06:00

You Better Watch Out...
When I was a Christian, I was swept up into the idea that I was living in the "end times". The Son of Man would be flying in on clouds of glory, probably in just a couple years. This was back before Y2K, and so we all thought that sounded like a date Jesus would pick. So we all got ready, prayed, and stayed awake, fearing and waiting. And waiting.

And waiting...

Okay, so not the turn of the century. That's fine -- but it will be soon! Just look at all the wars, earthquakes, death, pestilence, and hardships around the world! Kids are listening to heavy metal and cutting themselves! You can't leave your front door unlocked anymore! The world is turning to shit! The end is neigh!!!!!!!!

It wasn't until I escaped Christianity that I realized this was an ongoing thing. Really. Since the dawn of Christianity, believers have been claiming the end of the world was just around the corner. I love browsing the website "A Brief History of the Apocalypse" whenever I hear a doomsday preacher on TV or read an end-times blog post. The phenomenon of predicting the end of the world is almost as old as the world itself.

Back In 5 Mins --J.C.
Examining the bible without my Jesus goggles, I started to understand things a little clearer. Things like Jesus's quotes in Matthew. "Immediately after the distress of those days 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken'... Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door...I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened...I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes...For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

That's a pretty clear indication that Jesus expected to return within his follower's lifetime. I find it both amusing and startling how every generation thinks of itself as the quoted "this generation". I guess it makes since to want to be "the generation" that gets to see Glory coming.

Even the apostles of Christ felt similar sentiments. James (5:8) instructs his fellow believers to "be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near." In fact, a lot of the New Testament is full of this sort of "be ready to go" language.

"For in just a little while, 'He who is coming will come and will not delay'." -Hebrews 10:37

"The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed." -Romans 13:11

"...time is short...For this world in its present form is passing away." -1 Corinthians 7:29

"The end of all things is near." -1 Peter 4:7

Dude, You are Soooooooo Fuggin' Late!
The looming threat of Judgment Day is held over believers by one another and by themselves. The other day I drove past a peeling, weather-worn church sign and I though, It never crosses a Christian's mind when they have to pay for a brand new billboard that says, "Jesus is coming SOON!" when the old one is decrepit and broken and has been sitting there for the past 20 years. Let's face the facts, people: Jesus promised to return soon and very soon, and that was nearly 2,000 years ago. I'm not really sure why Christians need to keep that sense of urgency, though it may have something to do with the fact that their god died 2000 years ago (if he ever really existed in the first place). Otherwise, it's a moot and unostentatious ending.

-STA

Treaty of Tripoli in Modern Terms

2010-02-05T18:17:00.003-06:00

It's common to hear from Christian revisionists that America is a "Christian Nation" founded on Christian values, and other unsupported claims. I've already covered this in another entry, so I won't go through it again.

Instead, today I wanted to take a look at the document known as the Treaty of Tripoli. This was a peace treaty between the US and the Bey of Tripoli in 1797. The treaty was unanimously approved by the Senate and signed by President John Adams and proudly proclaimed to the nation.

The relevant part of the treaty is Article 11, which states in its entirety:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

America is not a Christian nation -- it can't be. The laws of this country are at odds with the laws the Christian God. If the above isn't clear enough, let's break it down in modern terms:
"The USA is NOT a Christian nation. It has laws that protect all religion, Christianity, Islam, or any other. America welcomes people of all faiths with open arms and does not actively engage in prejudice or hostility based on religion or creed. Both parties signing this treaty of friendship agree that actions and diplomatic discussions will not be hindered by matters of religion or faith-based opinions."

Doesn't that sound like a great place to live? Whether or not Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Ray Comfort, or George Bush agrees with sentiments expressed in the treaty, the Constitution backs it up. America was founded on freedom. Anyone can be an American. Any American can have any religion they want, or none at all. The government can't and should not uphold one religion, because doing so pushes all others down. Equality, freedom, and opportunity is the name of the US game, not the laws of Jesus or his Heavenly Father.

-STA

Fallacy Friday: Ad Hominem

2010-01-22T08:37:00.034-06:00

Back by popular demand, we continue the Fallacy Friday series with the often misunderstood ad hominem.

Simply put, it's attacking the person rather than the argument. It's saying that the person's claim is wrong
because of the person, and not because of reason or facts. It might seem obvious to avoid attacking the character of a person rather than their ideas, but it happens all too often in the heat of an argument. Sometimes a person might refuse to accept another person's statement and justify that refusal by criticizing the person. This fallacy serves as a Red Herring because it drives the attention away from the actual argument at hand.

"You claim that atheists can be moral, yet I happen to know that you beat your wife and children!"

I said that this fallacy is often misunderstood. What I mean is that calling someone names or otherwise being generally abusive toward them doesn't make your statements fallacious. It's not an ad hominem to malign your opposition -- as long as the maligning is not the basis of your argument. It can sometimes be subtle. Just pay attention to what is being objected to. Essentially the difference is "you're wrong and you're an idiot" versus "you're wrong because you're an idiot". The latter is fallacious.

Don't be abusive to try to win arguments. Remember, the truth of a statement isn't dependent upon the virtues, character, actions, or motives of the person making the claim. All too often, it seems, people justify their stance on issues based solely on what they think about the character of their opposition. That's another type of Argumentum ad Hominem: circumstantial. It's usually phrased as "Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say." We need to be careful with this kind, however. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make. It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim, but there are some cases in which it may throw extra skepticism onto their position.

-STA

Unholy Word: Slaughter the Infidels, Rape the Girls

2010-01-13T08:57:00.019-06:00

The God of the Old Testament is extremely bloodthirsty. All over the bible, we can find stories of tribe murdering tribe in the name (or usually by the direct command) of God. Here's just one example and this one makes a great bedtime story.

Bathe Her, And Bring Her To Me
Read over Numbers 31. In it, Moses is instructed by God to have the Israilites kill all of the Midianite children, any child still in the womb, all of the men, and every woman who as slept with a man.

Let's ignore all the problems involved with an all-loving God ordering these "hits" and look at how the story plays out. After the Israilites kill all the Midianite men, they take the women, children, livestock, and plunder back to the camp. But Moses is furious with them. "Kill all the male children! And kill all the women who have had sex with a man!' Moses orders.

And the best part of the spoils of war..."But spare the lives of the virgin girls. Keep them for yourselves!"

I can raise the issue of keeping other people as property, but I won't. I can raise the issue of men doing as they please to virgin girls, but do I really need to? I could ask, "How would they know who the virgins were?" but my imagination brings dark imagery.

The story claims there were 32,000 virgins that were divided up among the camp. Half were assigned to those who fought in the war and Moses gave the head priest the portion set aside for God (32 girls), as ordered by God himself.

Again, as with all stories brought to light in this series, the immorality is stomach-turning. Every time I read these stories I find it inconceivable that the book which contains them is lauded as the pinnacle of human morality and a guide for how we should live our lives. The fact that we've learned that the kind of behavior taken by Moses is wrong is not due to God (for he is supposedly the one ordering such massacre), but rather due to where we actually get our morality from -- not from any gods, but from society, observation, empathy, media, upbringing, history, and instinct.

-STA

Why And How To Worship God

2010-01-09T10:02:00.017-06:00

In recent talks with theists I've once again come across the question of what I would do if "God" showed up to me. While that is a big discussion in itself, another aspect arrives from contemplating the question: worship. Why should we worship a reveled God, and what exactly does it mean to worship it?

Brown-Nosed And Rolling Over
Assuming the God in question is the all-powerful creator of everything, several factors reveal themselves in this scenario (at least to an armchair psychologist), the first of which is fear. We are naturally (be it by evolution or intelligent design) submissive to those with greater power than our own. We create hierarchical social structures and our treatment of others reflects our perceived level of dominance of them, among other things. From an evolutionary standpoint, it's a survival mechanism. Sure, we could all just fight to the death but that would help anyone, especially ourselves. So we push as far as we can, gaining and giving as much as beneficially possible. Therefore, should a mighty creator being suddenly plop down and begin issuing edicts, we'd most likely obey out of fear and a desire to live and remain unharmed.

The other side to this is the protection such a being would offer. Just as the tiny fish seek protection and food from a shark, so too would many humans begin to suck up to the regnant deity. True, some may also seek companionship and an honest exploration of the previously unstudied. But I think that most would simply bow out of fear and respect to power unlimited.

Here I Am, Now Entertain Me
That might be the why, but what about the how? What does it mean to worship a being? Is it unquestionable love and veneration? Is it reverence in the form of consent? I wouldn't expect to automatically love any being just out of awe, surprise, or fear. Love is earned. I might be able to respect the deity's authority and powers, but love is an entirely different ball game.

I suppose too that it would depend on the demands made by the god. Will it stand before us and proudly exclaim, "Bow down to me or be crushed!"? I'm willing to bet that the best form of "worship" would be the actions, words, and behaviors that the god did not ask for. Many people may solicit the being to gain protection, companionship, a freedom from responsibilities, or to share in the power. I would rather worship (and be worship by) beings that love or respect me enough to want to make me happy -- not out of fear of punishment or hopes of reward -- but just out of the goodness of the heart.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T, Find Out What It Means To Me
I can hear the religious people now, "But that's just exactly what God wants! He wants you to love him out of your own free will, and he wants to be worshiped by you and share his glory with you." I'm sorry, but it would depend on the character of your God. If, as I've said before, the deity is the actual Yahweh from the Old Testament, I wouldn't worship him if he threatened me directly to my face. Might doesn't make right. I don't care how powerful it is or how much right it has to me as its property, being my creator and being stronger than me doesn't give it the prerogative of my respect, honor, love, worship, or even acknowledgment. The content of its character and its actions toward others determine where it would sit in my book. I'll obey the might only if I accept its justifications for the requests it makes, and only if its standards meet those worthy of devotion. The Gods of people today do not warrant my respect, and they are not worthy of worship by anyone, including you.

-STA

Hollywood Atheism

2010-01-05T07:12:00.005-06:00

Happy New Year! We've said goodbye to one of the worst decades in living memory and we look hopefully forward to what awaits us in the years to come. But hey, the holiday celebrations are over and you're ready for some more deep insight from a small-town atheist, aren't you? :oP Well, I plan on getting out more, writing more, producing more videos, and engaging in more debates this year. As always, your comments, emails, and criticisms and support are what drives these projects, so keep 'em coming.

Now, as I am the inquisitive type, I thought I'd start this year off with a question: why are atheists portrayed so badly in movies and television? It's a subject that I've written on before, but I just want to revisit it because I think it's important.

Ain't No Such Thing, And That's Final!
The TVTropes.org wiki has several pages discussing the literary devices and deceptions used by writers to portray the skeptical and the nonreligious. Most often, atheists are depicted as self-loathing, bitter, lawless radicals who stick to their materialistic ideals even though the Sci-Fi monster is eating them alive. And this is what irks me. Some of these writers (and viewers) seem to think that if a skeptical person is shown direct evidence, they will still remain skeptical. As if that's the way questioning things really works!

I've stated numerous times in my articles and videos that if someone can provide the sufficient evidence to prove a god exists, I'd be an idiot not to believe. And yet screenwriters continue to create fantasy worlds where vampires, aliens, demons, and psychic monsters abound and yet they portray the nonbeliever as a overzealous doubter who just won't accept the "reality" of what's going on. For some it may be a way to take jabs at skeptics in the real world, but in doing so they're just missing the point of skepticism altogether.

God-Shaped Hole
Not only are they portrayed as being unwilling to believe in anything, even if it's biting them on the ass, atheists are also shown in movies and TV shows to be unkind, bigoted, immoral, lonely, and cranky. Let's make one thing clear if it isn't already: being an atheist does not nor cannot "lead to" any of these. Atheism isn't a positive thing in itself; it's simply a response to an assertion. You can't get from "I don't believe in a god" to "I hate myself" or "I want to rape, kill, and steal from others". That being said, you can find an atheist with just about any disposition there is. It's akin to finding a bald person with just about any disposition there is. But have you ever seen a happy atheist in a TV show or a movie? While a lot of atheist characters offer incredibly deep and satisfying stories, I've yet to find a nonbeliever who isn't suicidal or a drug-user or or an overly-opinionated crone. Maybe that's how the rest of the world sees us. We complain too much. We seek to hurt others' feelings. We lead unfulfilled lives. The funny thing is that for a lot of us, these accusations couldn't be further from the truth. Being loosed from the shackles of superstition gives us freedom, and consequently, happiness previously unfathomed.

While this is a topic for another day, I should also clarify something else: although atheism and skepticism complement each other, they are not synonymous. I've used them nearly interchangeably above, but not all atheists are skeptical, and not all skeptics are atheists. The distinction is important and we will discuss it in detail in the future.

Elementary, My Dear Theist
Over the holiday break, I was taken happily by surprise by the feature film Sherlock Holmes, starring Robert Downey Jr. His character flaws make him both though-provoking and enjoyable to watch, and Holmes gives audiences a rational, evidence-seeking skeptic faced with seemingly overwhelming evidence of the supernatural and the existence of magic. So as not to spoil it for you, I've hidden the next few sentences. If you've already seen the movie, or don't care about spoilers (it's not a hugely significant one anyway), then highlight the next paragraph with your mouse.

{

In the movie, Holmes is faced with an opponent who appears to be a resurrected, black magic-practicing sorcerer. Using deduction and physical evidence, Holmes eventually learns that all the supposed tricks are nothing more than just that; tricks. Rational explanations win out over superstition and faith. Holmes even leaves open the possibility of a supernatural explanation, examines first-hand the incantations used by the antagonist (though this is probably done more for getting into the head of the opposition rather than actually testing if the magic really works). Watson admits that he's seen things in his lifetime that he cannot explain, and says to Holmes, "a supernatural explanation to this case is theoretically possible." The lead character replies in my favorite piece of dialog from this film, "Agreed -- but, it's a huge mistake to theorize before one has data. Inevitably one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." To date, this is the best representation of a skeptical mindset I've seen in a feature film. I had a awful feeling that since the movie started out so well, it would devolve into "Haha skeptic, you were WRONG! You think you know everything, don't you? Well, suffer my supernatural wrath!" as they inevitable seem to do. But surprisingly it worked out in favor of the rational.

}

Why can't more writers figure this stuff out? Data, data, data!

-STA

There Goes Another Decade

2009-12-29T11:18:00.052-06:00

Well, there goes another year -- and another decade. Wow. It's hard to believe it's been ten years since Y2K. A lot's happened to me in this decade. I got married. I realized I don't believe in God. I started this blog and started learning how to think.

While I think it was an okay year, I'm hoping this coming year will be a little better. I'm also hoping this coming decade will see rationalism, skepticism, and most importantly atheism expand and thrive throughout the world, as this decade saw the atrocities of the fruits of faith (though I think it's getting better). As far as resolutions go for myself, I'm hoping to get back into writing and debating more. I'll attempt to get back into the Gather.com community, and make a more videos on YouTube. I'm also going to continue to slowly step out of the closet, perhaps by speaking up a bit more and not letting bigoted, ignorant things go unchallenged.

As always, thank you so much for your support, emails, and comments on this blog and all my endeavors. The interaction is what keeps me going; I can listen to myself talk any time. Now I'm off to spend time with friends and family. I'll see you next year!

-STA

Get Back To The True Meaning

2009-12-15T10:48:00.024-06:00

Every year America is inundated with pleas from the Christian populace to cast off the secular traditions and once again return to the true meaning of Christmas.

If only they'd study a little history.

Origins of Christmastime
Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25. Saturnus, the god of seed and sowing, was honored with a festival. During this time the Roman courts were closed, law was lifted, and the social order was inverted. Slaves didn't have to work, banquets were held, and all seriousness was essentially barred. There were gifts given and informal dress with felt hats (normally used by slaves) were worn to symbolize the freedom of the celebration.

It was an occasion for jubilation, visits to friends, and the presentation of gifts. Slaves were treated as equals, allowed to wear their masters' clothing, and be waited on at meal time in remembrance of an earlier golden age thought to have been ushered in by the god Saturn. Lucian of Samosata wrote, "Drinking, noise and games and dice, appointing of kings and feasting of slaves, singing naked, clapping of frenzied hands, an occasional ducking of corked faces in icy water—such are the functions over which I preside." The Saturnalia continued to be celebrated as Brumalia, the winter solstice, down to the Christian era, when its rituals had become absorbed in the celebration of Christmas (just as the festival of the Germanic goddess Eastre).

The Real Reason
When I was a Christian, I despised what I saw as the corruption and commercialization of my Lord's birthday by the evils of Walmart, Target, and Santa Claus (who I saw as a way of getting Christ's message across to heathens). Now that I actually looked into a bit of history surrounding the time, it's clear that we're not too far off from the "original meaning". I admit that I was an ignorant theist, as I think many today are; they don't want to learn anything past Jesus. They don't realize that centuries of time, traditions, and practices came before the third century! Just as with Christmas, they stop at 4AD and refuse to accept that gods like Mithra, Horace, Dionysus, Osiris, and lots of others all call that date their birthday.

Traditions get taken over as ideas slowly change. As the culture changes, you either adopt the new traditions by relating to them in some way, or you ignore them outright. I find it amusing that the pagan influences are still wrapped around the Christian face of the holiday. Jeremiah 10:2-4 warns not to put up what we today call a Christmas tree. And yet how many Christians have a tree in there house right now? Like I said, you go with the flow and change the meanings to fit your own tastes and beliefs or you die by the wayside. Our contemporary traditions are just as much the "true meaning" as any.

The fact is, the season is the reason for the season; it's the winter solstice. We must realize that feasts and festivals in honor of to the gods and forces of the seasons have existed for millenia. In our modern times of abundance and prevalence of food (the fact that you can get strawberries in the winter, etc.), in a way removes the reasons for many of our traditional holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas. Thus, we're free to "celebrate" whatever we want. If you want to view Christmas as a celebration of the hope of the next spring, go for it. If you want to see it as another chance to spend time with loved ones, be my guest. If you want to think that it's the day your god was born or as a festival to one of the many fertility gods, that's fine too. Whatever reason you decide the season is for, just make sure to eat, drink, and be merry -- and don't force your practices on everyone else.

And have a wonderful Christma-Hanu-Rama-Ka-Dona-Kwanzaa-Wali-Solstice!

-STA

Claus and Christ

2009-12-08T12:24:00.002-06:00

It's that time of year again. We see you-know-who's face plastered up on billboards and posters all over the place, at least here in America. With his big blue eyes wishing peace and love to the world. Yep, Jesus is everywhere. And so is that pagan red devil, Santa Claus. Coincidence???

Let's look at some similarities of these two fairy-tale personas:

Jesus (being God) is ever-watchful -- see Psalm 139:1-4
Santa sees you too -- see "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town"
Jesus rewards good behavior (heaven) and punishes bad behavior (hell)
Santa also rewards good behavior (toys) and punishes bad behavior (coal)
Jesus has a list of good people (The Lamb's Book of Life)
Santa has a list of naughty and nice children

It's pretty clear that they both represent attempts in our culture to keep children in line. Some even view Santa as a way of passing the messages of Christianity onto nonbelievers. What about their differences?

Santa has a physical, tangible existence -- he eats cookies, drinks milk, comes down chimneys, etc.
Jesus lives in your "heart" and is no longer* a flesh and blood being
Santa rewards you in the here-and-now with material positions
Jesus's gifts have to wait til you die (except for babbling incoherently and other "gifts of the Spirit")
Santa will put you on the naught list as long as you're bad
Jesus will roast your ass in hell forever if you screw up and forget to say 'Sorry' before you kick the bucket
Kids who stop believing in Santa Claus are praised for their cleverness and skills of deduction
Kids who stop believing in Jesus are shunned for immorality and outlandish blasphemy

It's also interesting to note how society relates to these two. Santa is looked upon as fantasy, whereas Jesus is touted as 100% fact (even though Santa is more plausible, baring the "magic" and violations of physics and economics). The Santa myth is looked upon with fondness as something innocuous that we can look back upon and laugh about. But the much more bloody and unbelievable myth is put forth in all seriousness.

There isn't many wars fought over which of Santa's ideas are to be followed. There isn't any Santaquisions or Elf Burnings. As Stefan Molyneux of FreeDomainRadio.com points out (paraphrased), "Nobody drinks the wine that is supposed to turn into the blood of Santa, and you don't eat bread that turns into Santa's flesh. Santa doesn't come back from the dead, Santa doesn't heal the sick and so on."

That's why I don't have a problem partaking in the pagan and secular mythologies of Santa Claus. When the time comes, I won't be lying to my susceptible children about the existence of Santa. It's indeed just as harmful if you lead a child into thinking they "better watch out" because Santa is watching them, as it is to tell them God is watching them and they'll burn in hell forever if they're not good. I'll most likely let my children know that it's just a fun story, and I'll pretend with them for as long as they want to. I see it as an opportunity to show them critical thinking, weighing of evidence, and the parallels with religion. When a majority of the world can see the universality of myth -- that their creation stories are one in the same, unjustifiable myth -- we'll be a lot better off.

I get asked sometimes why I bother writing about and making videos on religion if I don't believe in it. The fact is that many, many people do believe in the teaching of their supposed prophets and deities. These people's beliefs affect the actions they take upon others, and that's the problem. If there were "Santa Wars" fought daily, I'd be here pointing out the absurdities of flying reindeer, the lack of evidence for elves, and arguing for people to put away their childish notions of a fat guy who lives at a toy workshop at the North-Pole. Luckily, no one takes Santa seriously enough to jeopardize the fate of the planet, so I'll keep railing against the bigoted religious intolerance that is doing just that.

*Assuming Jesus ever existed in the first place.

-STA

Day In The Life: Accused

2009-12-06T20:11:00.005-06:00

I just have to share this because I'm jazzed about it.

Many of my regular readers will know that while I'm very outspoken about my atheism on the web, I'm still a mostly-in-the-closet atheist when it comes to my immediate family members. (I know, I'm working on it; these things take time.) Said family members were have their Thanksgiving celebration yesterday, myself included. I love our Thanksgiving. I mean, sure, I still like going to the houses of parents' and grandparents' of extended family for the holidays, but nothing can beat the spread, quality, and atmosphere of having Thanksgiving at home (and Mom's food is always better). They're not an overtly religious bunch. None go to church regularly and holidays have always been about family and food and togetherness, never about Jesus or other religious hogwash. So there I was, sitting at the dinner table in the house that I grew up in, stuffing my face with...well, stuffing, when one of my grandmother's many brothers walked into the kitchen with his southern boisterous ululations.

"You god-damned atheist!" he roared.

I froze, heart thumping.

"With yer bumper sticker saying 'The hard work of one does more than the prayers of millions'! I'm gonna go get Brother Jack and we're going to send you straight to hell!"

I nearly choked on the turkey -- with laughter. "Well, send him over!" I quipped. My mother chuckled.

You'd probably have to know the man to appreciate it all. He's known for that type of language, but I was surprised to hear it and being in the form a joke softened it a little. But the fact was there...I was called an ATHEIST in front of my whole family! Holy shit! I'm sure because of me not objecting to the term and congenially welcoming the attack was in a way a coming out of sorts. At least I'm sure it will aid in the real event, should it arise in the future. It was great. In one instant I essentially made the topic accessible. Call me an atheist, I don't mind.

I assume that my family suspects at least something's up. I mean, they realize I stopped going to church. And I have that bumper sticker and an EvolveFish on my truck. And I made the priest who came into my hospital room when I had my cholecystectomy leave immediately. And I sent my mom a reply linking to this blog when she forwarded me a stupid email. And some of my kinfolks and related-in-law already know for sure, through either direct conversation or finding me on the internet (no telling who they talk to). So I think at least some of my core family members might get the picture, although they're not aware of all the details.

My great uncle was joking, of course. He meant no ill toward me, though I'm not entirely sure he'd be so cordial if I had stood up and said, "yeah, I'm a soulless, faithless, godless atheist...so what?!" And I was all ready to defend my position. This is it, I thought. Oh well, perhaps for the better; it may have ruined the festivities. But at least my uncle can joke about it. He was raised in a tough Catholic school way back in the days where they would beat your hands with rulers for not obeying their strict requirements. He hates nuns now.

Anyway, I'm still all goosebumpy over it even though it literally was one sentence and nothing more from anybody. I never thought I'd be (semi)outed by one of own family. Being called an atheist, just out in public like that, was exilerating.

I hope it happens again.

-STA

Prayer and the Internet

2009-12-03T07:12:00.004-06:00

The bible states that prayer somehow works better when you get a bunch of like-minded people together. You'd think that with the invention of the internet and therefore the ability for billions of believers to sync up their communication channels to God and send requests en mass, we could easily change things. Things like, oh I don't know, world peace, the end of hunger, cancer, and other needless suffering. After millennia of just a spattering of people here and there asking for a global change, we have now within our means a way to systematically connect all the conduits of faith, and with a glorious roar reminiscent of Horton Hears a Who, simultaneously unleash a massive prayer toward the heavens.

But still nothing happens. Either everyone isn't synced up just right, or not enough people care about the state of things, or too many people are talking to too many different Gods, or -- the more likely answer -- prayer just doesn't work.

-STA

Who Really Needs God?

2009-12-01T17:05:00.001-06:00

I hope everyone's Thanksgiving weekend went well. How many of you nonbelievers had discussions with religious family members? I'm betting a lot of you 1) sat quietly through the prayer before dinner, and then 2) listened to your aunt bitch about how Obama is the Muslim Communist Antichrist. I was lucky enough to only have to deal with a few racist jokes this year; and all-in-all fairly good Thanksgiving.

This time of year always gets me thinking about why people cling to the ideas they have. What makes these otherwise kind, sane, decent people feel the need to uphold barbaric, antiquated, immoral concepts?

Religion Binds Culture
Religions tend to contain directives that are divisive and harmful. They are prone to being used by people who are willing to take the necessary actions suggested by them. Take the passage of "thou shall not suffer a witch to live". That passage is toothless until someone comes along who is of such character as to accept it as an authority and then act upon it. Therefore, the passage (or the religion, moreover) becomes a reflection of that individual's character.

Not only that, but religions change -- and poison -- the culture they're in. They increase the likelihood that people with these characteristics will be cultivated. Cultures change over time if left to their own devices. The problem is that a religion, upon its creation, encodes the current culture. Once locked in, it attempts to maintain the status quo. This is why the believers of the Bronze Age ideals of Christianity and Islam are trying to keep their outdated ways of thinking in the norm. Religion shackles culture, inhibits progress, and encourages stasis and stagnation.

Breaking The Chains
So who needs religion? Many people feel that without religion humanity would have no sense of right and wrong. Some even feel that its impossible to breath without God.

A lot of the ideas modern folks have about God, prayer, and religion has grown out of the mindset of the contemporaries of their belief systems. As stated above, religion naturally assumes the state in which it is founded. Those who hold Bronze Age beliefs come from a long line of people wanting a better life. The average poor person in America would be considered rich by the standards at the time the New Testament was written. The average tween probably knows more and is generally smarter than anyone who lived over two thousand years ago.

But even by comparison, some people today still feel like the world is against them. They covet the positions of the rich, feel like the "good guys" are loosing, and see the world as doomed. Most people still cling to hopes for a better life. I suppose in some sense that will never go away; no matter how good things get, there will always be a need to find something better. Religion thrives on this idea. It tells you that things are guaranteed to be better for you, if not in this life, then in the next. It's the ultimate "grass is greener" mentality -- something that's extremely appealing to the downtrodden.

We have to eliminate the need for god. We have to realize, as a whole, that together we can accomplish amazing things. With the scientific discoveries of the century, we've discovered microbiology, cured major diseases, and even walked on the moon. As long as our society neglects people, as long as there is major injustice and suffering, god will be there as the last resort and the empty hope for surrendered minds.

-STA

Happy Thanksgiving

2009-11-26T19:44:00.001-06:00

To all my American readers, have a wonderful Thanksgiving!

-STA

Unholy Word: A Love To Die For

2009-11-24T14:51:00.001-06:00

With the atrocity that is "National Bible Week" in full swing (though I haven't seen any effects of it, thank goodness), let's delve into another look at this Unholy Word.

Dinah Blow Your Horn
Today the tale is from Genesis 34. Dinah, a Jewish girl, is raped by a man named Shechem. After he rapes her, he goes to his father and pleads, "I've fallen in love with her, you gotta get her for me, I must marry her!"

Shechem's father goes to Dinah's father, Jacob, and says "My son raped your daughter...but he loves her, so let's have them marry. Even better: let's swap daughters between our two tribes and form a peace treaty! We'll rule this area together and be strong!" He is so infatuated with her that he asks, "Set the bride-price as high as you want and we'll pay."

The sons of Jacob were there and they said, "Sorry, our sister can't marry anyone who isn't circumcised. That's just the way it is. As a matter of fact, if you want to create a peace treaty, your whole tribe will have to convert and be circumcised."

Well evidently Dinah was Helen-of-Troy hot, because not only did Shechem agree to be circumcised, his entire tribe took the snip in order to seal the deal and make up for raping Jacob's daughter. That's real dedication!

Three days later, while all the men of this tribe were sitting around sore, two of Jacob's sons come in and slaughter all of them. They kill every man in the city, including Shechem and his father. Then they grabbed all these men's sisters and wives and headed home. Then the rest of Jacob's sons showed up and plundered the city, taking livestock food, children, everything.

Jacob was mad at his sons; they'd runed any chances at a peace treaty with any other tribe -- who would trust them again? His sons said, "So we should have just let them treat our sister like a whore?" There's nothing more on the story, it just ends there.

Too Many Bad Ideas
I guess the moral is that if your family member gets raped and your original ludicrous demands are met, you're justified in killing, pillaging, and enslaving to get even. But I could be wrong; like a lot of these old stories, simple moral points tend to get added and mixed. To some the point is not to disobey your father and the consequences of killing your new-found friends. Or maybe it's a sad story about how a guy lost his one true love. Its a tortured jumble of lessons that weren't being thought out as they were being put together.

Of course, I can understand anyone being enraged to the point of murder at the rape and forced marriage of your sister. (Yes, keep in mind that woman didn't get a say in who thy married. They were treated as property and bargaining chips.) But the actions they took were unjustified and immoral. These kinds of stories fill this antiquated book that so many will point to as being the backbone of modern American society and good moral values. If only these people would just read the thing!

The bible offers more instructions on rape in Deuteronomy 22 if you weren't sure how to get away with it.

Good stuff. Read it to your kids or at the dinner table between the turkey and the pumpkin pie.

-STA

Same Camp, Same Colors

2009-11-20T10:18:00.005-06:00

A Mild Delusion
I sometimes hear from Christians that don't accept the ways of the fundies. Though we can both agree on their outrageous antics, we disagree when it comes to who takes the blame. That's where I put moderates in the same bucket as the fundamentalists. It doesn't matter what the amount of delusion is, it's the problems at the core that tie them all together.

Moderate and liberal believers act as a safe house for fundamentalists and provide a shield for them. Whenever the majority becomes comprised of relaxed moderates and anything bad happens that would cause them to think God is angry with them or the world or whatever, the moderates begin thinking, "What did we stop doing that would cause God to be vengeful? What changed?" They most often find the answer in fundamentalism.

If You Can't Beat 'em, Keep 'em Around
I used to be a fundamentalist Christian, growing ever increasingly moderate all the way out. Even though my tactics and reasoning were changing, I still had a mindset of a core fundamentalist. I'd see someone going "a little too far" on something, but I always knew their heart was in the right place. We had an elderly couple who began to grow more and more vocal over the choice of clothing the girls in the youth group wore to church: the dreaded and sinful pair of jeans. "That's no way for a woman to dress!" they could be overheard exclaiming as the congregation filed out of services. I didn't think God gave a damn about something as materialistic as pants, they backed up their objections with claims from the bible. I don't recall any particular passages, but it's not uncommon for a believer to say, "well, that's Bible!" when it comes to something they firmly believe -- whether or not it is actually stated in there. The point is that none of us less-sexist of the flock could shake the couple's certainty of the sin being committed, and we couldn't show them otherwise using the same "logical" tactics and arguments from the bible and faith. Those types of disagreements always come down to, "I'll have to pray about it".

The harboring of fundamentalist ideals is performed by all believers, be they liberal, moderate, or extremist. It's because the ideological framework is built using the same wood from the same tree (if you'll pardon the labored metaphor, and those that follow). The scaffolding may reach differing heights, but the foundation is the same unfounded illusion. Until the entire structure is torn down and can be rebuilt using actual knowledge and sound critical-thinking methods, the intellectual groundwork of moderates is indistinguishable from even the most delusional fundamentalists.

-STA

Wedding Hells

2009-11-16T12:57:00.003-06:00

I recently attended a wedding reception and there was one thing that bothered me (enough to sit down and rant about it today). And no, it wasn't the "blessing" that was given before people ate the buffet. A song was sung to the newly-weds; a narrative offering advice on how to stay together. A line in the song suggested, in effect, when times get tough to turn to God and he'll fix it.

Bad Chord
I'm finding several issues I personally have with the otherwise great original song. First off, like so many other theistic pronouncements, it assumes that a) the speaker's God and the audience's God are the same, and b) that the audience even has a God. It's akin to singing a poignant song about real-life things such as love and marriage, then including a line about finding leprechauns grading gold at the end of rainbows. It kills the mood of the song and makes you look small-minded.

Keep-Away
The biggest beef I have with it is the idea itself. Let's look at it from both the viewpoint of the believer and the atheist. First, the former. Using the idea of the Christian God, one may easily see how seeking His guidance is obviously the route to take. He is all-knowing, after all. According to their theology, God has a plan for everyone. Thus, when a couple's marriage is on the rocks, a quick voice-mail up to the clouds and all should be well. But how many Christian marriages fail, even with the fervent prayers of not only the betrothed but often times their families and friends as well? If the answer is as easy as asking God what to do, and getting the sense that the answer is "be kind to and TALK with each other", then why do over half of all theistic unions fail?

Assuming God does exist with all the superpowers generally attributed to him, it goes without saying that such a being is, for lack of better terminology at the moment, a giant prick. In fact, those reading this right now, be they theist or atheist, are probably more moral and ethical than the Christian deity. For how many of you would, if you knew the answer to healing the hurting hearts of two people, would refuse to administer your aid until asked? Would you wait to poor out your miraculous blessings upon the hungry until all of them sought your help? Would you withhold a cure that would strike leukemia from a dying girl until not just the girl asked for it, but her family, the whole ward floor, the entire hospital, town -- or continent -- agreed you could?

It Takes Two -- Me and You
Since I am one of the millions who do not subscribe to such egotistical bullshit, I will say that the obvious course of action is not to turn to some imaginary friend to fix your martial issues, but instead turn to each other, the flesh-and-blood human being with whom you committed your life to. Seek the problem at its source. Talk with each other. Listen to each other. Find out what the hell is going on and do not cower from it. If you need to involve beings from outside of yourselves, turn to your family, your friends. I'm sure there's at least one person every married couple can talk to (we all had at least one witness, right?). Find the bug. Hunt it down like a heat-seeking missile. The point is that the answer is within you; it's not going to come from some mysterious force outside of you. Both of you -- whether you knew it or not -- took the necessary steps to fall in love. It's going to take both of you again to stay that way.

And if he's reading this, let the songwriter know that this is in no way an attack on him directly. He's one of the best and most upstanding guys I know, and a wonderful friend. The contention is merely with the message and wording of his outstanding and touching song -- a small disputation, yet one I think worthy of mention.

-STA

Paying for Prayer

2009-11-05T15:34:00.000-06:00

Are you sitting down? Good. Here's a couple news items from this week.

An All-Christian Prison
Oklahoma plans to build a Christian-run prison to give Christian inmates special privileges. So where's the all-atheist prison, or the all-Muslim prison? Sure, that's exactly what they need. Pray to an invisible friend that will take away all the bad things you've done in your life so that you can feel better about yourself, and read your bibles that tell stories of unicorns, dragons, satyrs, and talking donkeys. "Ninety-eight percent of offenders are going to get out of prison," says the project's leader. "What kind of offender do you want living next door?"

Priest Same As Doctor
Congressional members are again kowtowing to Christian Science by sponsoring a provision in the health care reform bill to allow prayer to be considered medicine. The Christian Science Church has pushed throughout its history to secure official recognition for its paid prayer practitioners. That's right, I said paid prayer practitioners. Their job is to pray for healing and charge for treatment at rates similar to those of medical doctors. Imagine having a job where you just pray for someone to get better all the while earning doctor's wages! I guess if you don't have a conscience or care at all about people, that's the best job in the world. If praying for someone to get better counts as medicine, shouldn't praying for someone to die be considered an attempt at murder? Does praying to win the lottery amount to fraud?

-STA

The Bible Warns Against Learning

2009-10-23T15:54:00.009-05:00

Time for a quick Friday rant. The bEarthDay thing has got me thinking about the humorous side that religion brings, but I can't help but shake the fact that it's ultimately detrimental to society as a whole. It seems I'm always talking about this: religion is counter-productive to the advancement of human understanding and knowledge. We cannot learn as a whole as long as we are shackled by the chains of this way of thinking -- or should I say, not thinking.

I'm targeting the bible here, but all religions are guilty of this. The fact that Christianity is based on the idea of how wrong it is to learn something new. The Genesis story tells of humanities first and largest sin: gaining forbidden knowledge. All throughout the bible, we can find passages that strictly condone thinking. Proverbs 3:5-6, Ecclesiastes 1:18, Philippians 2:14, Romans 1:22, and 1 Corinthians 1:19,27 are just a few examples of this wonderful guidebook that about one third of the planet identifies as the backbone of society. The bible states very clearly: don't think for yourself.

The idea that thinking for yourself is fundamentally against faith or the laws of the creator of the universe is dangerous and it squelches any hope of advancement for humankind. The fact that you're reading this right now is testament to the power of understanding brought on -- not by the wisdom of an almighty ghost -- but by the labors of reason and the drive to understand reality. I find it simultaneously absurd and terrifying that people fight tooth and nail to try to keep us in the Dark Ages by blocking off any progress in the battle against ignorance.

-STA

Happy bEarth Day!

2009-10-23T13:56:00.005-05:00

Way back in 1658, Archbishop James Ussher determined that the world was created precisely at 9am, October 23, 4004 BC. So today is the official creation day and the earth is a ripe young 6012 years old! Men of God have faith, and that counts just as much as evidence, right?

-STA

Today from Ray: What Have You Been Doing?

2009-10-20T09:02:00.006-05:00

In a small effort to spice things up around here -- and get me blogging more -- we're starting a new running series. I like to argue. More importantly, I like to help people. I feel that pointing out errors aids in the stamping out of ignorance.

Our good friend Ray Comfort has loads of such ignorance spewing forth from his blog here on blogger. Ray's "Comfort Food" blog is now "Atheist Central", and since I fit the description of his target, I've tried to regularly participate. The only problem is that of censorship. The only comments that are shown are those that Ray judges as appropriate. He'll even cut off discussions if you fail to capitalize specific words like jesus! (You can read his rules for commenting just below his title graphic full of argumentum ad verecundiam.) So since taking him on on his own turf is rather ineffectual and self-defeating, I'll have to answer Ray's criticisms and characterizations of atheism here. Occasionally we'll take a look at what's going down on Ray's blog today.

And Ray, if you want to comment here, I don't give a rat's ass how you type "jesus".

Big Words From Little Woody
Jumping right into what I find displayed on the page right now, Ray's October 18th drips with his basic Way of The Master rhetoric. "When the atheist stands before God," Ray writes, "it will be a waste of time telling Him what he thinks of Him." Ray fails to convince atheists with this kind of "logic" by failing to see the enormous assumption. After all, what will Ray really have to say to FSM when he stands before him, huh?

The snide title of the post comes from the fact that Ray quotes atheist Woody Allen and then calls him a "sad man who is fearful of dying". He somehow gets that out of Allen's words: "God has some explaining to do". Indeed, I'd ask the same from God if I died and met Ray's deity in the clouds. Aside from reading in a fear of death, Ray fails to see that if his god is real, it would already know exactly what it would take to convince every single non-believer on the planet. This is the point of Allen's quote. It's not a matter of being hostile towards religion, or just wanting to be a naughty little sinner. It's not that he's scared of dying, or scared of finding out he was wrong, it's the fact that a god with qualities that Ray and other Christians profess wouldn't and shouldn't expect a surprise run-in with an atheist.

You're an idiot, Ray. This is going to be harder than I thought...I'm going to go lay down and try to get rid of the headache I got from pulling my hair out.

-STA

Perfect Love

2009-10-09T13:27:00.002-05:00

[Adapted from a video by Nick Gisburne]

I saw a beautiful woman sitting alone in the park. I recognize her, because she comes there often. I've admired her for quite some time, but I've never gotten up the courage to talk to her, or even let her know I exist. I start writing her letters, telling her how much I love her. I tell her of all the wonderful things I can do for her, and to her, if only she'd be mine. I leave these letters on her front porch, and I watch in hiding as she reads them and blushes with excitement. She runs to the door and yells out into the street, "Let me see you! I love you!" though I remain hidden.

I continue writing her, constantly expressing my devotion and unconditional love. She keeps asking to see me. She starts writing me responses and leaving them on the porch so that I would find them whenever I came to deliver my next batch of love letters. In her responses, she begs me to reveal my identity, that only if she and I could talk face-to-face and hold each other close, then the fullness of our love could be realized. I respond in my next letter by saying I want her to freely love me, and I don't think she could if she knew my true identity.

Over time, I notice my letters start to pile up at her doorstep. It seems she no longer reads them. Worried, I began watching her through her window. She seems not to care about how much I love her. I then see a man walk up to her door. She answers it, and kisses him passionately on the mouth. Infuriated and confused, I race to the door and strike them both down. I drag them inside and tie them up. I scream at my former love, "Why? Why? Why?! After you knew how much I loved you, how could you betray our love?"

"How can I love you if I can't be with you?" she asked through her tears. I can't hear through the raging torrent of blood pumping through my veins. "All I asked was for you to love me -- ONLY ME!" I screamed as I doused the living room with a gas can. She pleaded with me to stop, that she'd love me, but it was too late. As I walked away from the burning house, I relished her screams of agony, for she was receiving justice for denying me.

It's My Choice

2009-10-07T12:48:00.006-05:00

I've recently received a lot of comments regarding the Problem of Evil, namely the theist's attempt to solve said problem. Many theists will claim the reason bad things happen to good people is because "God can't (or doesn't want to) interfere with our free will to be able to choose to love Him on our own. Otherwise, we'd all be robots", etc, etc, ad nauseum. Let's take a look at why free will fails as a defense.

The Greater Good
Free will is assumed to be a greater good than the evil that it causes. If a young girl is raped and murdered, is this because God needed to preserve the rapists free will so that his actions could result in greater good or so that the rapist could freely love God? Or is it so that the young girl would pray to God and beg him to make her attacker stop?

What about natural disasters (if you want to call them "evil")? God -- being omnipotent -- could have devised a way to remove all the evil in the world, and still give us free choices. What does shingles or hypospadias have to do with choice or the absolute knowledge of God?

Take Me To Your Leader
"We'd all be robots" is a conjecture based on what, exactly? You're claiming that God would destroy our free will to worship him simply by giving us evidence of his existence. Not to do your own theology for you, but according to the bible there have been several individuals who had first-hand knowledge of God's existence and still managed to have the free will to choose or not choose him: Adam, Eve, Moses, Satan, just to name a few. These beings had repeated conversations and interactions with God -- did they loose their free will? And what about Heaven? Will you lose your free will there?

The idea that we would have no choice to love/worship a deity who revealed itself unquestionably is preposterous. You'd still have a choice in the matter. You know for certain of the President's existence, correct? Did you lose the free will to disagree with his policies? If the God of the bible convincingly revealed himself to me, I would still not get down on my hands and knees and grovel at his feet. Such a tyrant, hiding or otherwise, deserves no worship.

Free will is not an excuse for why bad things happen to good people. Knowledge of God still affords us a choice in the matter, except we'd have better evidence to base our opinions on. Besides, you can't truly love someone without an absolute knowledge on them.

-STA

Happy Blasphemy Day

2009-09-30T10:10:00.000-05:00

September 30th is international Blasphemy Day. Here's Penn explaining it.

So go out and express disrespect for the god of your choice. If you're religious, you're encouraged to blaspheme too -- it'll mean more if you do it.

Happy Blasphemy Day, everyone...and fuck Ra!

-STA

Scribble in God

2009-09-29T17:04:00.005-05:00

For those who aren't in the know, Scribblenauts is the current smash hit game for the Nintendo DS. The game allows you to write down words and it creates objects in the game world. The game includes a huge dictionary of objects (over 22,000 words). What does this have to do with this blog?

Type "atheist" and a white-haired professorial looking fellow appears. Then, type "god". The stereotypical white-bearded god is made. That's right, you can create God in the game, even though the guidelines for writing objects include being "actual, physical" things. Put the two together, and the atheist gets scared and runs off.

I think it's funny. Hey, at least it recognizes the word. And I guess I'd be pretty freaked out too if I saw the Abrahamic God.

Try "scientist". He doesn't run from God. You can also type in "devil" with god around, but god always kills him without much trouble. Makes you wonder...

The "priest" is apparently indestructible. Nothing kills a priest in the game. Not even a zombie -- he just makes the priest a zombie!

There are all sorts of fun tongue-in-cheek things you can do, like make the Large Hadron Collider. It creates a black hole (which kills everything, even God).

-STA

An Updated Origin

2009-09-19T17:25:00.002-05:00

November 21, 2009 will mark the exact 150-year mark since the publication of Charles Darwin's book Origin of Species, and a group is actually going to provide over fifty college campuses with free -- yes, FREE -- copies of the book. Who is this group, and why would they go through all that trouble? Why, for God, of course!

That's right folks. The group is the 'Living Waters' ministry. But why would I care that a Christian evangelical collective is giving away Darwin's book? Because this is not the book Darwin wrote. This special-edition version includes a hidden 50-page introduction written by Ray Comfort. And therefore, as you should be able to guess, starts the book off by claiming evolution can't happen, and then proselytizing for Jesus. I say "hidden" because the book does mention Ray's name until after the introduction.

Ray's Fractal Wrongness
You can read Comfort's introduction at the Living Waters site. Here's some random lines from Ray's special introduction, to give you an idea into Ray's way of thinking:

"Here’s the argument: There was nothing. Then paper appeared, and ink fell from nowhere onto the flat sheets and shaped itself into perfectly formed letters of the English alphabet." -pg. 9

If you're familiar with Ray Comfort's style of argument, then this should be par for the course. Ray thinks that evolution is cosmology and abiogenesis all rolled into one. He thinks natural selection should explain the expansion of the universe, and that the traits of animals just popped into being.

"Do you think that DNA’s amazing structure could have come together by accident? Or does it point to an intelligent Designer?" -pg. 11

Ray thinks because Francis Collins, the director of the Human Genome Project, thinks God made DNA (and he IS a scientist, after all!), then DNA = ID = Jesus. He also mentions Anthony Flew's conversion, as if it made a difference.

"There is a mountain in South Dakota that proves what evolutionists have been saying all along: if you just have enough time, wind, rain, erosion, and pure chance, you can get a mountain with the faces of four U.S. presidents on it!" -pg. 13

"Here are some interesting questions for the thinking evolutionist: Can you explain which came first—the blood or the heart—and why?" -pg 23

Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and the like have never understood evolution, nor do I think they ever will.

After citing hoaxes of "missing links" (which were discovered using science!), Ray quotes Darwin out of context, and even uses the oldest trick: quoting the bit where Darwin admits that the evolution of the eye seems absurd, and then stopping before quoting the VERY NEXT LINE that shows how. Ray does however mention that next line, here:

"Even more incredible, though, is that Darwin went on to say that he believed the eye could nonetheless have been formed by natural selection. He was right on one point. If a Designer is left out of the equation, such a thought is absurd in the highest degree." -pg 28

The oldest Creationist canards are stuffed into these 50 pages of drivel. All the misunderstandings a religious person who is uninformed about science could make are in here.

"But even if an organ were no longer needed, wouldn’t it only prove devolution? This fits well with the Law of Entropy— that all things deteriorate over time." -pg 29

Ray not only fails to understand evolution, but he also fail to understand any tacit of science, it seems, including Thermodynamics. And after showing us he can't comprehend things such as biology, palentology, geology, cosmology, and physics, he goes on to show how racist and sexist Darwin was -- as if that has anything at all to do with his ideas.

The next logical (for him) tact is to claim that believing in evolution creates people like Adolf Hitler.

One of his funniest lies is this:
"If you find it hard to believe that there was an Intelligent Designer, give this some thought. Man, with all his genius, can’t make a grain of sand from nothing....Did you realize that if we could simply make one blade of grass without using existing materials, we could solve the world’s hunger problem?" -pg. 31

Remember, he's arguing for an intelligent creator god who CAN make things ex nihilo. So Ray, why doesn't your God solve the world's hunger problem?

"Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous of atheists, can’t claim the title 'atheist,' because he understands that something must have created everything. He said, 'Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.' " -pg. 37

This comes after Ray redefines the term "atheist" to someone who doesn't accept an initial cause. Wrong again, Ray.

At the end of this special introduction, Ray gives us the meat of what he's really after: evangelizing for Jesus.

"Please think about your sins, then think about the Savior and what He did for guilty sinners such as us." -pg. 40

Ray offers a scenario of four choices (the Mona Lisa original, a car, a million dollars, a parachute), says you can pick just one, then tells you "but first you have to jump 10,000 feet out of an airplane". You're supposed to pick the parachute out of necessity. He then takes this same logic and offers the choice of all the world's religions, then goes into his have-you-ever-broken-the-Big-Ten spiel. You're supposed to pick Christianity, because it fixes the problems it creates.

The rest is pure proselytizing, spewing unfounded claims about God and Hell.

They're delivering this bastardized version of the Origin of Species to college campuses nationwide on November 19. They're also calling on people to buy copies and give them out at their schools and churches.

Might Be Okay?
As I was writing this, I was thinking about how scarily-ignorant America is when it comes to science -- BASIC science -- and how this will only continue to fuel the problem. But then I started thinking, maybe this isn't such a bad idea. I mean, they will be getting the copy of the book into people's hands for free. As far as anyone knows, the rest of the book is unchanged. That means that thousands copies of Darwin's work will be in churches all across America. Hopefully, some people will actually read it and realize how what they thought Darwin said and what he actually said were two totally different things.

Another side affect is getting the book to college kids, and hopefully people who know Ray Comfort is full of shit. I think a lot of college students are intelligent and can easily spot the flaws that a 9th grade science student could find. Plus, they won't have to pay for a copy of Darwin's book. They'll just have an easy reference to the "counter-arguments" that fundamentalists make.

-STA

Sans Religion

2009-09-11T11:24:00.002-05:00

Today let us remember what religion can do...

-STA

The Righteous Judge

2009-09-08T16:31:00.004-05:00

From "Tim" to The Non-Prophets internet radio show:

So I was driving 66 in a 65 mph zone, got pulled over, given a ticket, and had to go to court. The judge said that because I had broken the law I had to serve the minimum sentence of life in prison with no possibility of parole at a maximum security penitentiary that makes HBO's Oz look like the merry old land of Oz.

I thought the sentence was a bit steep, but I later realized that we all fall short of the glory of the judge who never broke any laws whatsoever and cannot tolerate even the slightest unlawfulness, so I had no choice but to accept my punishment.

However, the judge did take pity on me. He called his son in and proceeded to brutally whip him with a cat 'o nine tails until he was raw and bloody, and then nailed him to a cross until he was dead. He then told me to eat his flesh and drink his blood. I did, and after that I was free to go.

I walked out of the court room a free man, as did the serial child molester who also ate the judge's son's flesh and blood (he was a cannibal, so really didn't mind). However this other woman said she didn't want to cannibalize the judge's son and that she didn't do anything wrong. But the judge just said that all have committed crimes and all must be endlessly punished for them, and the only way for her to escape was to eat his son. The woman still refused so she was sentenced to life in prison.

I guess I kinda felt bad for her spending the rest of her life in prison. Nevertheless, I know that she deserved it because the judge was truly a good man. I mean you'd have to be a really, really good person in order to brutally beat your own son and then crucify him and have his flesh and blood consumed so that me and a serial killer could go free. Truly these are actions of a righteous man. Well I guess it just sucks to be her.

Anyway, I'm a free man now, although my schedule is pretty full. I've been spending most of my time at the judge's house, thanking him for freeing me and telling him how great he is over and over and over and over and over again.

Suzie

2009-09-05T21:40:00.002-05:00

There's a Suzie in every town...

Look Busy

2009-08-29T18:18:00.003-05:00

I drove by a church sign today that read, "Jesus is Coming, Look Busy" and I don't know how I'm supposed to take that.

What do they mean by "busy"? Like, busy helping the sick and the needy, or busy washing your car? Does a person reading the bible look busy to Jesus?

The other reason I don't get it is because of their implied message. If you're a child at a rowdy slumber party and your friend says, "I hear mom coming, act like you're sleeping!", or you're at the office and someone says, "Here comes the boss, look busy!" then I can understand the ruse, but it just doesn't work for theology. Are they suggesting that their all-knowing deity won't notice you're "looking busy" because you know he's coming? (See Pascal's Wager Flaw #4)

As I drove on I wondered, should Christians be the kids who are up too late and are fixing to get in trouble, or should they be the dad who sits up until 1:00 AM waiting on his teenager to come home? I for one (if I actually believed he really WAS coming) would be the like the angry parent just waiting to bust Jesus' ass for being so goddamn late.

-STA

The Missing Bible

2009-08-26T08:56:00.001-05:00

I just stayed at a hotel in Branson, Missouri-- the G-rated Las Vegas. The town is filled with nothing but "family" shows and activities; there's a lot of brochures for shows with the little Jesus fish on them. I couldn't wait to play hide-the-bible at the hotel.

Seek And Ye Shall Find
If you haven't played that game, you really should consider it on your next hotel stay. See, the cleaning staff have to put everything back the way it was before you got there, in preparation for the next guest. And I mean everything: the towels are folded a certain way, the blinds are set to a specific angle, even the TV is put back on the default channel and the remote put back in its place. They essentially reset the room.

You usually find a bible in the bedside drawer, and if you're an infidel like me (or just mischievous in general) try to find a better place for the bible before you check out. Make it difficult for them to find; put it behind the TV or way under the bed in the corner, or wrapped up in the towels. (I generally tend to not damage it too much; it's not my rightful property and I respect that.) You could even write a letter and put it deep within the pages, so the next person who opens it will find your message. Whatever works best for you.

Blessed Are Those Who Do Not See
Anyway, I was all looking forward to playing, seeing as how the town seemed to carry that nauseatingly sweet air of righteousness just under its surface...when come to find out, my hotel room didn't have a friggin bible in it!

Maybe it was just a fluke, or maybe the previous occupant kept (or destroyed) it. Or maybe the FSM was watching over me and, knowing that the World's Largest Toy Museum had blatantly attempted to shove Christianity down my throat, supernaturally hid the vile tome from mine eyes. Whatever the cause, I was extremely grateful and a little sad at not getting to play my favorite hotel game.

Moral: Don't visit Branson's Toy Museum if you don't like being proselytized to.

-STA

God is THE Answer

2009-08-05T14:39:00.000-05:00

I occasionally need a quick laugh and while traveling, nothing is easier than flipping on a Christian radio talk show. This particular one had me listening in for a few minutes, intrigued by the conversation between the host and a caller. The topic was the seemingly-out-of-place book of Ecclesiastes, a rather hard book for Christians to read without adding and changing the wording to make its message of "life is meaningless" mean something different (even though the book itself explicitly warns not to add to the book). The show's caller asked something regarding the mysterious ways of God. The host's response made me choke on my Skittles: "God doesn't give us answers, He gives us theology."

Not On Your Own Understanding
In the effort to once again tie atheism with nihilism, the Christian radio host continued to spout of claims that a life without God is a meaningless, hopeless life. These claims were of course not supported by anything other than the same words spoken with different inflection. But we've heard that song over and over and have proven it false. The thing that truly bothered me was how crass and willfully ignorant that statement was.

Now I've known first-hand how religion works and I talk with religious people on an almost daily basis, yet every time I hear this stuff I want to rip my hair out. They say things like "don't question, just accept" and claim it is the smartest thing you could ever do. They tout incredulity and gullibility as their highest virtue.

The radio preacher's words reminded me why I make videos and posts and why I talk to people about religion. The harm it causes to not only the believers and their family, but to the rest of the world, now and future generations. Not being able to think critically about ANYTHING is a greater risk to public safety than worrying about seat-belt laws. Those with this mentality of "we don't need answers, we just need God" scare the Jeebus out of me.

-STA

The Unmoving Mover

2009-07-22T16:15:00.004-05:00

I realize I haven't done much lately as far as posting videos or making blog entries. That got me thinking about the definitions I'm often hearing about "God". Hopefully you'll see the connection in a minute.

Not only is the traditional concept of God a logically self-contradictory idea (consciousness without matter, life without birth or death, complexity without evolution, simultaneously all-knowing and all-powerful), it also produces static divinity.

A Static God
If God is everywhere, then there is nowhere he can go. I have the freedom to sit in that chair, but God doesn't because he's already in it. He is omnipresent and omnidirectional . If he knows everything already, then there's nothing he can learn (or change). He can't "want" something, because he's supposed to be perfect (and you can't want what you lack). He is essentially an unchanging, unmoving, inactive idea; an everything and a nothing all at once. Add one to the self-contradictory list.

The theists will disagree, but the basic God-triangle (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) produces a static deity. The omnipotence paradox and the omnipotence-omniscience paradox show how God is restricted by simply applying the "omni-" attribute. Another simpler way to look at it is the phrase "a expert of everything is an expert of nothing". You can't judge your expertise against anything if you're already counting everything. Maybe all that means to you is that your god is super-powerful, but to me that means he can't change. Change is good and necessary, especially in a being that's supposed to be a healthy judge.

-STA

Tassel Hassle

2009-06-08T00:40:00.003-05:00

I've been in Texas over the weekend for a family member's graduation. With a few hundred graduates seated on the floor of the local Expo center, I was prepared for a long evening. I was in for a surprise when the ceremony begin with a prayer.

You, Me, and MY God
I don't know why I was surprised. The graduating student opened with a prayer to the Christian God, thanking him for getting them through the school year alive, and asked that everyone -- not just her, her family, or even the class...EVERYONE in the building -- continue to "seek God and do His will". I shouldn't have to say how presumptuous, disrespectful, and unnecessary this was, but I'll do it for the benefit of the believers who read this and just can't see why it's not okay to assume that everybody within earshot believes in YOUR god.

As the ceremony progressed, I was increasingly disheartened by the notion that nearly every speaker just had to say something about God. One even read from the bible! After every mention of religion, I found myself tuning out the speaker. I would be agreeing right up until I heard them talk about how Jesus blessed them with the knowledge they have. No matter what came after, it would be tainted with the discovery that the speaker lacked true critical thinking skills. I wonder what exactly was talked about in their government, history, and science classes. "We've learn a lot," one would say. Have you?

We Did It
One theme that was common was the motto, "we did it", a pretty universal high-school graduation adage. And yet, the religious graduates continually described how God gave them this, God blessed them with that, "God's hand has been on our class". One student's speech started out with her thanking God for everything, THEN giving thanks to the apparently less important ones like her mom and dad. I see this all the time from god-believers and those who specialize in doublethink. "We did everything; we're smart, we have wonderful teachers and supporting parents. But GOD gave us the knowledge and the blessing and blah blah blah". Either give the credit to the ones who've earned it (yourselves) or sit there like the puppet you think you are and give all the credit to your "savior and Heavenly Father"!

I was relieved to discover the school had a disclaimer printed at the bottom of the program that stated the students were given the chance to make speeches on the topic of their choice, and their views didn't reflect nor were they endorsed by the school. I am all for free expression, and I'm in no way condemning the students for exercising their rights and choices. I just wish they'd made a little better informed ones. All in all, I (and perhaps a few others in the large audience) was uncomfortable and belittled, but at least I got to see my cousin graduate.

-STA

W's Religious War

2009-05-27T12:10:00.004-05:00

Recently declassified briefings from the Bush administration further reveal the link between our current war and religion. The cover sheets to these documents are adorned with pictures of troops and other war images captioned with quotes from the Christian bible. These briefings were delivered by Rumsfeld to the White House. Although this propaganda wasn't directly sent to the troops themselves, the fact of the matter is that those in power believed war was the correct course of action because of their religious belief. I think the images speak for themselves.

-STA

How to Argue Like a Theist

2009-05-12T13:47:00.000-05:00

So what am I doing making a post with such a title? Over the years of arguing with them, I've learned to anticipate the arguments that theists will use in a discussion. It's like you can write a script for nearly every single debate (at least the ones with theists who haven't really debated before, or haven't given much thought as to why they think what they do). We nonbelievers have learned all the theists' tricks simply because these arguments are all that they have. They just keep using them again and again, no matter how many times they've been proven wrong.

Attack #1: Shift the burden of proof ("Can you prove God doesn't exist?")
Attack #2: What did God do to make you so angry?
Attack #3: Can you prove love?
Attack #4: Pascal's Wager
Attack #5: Watchmaker and other painter/painting Ray Comfort BS pseudo-arguments
Attack #6: Since science doesn't know how we got here, it must be God.
Attack #7: Offer personal experiences (you can't say I'm wrong now...I just *feel* it!)
Attack #8: Then what do you believe in? (purpose in life, morality, etc.)
Attack #n: see Ways to Annoy an Atheist

The first step (depending on how threatened the theist feels) is to attempt to rid themselves of the burden of proof. They may also falsely confuse passion with anger and try to use emotional arguments, claiming that the atheist must have been "hurt" by religion in the past. When these attempts fail, the next step is to argue from design. As the nonbeliever will typically use current scientific understanding to combat these weak attacks, the believer's next attempt is to attack science itself, claiming that scientific methods are invalid or flawed and will commonly use the "well, it's just a theory!". Once shown that science works, they resort to the only thing the atheist can't take away from them: personal experience. By the end of the discussion (if both parties ever reach such a point), the theist will throw out an argument from morality and begin considering what would be required to "believe IN" if one doesn't believe in God.

This is in no way a complete list, nor is it a script that occurs at each encounter. As I said earlier, it's the most common arguments that I find believers using to try to justify their unjustifiable beliefs. Yet the nonbeliever usually finds that every counter-attack has the opposite result: the more you show them there's no proof, the stronger they become in their belief! Faith is the evidence of what you can't see or prove. That's how you know, you just HAVE to know, and then you know. Faith (read: ignorance) can prevail.

Tracie Harris (who writes the Atheist Eve web comic) provides a similar list of theistic tactics, though in a different order:

-STA

Obama Not Concerned with Praying

2009-05-07T14:04:00.005-05:00

It seems that this year's annual trampling of church-state separation known as the "National Day of Prayer" was basically skipped by the nation's current President. The Obamas opted to observe the "holiday" in private (as he should according to his religion). For the first time in nearly two decades the White House declined to participate in the Congressionally-authorized mental jerkfest beyond issuing the standard proclamation.

Yay.

Obama's toned-down stance earned him big points with us secularists. Along with his measures to stop federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education for teens and replace it with funding for “scientifically accurate” teen pregnancy approaches, and his stance on placing stronger a emphasis on science, not to mention lifting the ban on stem-cell research -- he's shaping up to undo a lot of the evils of the previous eight years.

Of course, President Obama did sign a proclamation recognizing the National Day of Prayer, as presidents before him have done for over half a century.

Small steps, I guess.

-STA

God Is Love

2009-04-27T12:20:00.002-05:00

Here's a poem from a guy I'm subscribed to on YouTube:
-----------------

He tempted Eve with a forbidden tree
God is Love
He allows Satan to wander free
God is Love

He killed newborn babies with a worldwide flood
God is Love
He just cant get enough fresh blood
God is Love

He killed poor Uzzah just for saving the ark
God is Love
He hated vegetables and gave Cain a mark
God is Love

He fried little babies in Sodom and Gomorrah
God is Love
He killed thousands more in the Amalekite slaughter
God is Love

He caused Davids newborn son to die
God is Love
Yet honored Rahab for her lie
God is Love

He let the devil ruin Job
God is Love
So he could brag and he could boast
God is Love

He hardened poor old Pharaohs heart
God is Love
Condemned by God, doomed from the start
God is Love

But with escape he was not content
God is Love
All firstborn died before they went
God is Love

He spared not one poor Canaanite
God is Love
The newborn went without a fight
God is Love

He killed forty-two boys with a grizzly bear
God is Love
Because Elisha had no hair
God is Love

He killed Ananias and Sapphira too
God is Love
For holding back their portion due
God is Love

So to cap off all that he had done
God is Love
He tortured and killed his only son
God is love?

© 2001, TruthSurge

Why I Left Atheism - A Critique

2009-03-20T16:22:00.002-05:00

During a recent conversation I was challenged to read Why I Left Atheism, a paper by a guy named John N. Clayton who runs DoesGodExist.org. The autobiographical "booklet" details Clayton's story of becoming a Christian, and I was encouraged to read it in the hopes that I'd find it convincing. Thus I sat about hear out the exposition of this so-called former atheist-turned-evangelical with an open mind. Here's what I found:

Common Caricature
Very early on, Clayton begins making the common mistakes we see Christian evangelists make. In the second paragraph, he states that he used to be an atheist and the life he led was a stone's throw from pure evil. Clayton writes, "...that kind of life and conviction led me to do and say things and to be something that was really very unpleasant. I lived a life that was immoral and which reflected a lack of belief in God. I lived in a way that was very self-centered and that satisfied my own pleasures and desires regardless of whether or not other people were hurt in the process of what I was doing."

It is in this manner that Clayton shows us the first face of his ignorance. He equates being an atheist to living a "self-centered", "unpleasant", and otherwise "immoral" life. He argues from morality, assuming that all atheists are immoral by default, and that that kind of lifestyle is a reflection of not believing in God.

He couldn't be more wrong right off the bat. To falsify his claim we'd only have to find one person who doesn't believe in God (that is of course, the Christian God) and who leads a life that is not "self-centered", "unpleasant", or "immoral". Shouldn't be too hard.

We Don't Know Yet
Clayton then tells us that he was raised, nay indoctrinated as an atheist by non-believing parents. I'll give Clayton the benefit of the doubt, although this composition is already taking on the standard tone of the "once-blind-but-now-I-see" crowd. Things really start to get shady when Clayton claims to have had a discussion with one of his college professors on the "creation of matter from nothing" (apparently during an astronomy class where the topic was "origins"). Upon asking the professor which theory best explains creation ex-nihilo, Clayton is told he needs to learn to ask intelligent questions. Indeed, that's the smartest line so far, for Clayton should understand that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed as per the First Law of Thermodynamics. The professor supposedly tells Clayton that these are questions not for the scientist but for the theologian, and Clayton is stunned that science doesn't know everything. The tone of this paragraph (and the following one) is reminiscent of the old email that has made the rounds a few times, the one about the atheist professor and the Christian student who "defeats" him with science.

The point of the paragraph seems to be that we are to focus on the answer the professor gave, about origins not being within the realm of science. Richard Dawkins covers this topic well in Chapter 2 of his book, The God Delusion. Put simply, religion falsely claims the right to answer why questions, and science gets the how. But not only is such a thing as a why question nonsensical, but the fact that most of the claims made by God-believers about their deity require some sort of physical interface, as it were. Dawkins writes, "The moment there was the smallest suggestion of any evidence in favour of religious belief, religious apologists would lose no time in throwing NOMA out the window." (NOMA being non-overlapping magisterium, the idea that science can't answer questions about God.) If God interacts in any way with the physical world, that point where the transaction occurs is (or should be) a place of testability.

Nevertheless, Clayton's unoriginal idea that science can't solve poorly-worded questions continues throughout the missive. Clayton moves on to the next professor (who always seems to be "one of the great XYZ professors in the country"), this time, biology. Again Clayton poses the question of origins to the all-knowing scientist, and again he is told that it is a question for religion, not for science. He then attempts to slip in a little argument-from-authority: "I guess what was happening to me was the same thing that Lord Kelvin, a very famous British scientist, described in his writings when he made the statement, 'If you study science deep enough and long enough it will force you to believe in God.' That is what happened to me. I began to realize that science had its limitations--that science, in fact, strongly pointed to other explanations than natural ones to certain questions."

A very famous scientist said science leads to God, so it must be true. More importantly, science doesn't know every answer to every question, so therefore Magic-Man done it! Clayton is just not seeing the problem here. An explanation has to stand on its own two feet. Even if the whole of science turns out to be a load of cow shit doesn't mean that God, FSM, Bigfoot, or Santa Claus wins by default.

Science is making progress; a thousand years ago people thought that lightening was caused by an angry god throwing bolts down to earth, and that illness was caused by evil spirits. We've come a long way to closing those gaps in our knowledge, but still some remain. Those gaps -- however convenient a hiding place to stuff a deity into -- do not suggest anything "supernatural" simply because they are unknowns. This God-of-the-gaps argument is the most-used attempt offered by theology. Not knowing something isn't a proof for anything except ignorance.

How The Bible Is Accurate
Clayton's next words reek of absurdity. While keeping the bad-boy image of living an evil immoral atheist life, Clayton reads his bible in the hopes of discovering scientific contradictions. You guessed it, he finds none! I'm not sure what his definition of "scientific contradictions" is, but I'm pretty sure "bats = birds" should qualify.

The intellectual bankruptcy continues for the rest of the paper, all the while Clayton cherry-picks bible verses and reiterates the view that he could do whatever he wanted to -- because after all, there was no God. He talks about his rebellious youth and implies that children who don't believe in a supernatural father-figure can't be good moral people and this is what's wrong with society today. Clayton recounts having to lie to his mother about certain happenings with a girl whom he had taken out the night before, and because "that was the last thing I was going to tell my mother", he learned to lie reeeel good. He then points to a bible verse that says "Fathers, provoke not your children to anger", thus blaming his lying, stealing, and general wickedness on the sins of his parents as strictly forbid in the "inerrant Word".

And of course no theistic proclamation is complete without the classic Psalm 53 attack: "The fool says in his heart there is no God"! Ouch, John. That always stings us heathens! Why you gotta do that?

The Need for God
Clayton admits to thoughts of suicide, recounting how his immoral atheistic lifestyle drove him to sink so low. It's the same old story you hear again and again about the drug-using rebellious hedonist who's hit rock bottom, then they "find Jesus" and all their problems just melt away. Even Clayton himself admits this and writes, "Have you ever wondered why it is that when a person gets clean from drugs, gets rid of the problem of alcohol, or conquers some of the problems like the ones I had, that the person always seems to get involved in some religious cause, halfway house, or something like that? Why is that?"

I'll tell you why that is. First off, it's easy to believe in God given the standard definition of his attributes. You can't see him, touch him, etc. but he'll take all your cares away and you'll even get to survive your own death! What's not to like about that, given your current state of mind?

But most importantly the reason lies in a common misconception (one that Clayton himself admits to subscribing to). There is this perception that you're either a godless, immoral, no-good asshat OR a god-fearing, virtuous, upright religious pillar. It's the idea that somehow religious people automatically receive respect simply because they're religious. By starting out claiming that you were a somewhat shitty person because you had no sky-master demonstrates this fallacy. According to this false dichotomy, what other choice do the run-downs think they have? People who think in this manner can't seem to understand that human beings don't need a god to be good.

Even if religion was proven to be the best way at dealing with these stereotypical problems, that would not make any of its claims true one bit. Being helpful doesn't equal being real. Beneficial? Maybe. But can anyone give me a benefit that religion offers that can't be provided by secular means?

Picking A God
Clayton next claims that he sought answers from other religions and "found that [they] taught many things I could not accept. There were teachings in their writings concerning what life was like after this life that were unrewarding and unrealistic and there were descriptions of God that were illogical and inconsistent."

Oh? And the omniscient/omnipotent or infinitely-just/infinitely merciful inheritances are logical? Streets of gold and worms that never die are realistic? Since he can't find anything to suit his personal taste, Clayton picks the bible as the only obvious truth (since truth is based on what suits you best). "I decided that if I ever came to believe in God, it would be a belief based upon the Bible." Statements such as these reveal Clayton as a poorly-reasoned atheist.

After picking out which flavor of Christianity he liked best (Church of Christ, apparently), Clayton finally gives us "the final straw" that took him from godless heathen to moral sainthood. Again, it's one of his "leading atheist" professors. This time it's geology, and Clayton ends up his somewhat contrived banter by telling his professor, "Sir, you have not really shown me any contradiction between what we have studied in this course and in what the Bible has to teach," to which he replied, "Well, I guess if you really study it, there is no contradiction." So again, he paints the picture of science (or scientists) not being able to solve his ill-formed questions...therefore Yahweh exists and the bible is literally true.

John Clayton finally sums up his "lesson" by saying if you're not with God you're against God. So remember, if you're not with the Tooth Fairy you're against the Tooth Fairy -- you can't be both!

Fail
This laughable tale has no hope of convenience any intellectual to take him seriously. At every point he incorrectly summarizes the state of things as we know them with regards to science, logic, and reason. He assumes first, and since no satisfactory answer is found, he turns to untested dogmatic irrational thinking that lacks any evidence whatsoever. Clayton's only arguments are from incredulity and morality. As for the latter, he doesn't get that he was just an immoral person, not because there was no God to tell him what to do or think, but because he didn't respect himself or his fellow man.

Clayton may indeed have been an atheist, although a poorly-informed and irrational one. Still, he displays an enormous lack of understanding about the scientific method and the fields of biology, cosmology, and geology. Those of us who hold our position due to reason and intellectual rationalization can quickly point out the flaws in Clayton's pesudo-arguments. This exercise has not truly been a waste, however, for the doors of conversation remain open, and the bright light of knowledge is still shining through and rousing the ill-informed.

-STA

The Terror of Ignorance

2009-03-18T13:09:00.006-05:00

Most people are stupid. I've probably said a thousand times by now that the education in this country is atrocious, and our critical thinking skills are about on par with those of common mouse turds. I'm not entirely sure of it, but I'd be willing to bet a small fortune that religion (or at least, religiously-based thinking) is at the root of our collective ignorance.

"Duh buybull sez..."
That ignorance is of the most terrifying molds: self-imposed. The fact that ignorance is necessitated by religion, coupled with the modern life-altering "gifts" that science, technology, and otherwise intelligent and knowledgeable people have given us, should alone be enough for any sane person to loudly cast religion aside. As I've said in an earlier post, I feel that one of the worst things you could possibly do to yourself is to willfully shackle your mind. Evidence -- pure, unadulterated, on-the-nose evidence -- still isn't enough to make some people see the light, as it were.

So the story goes for the idiots in Waco, Texas, where atheist Bill Nye was literally booed during a lecture where he said that the moon reflects the sun's rays and gives off no light of its own. I mean...wow. Stop and think about that: there are actually grown human beings in this day and age...people with kids...who don't, can't, or don't want to understand that the moon doesn't make light. I suspect the latter, because it's not from a lack of education or some serious head trauma or something. It's because they believe in God. They think their God wrote a book and because it says that he "created two great lights" that any physical evidence, no matter how strong and solid, won't convince them otherwise.

"Jesus, please save us....from your people!"
The knowledge that people like that make up a majority of the electorate, are raising children, and have a say in the education of future generations makes me physically ill. After typing the above paragraph, I actually had to stop and go outside for a bit. Just like when politicians or judges simply ignore rules clearly stated in our Constitution, the realization that some (most?) people can't seem to put two and two together makes me wish there was another habitable continent on this planet that wasn't already filled with the likes of them.

Religion is to blame for the ignorance in Waco, surely. Religion is synonymous with ignorance; it means ignoring evidence and reason in favor of "this-is-how-it-is" doctrine from other morons who don't know what they're talking about. Christianity's book starts out with humans being ignorant, and the first attempt at knowledge warrants damnation of their kind. And think a little more on just how that story went down: you have two ignorant humans listening to opposing discussion (by a snake, no less). Now forget the symbolism, ridiculousness, and supposed sacredness of the text, and ignore the idea that the snake wasn't lying, etc. Just think about what the story implies. The worst thing you can do is talk to someone who doesn't believe what you believe. Ignorance is bliss.

And IGNORANT!

-STA

What It Takes These Days

2009-03-17T15:16:00.000-05:00

The more conversations I have with "Christians", the more I learn about what it takes to be one these days. What does it mean to call yourself a Christian in the days of science and technology? Well, I've noticed two different types (the fundies being a standard and obvious third), and talking to them is what drives me to drink.

There are those who claim that they have no religion, or despise religion, and yet label themselves as Christian. These people hold to the ideals of a book or a legend and profess Christianity, but wouldn't say they are part of a religion. I got news for you folks: you are in a religion, morons! Maybe you don't like the way the institution is expressed or maybe you just mean to say that you don't like the organization. Hell, maybe you want to pick and choose from the Christian religion and form your own religion from it! Whatever the case is, the fact remains that Christianity is a religion. Eddy Goombah knows what to call you.

Then there are those who label themselves Christians, yet know little to nothing about the religion itself. It's amazing that somebody would profess to be a member of a group without first understanding that group's tenets. Yet I find Christians (and others, for that matter) proclaiming their religious membership without ever having read the manual or understanding what it even means.

Now that I think about it, I think it's a possibility that one group creates the other. "Hey, I'm gonna call myself a Nazi (because my family is Nazi), but I don't know a thing about them. I know they like to barbecue and play backgammon, so they're alright with me. Yep, I'm a Nazi! What's that? Do what? I don't hate Jews....I don't hate anybody. Yeah I'm a Nazi, but I don't practice all that other stuff! It's all about brotherly love for me!" Is that how it happens?

Happy Green Beer Day!

-STA

God is Prince Charming

2009-03-12T13:48:00.001-05:00

We idealize love from a young age. Disney movies ingrain in us the fantasy of romanticized fairytale love. We enter the hormonal turmoils of adolescence with this notion and discover the not-so-charming reality of courtship. Many people enter into marriage with this fantasy, and divorce rates reveal the honest truth.

Don't get me wrong; I believe love exists, but it's certainly not this storybook romance that movies and antique rhymes make it out to be. It is sometimes hard to give up a fantasy even with a hard dose of reality. Many people still cling to childhood wishes, no matter how fairytale-ish or delusional. As we get older and more immersed in reality, we start losing the idealism we've held in many aspects of our lives. We learn that the girl at the fast food place is a real person; we discover that our math teacher has a life outside of the forty-five minutes we see him each weekday.

I see theism in this respect. Belief in God is a fairy tale. The fantasy stories of living after you die in a palace made of gold and mansions full of ever-virgins are just that -- stories. Christians idolize Jesus as well, clinging to the idea of a once-lived perfection of humanity. These ideas of perfection and fairytale love are delusions and wishes of our imaginations.

-STA

What to Give Up for Lent

2009-02-24T13:18:00.002-06:00

The season of Lent begins tomorrow, and even if you're not a Catholic I challenge you to give up one (or all) of the following for the next forty days (or for as long as you live).

Superstitious thinking - Maybe you're the sort of person that thinks walking under ladders or breaking mirrors is "bad", or maybe you own a lucky sock, penny, shirt, or animal foot. Perhaps you're afraid of certain numbers, or think something will happen on a given day just because of the numbers in the date. Maybe you think crackers can become human flesh, or that talking to yourself can help you find your car keys or cure your cold. For the next few days, attempt to willfully break yourself of whatever mental habit you have that can be labeled superstitious. Put away belief in magic and learn about the laws of nature.
Credulity - If you're the kind of person who accepts things you're told without checking into the details, try for the next month to instead check into what you hear. Think about something you feel you know and actively check it out. For many faith is a virtue, but for these next few days, let it be a defect. Instead seek to back up claims you hear or ideas you come up with. The key point here is that you learn the what a reputable source is. The best sources are backed up by evidence. Gullibility won't get you as far as you think in this world.
Apathy (especially towards the "god question") - If you'd rather not ponder on the existence of a Supreme Being, over the coming days I urge you to do so. A lot of people are apatheists; they don't care or just don't ever think about their position on theism. For this season of Lent, take some time and gather your thoughts on this matter. It's important to understand what you think about theology, because if there is no such thing that could be called "God", millions of people are wasting their lives (and hurting the lives of others). But if there is a god, it's the most important thing for us all. If you've already made up your mind on the matter, again toss aside apathy and speak out about it. If you haven't approached the question before, take the next few days and just think about how you feel. Do you really believe in God?

-STA

A Conversation with Yahweh

2009-02-20T11:32:00.001-06:00

Just thought I'd share a video from a fellow YouTube user called NonStampCollector (if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby)! It's actually his first video, and his twenty-two others are just as awesome. Enjoy!

-STA

For Goodness Sake

2009-02-18T13:20:00.001-06:00

Once again, I'm going to piss Christians off. Specifically, Christian parents.

They don't seem to understand that they should teach their kids right from wrong. Instead, they want laws and restrictions put in place for every conceivable frowned-upon action; they want the government to do it.

If We Don't Chain Them Up, They'll Run Naked!
They seem to think that unless there are laws in place, kids will do whatever they want. Even their own kids will become swayed by the evil influence of non-believing children! Christians don't realize that they should be the ones teaching their children about morality. There's a novel idea, huh? That way, when the children grow up, they won't want to do just anything -- not because it's illegal, but because it's simply not the right thing to do.

This is the common false moral argument from theism: if kids learn there is no invisible God watching their every move (and thought), then they'll become evil, bloodthirsty savages. I've written pages on secular morality so there's no need to rehash it here. I instead want to focus on the reason why somebody would think this way.

He Knows If You've Been Bad Or Good...
More than likely, the problem originates from their mindset -- their religion and theology molds this sort of thinking. In the Christian worldview, God places rules and laws on you because you're innately evil. According to their Master, they would do whatever they want if they ignore God. This is obvious to any Christian who uses the "just look at the horrible state of society these days!" argument. They blame humanity's "rejection" of Jesus for everything wrong with the world (even though over two billion people believe in Christianity).

Theism fundamentally changes your way of thinking and leads to this sort of mindset. Ethics, morality, and integrity therefore fall in to fit this worldview. Christians necessarily believe in punishment for thought-crime (and take their moral lessons from horrible scripture stories). It's all according to God's List, so you'd better make sure you're on it!

Giving a child the sense to take responsibility for himself is one of the jobs of being a parent. If you're teaching your child that they can be absolved of their responsibilities simply by talking to their ceiling, they're not going to develop a sense of integrity. They won't have that pain in their gut when they realize they've done something wrong...nope, Jesus will forgive them! They won't understand that they need to make up for the wrongs they commit in this life. They won't learn to avoid behaviors that are "wrong" not because they're afraid of hell, but because they're afraid of the sour taste of guilt and injustice it leaves.

-STA

Happy Darwin Day '09

2009-02-12T13:57:00.005-06:00

As most of you probably know, today marks Charles Darwin's two-hundredth birthday. Sharing his birthday with another great liberator, Darwin helped us to understand where the diversity of life came from: small changes over time.

Today, why not take some time to explore the world around you? Go visit a zoo or aquarium. Or sit in with a good book. Here's some of my favorite videos discussing Darwin's wonderful theory.

Thunderf00t's Evolution vs. Creationism
potholer54's Made Easy series
cdk007's Evidence for Evolution
AaronRa's 15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Michael Shermer's Evolution Rocks
shanedk's How Evolution Is Scientific
Zuke696's Massive Playlist
C0nc0rdance's Uses for Evolution

Those videos should help you get started if you don't know what evolution is (or if you think you do). There are many others -- visit my YouTube channel for more. Hit talkorigins.org for facts on how evolution works and what it does for us today.

-STA

Unholy Word: Rape My Daughter

2009-02-10T17:38:00.001-06:00

Today's Unholy Word is one of the most disturbing stories I've ever heard. It can be found inside a book that Presidents place their hands on as they swear to uphold the values of our country. This same book is read to children as bedtime stories, and then to adults as a fountain of good moral character. This book is a backbone to the three biggest religions on the planet; millions seek guidance and wisdom from it. Here's a taste of what's in the Holy Bible.

Where You Goin', Woman?!
If you open to Judges 19, you'll read tell of a Levite who had a concubine (that's a woman who lives with a man and takes care of, other than his wife). She gets mad at him for some reason and wants to go back home to her father. Women, huh.

Sorry for the joking. It's the only way I've found to dull the appallingly sick feeling I get when I read this tale.

Anyway, the man goes after her and chases her to her father's house. The Levite brings with him another servant girl -- 'cause hey, I guy can't travel without his servants. When they arrive, her father welcomes the Levite and his servant girl in to stay for a while.

They stay for three nights and on the morning of the fourth day, as they were planning on leaving, the father insisted that they stay longer. Poor guy...maybe he just liked having company? So they stayed. Even on the fifth day they're trying to leave and the man is asking them to stay and rest and eat. They agree to eat dinner, but then they finally leave afterward, even though it is sunset and the man asked them to stay, again. Maybe he was having fun helping smooth things out with his daughter and her pimp?

Okay, up to this point all seems fairly okay. But now things get interesting.

What's for Dinner? Gang Rape? Oh...Okay
As I said, they set out around sunset after dinner, and as it got dark the man's servant asked if they could stop at the approaching Jebusite city and spend the night there. The Levite says that he doesn't want to stay "in a city of foreigners with people who are not Israelites" (19:12), and that they'll stop in Gibeah instead. Racist prick.

They trudge on and get to the city square of Gibeah, and eventually an old man offers to take them in for the night. He's real nice to them -- he takes them in, feeds their donkeys, washes their feet and gives them food and drinks. As they were enjoying themselves, the bible says "some worthless men of the town surrounded the house and pounded on the door, saying, 'Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him!' " I guess not everyone in the city was as courteous as the old man. Or perhaps they were a little too courteous, hmm?

The owner of the house comes out and says "No, my brothers, do not be so wicked! This man is my guest, so do not do such a shameful thing!" Finally, some sanity here.

"Here is my virgin daughter and [my guest's] concubine. Abuse them and do to them whatever you wish, but do not do such a disgraceful thing to this man!" Oh. Never mind.

The book relays that the Levite had to physically drag his concubine outside. Judges 19:25 says "The men raped her and abused her all night." Thanks, God!

Special Delivery
As dawn comes, they finally let her go and she crawls up to the door of the house and falls down. When her master awakes and goes outside, he sees her and tells her "Get up. Let's go!" but there was no response. So he put her corpse on his donkey and headed home.

Now, if you're any sort of dignified, sane, moral human being, you should be disgusted by what you've just heard. It should have curdled your stomach and made you second-guess reading a book like this to children. But oh no folks, it doesn't end there.

Chapter 19, verse 29 says that when he reached his house, the Levite took a knife and carved up his concubine and mailed the pieces all over the land of Israel. We're not told why or if anyone was damned or punished in any way for the events in this story.

God's a Terrible Editor
In fact, many feel that the story in Judges is actually a retelling of Lot's adventures in Genesis 19. The story is almost identical, except Lot's daughters (whom he gave to the angry mob for raping) weren't hacked up and sent around the coasts at the end. The story is most likely a retelling that got edited and added on to and mixed up during copying. This of course doesn't excuse any deity from wrong-doing either. On the one hand, if the story is accurate, gang rape and dismemberment is a sick way to provide moral guidelines, especially if this Levite was on God's team. On the other hand, if this story was a mistake, then you must admit that the bible contains errors. Either way, God doesn't look like a very respectful guy.

-STA

Indulge In Lunacy

2009-02-09T14:30:00.001-06:00

In today's modern age, we're used to getting things fast. Our food, our money, even our social interactions can be brought to us at the speed of light and in the comfort of our home. And now, from the guys who first invented and then abolished Limbo, you can get to your afterlife faster.

The Catholic Church announced today that they're bringing back Plenary Indulgences. According to the church teaching, sinners still face Purgatory (an imaginary place where they have to face punishment before going on to heaven). Even if you are absolved in the confessional and say your Our Fathers or Hail Marys as penance, you still gotta stop by heaven's waiting room when you die. But now, thanks to the Church, you can receive an indulgence that reduces or eliminates the your stay in Purgatory.

This idea of indulgence isn't new; back in the 1500's, the Church would literally sell them. But now they come free with one confession per year. Dioceses are hard-up for people to go hold fast to their traditions and keep the Church as the number-one authority of matters of sin and afterlife, and they're offering this incentive to try to reclaim their dwindling numbers. As said Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, "We just want to people to return to the ideas they used to know."

The very nature of religion is exposed in that statement. After all that we've learned since the Bronze Age, why on Earth would anyone want to return to the ways we used to do things? I'll tell you why: it's because they want to live in their fantasy. They don't like the fact that we're learning more and more about how reality works, and they just wish we could go back to the days of witch-burnings, bloodletting, and the iron rule superstition. We're dragging them, kicking and screaming, into the twenty-first century's light of reason and science -- and they're scared to death.

I hope this backfires, and more and more intellectually inquisitive people continue to doubt the ridiculous ideas that the Vatican comes up with. If they can just make this shit up without any sort of evidence, there's no reason at all for agreeing with them. It's like the saying goes, "if you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk". If we continue to keep a mindset of "Well, you can't DISPROVE it" then this and anything else is fair game. Hell, maybe tomorrow they'll say that members of the Church get a free t-shirt when they enter heaven. You gonna buy that too?

-STA

Why We Can't Communicate

2009-02-06T13:12:00.001-06:00

Like many of you who debate the lofty matters of religion online know, the arguments have a high probability of degenerating into little more than shouting matches of "Nuh-uh!" and "Uh-huh!" To avoid such situations on Gather.com, I've created a group there called Debate Faith (no, it's not related to the Stickam chat room run by AtheistAtLarge). Come join us if you like to discuss these affairs within the context of proper argument.

And argument is what I wanted to blog about today, namely the question of why theists and atheists have such a hard time understanding one another. I suppose the reasons I'll state go beyond the "God debate" and touch any opposing viewpoints that are so at odds with each other that a conclusion seems impossible.

Code Words
We communicate through the language of logic. If a language exists, then by definition logic exists, otherwise we wouldn't be able to communicate a thing (or even understand a thing). If I want to communicate a sentence to you, we must both first agree on certain fabricated rules; a type of code that we mutually 1) either invent or borrow from someone else, and 2) agree upon. In order for you to understand the sentence, "I play drums", you have to know what the sounds "I" and "play" and "drums" stand for. These code words point to our experiences, things we have seen or otherwise experienced before, and the rules that are encoded to relate these ideas. The words we use are important. If we substitute another meaning for an idea we're trying to convey without first agreeing up the new meaning, the communication breaks down. So if you hear me tell you "I play the drums" but you don't think of me banging around on a musical percussion instrument, then you cannot relate to what I'm trying to convey. Likewise, if I tell you "I play drums" but mean instead that I engage in a game utilizing a large metal cylinder used for storing liquid, then I'm responsible for the ambiguity.

Humans created the language of logic. All the symbols, formulas, statements, rules -- logic is man-made, yes; but logic itself is a representation of something else: the behavior of existence. It's a reflection of the way the universe commonly behaves. We don't just arbitrarily decide its rules, but rather they are built upon the framework that the universe provided to us. Something cannot both be and not be. Something must either be true or its negation must be true. When two things are the same, they are the same. We get these rules out of observing the nature of nature. If nature wasn't consistent then we couldn't have logic and thus we could not have the language to express it (or we'd have a completely different version of logic). Either we have contradictions but no language, or we re-write contradictions, change the rules and meanings of things, make contradictions no longer contradictions, and communicate.

There may be things that exist but cannot be communicated or described. But if they can be experienced then they can be given a code name and the idea can thus be communicated to anyone who has experienced the same thing and knows the code word for it.

If It Happened To You
This brings me to the idea of personal experience as justification for believing something (a topic I've written about extensively), specifically when it comes to subjects of theism and faith. It may very well be that your personal experience is genuine and that your perception and conveyance of the event is flawless and true. I could rightly argue against it by citing the way people tend to shade their experiences based on what they know, the way the mind can be tricked, the numerous different and contradicting accounts of that type, my own personal experience, and the simple fact that it's subjective and untestable. Regardless, there is no possible way for me to refute that idea sufficiently enough to a believer who is positively sure it is real. I couldn't convince such a person to even try to imagine otherwise. No one could.

The problem then, lies in the fact that I have not experienced what you're talking about -- I don't have the same rule in my rulebook for that code word. If you are ever to express your ideas to me, then I must either agree to accept your rules as my own, or I will have to experience it for myself.

This may sound obvious -- we either mean two different things (your red is my green, for example), or one of us has a code word for an experience which the other has neither -- but understanding what limits us from reaching agreements is key to creating a better, healthier, more tolerant and connected world. We need to learn to identify what stifles conversation; what brings our relatable experiences of reality to an impasse...and I feel in no other arena than the domain of faith is this needed most.

It is our shared experiences of reality that lay the tracks for our engines of understanding to run upon. If you tell me something purely subjective, like "Last night I dreamed about flying," for instance, there's no possible way for me to prove or disprove that (other than looking and brain scans while you slept, but even still I couldn't know what it was you were dreaming about). So why do we believe people when they say they dream? Because people dream. Because we understand what they mean when they use the code word "dream". Sure, it's subjective, but we all share it. Therefore, if you're going to use personal experience as a proof of a deity, your only hope to convince me with that argument is to pray that the god reveals itself to me in the same way it did for you. The only way for me to know and understand it is if I, too, experience it. After all, if you weren't convinced until it happened to you, why would anyone else be different?

-STA

Unholy Word: Love Thy Father

2009-02-04T15:20:00.004-06:00

To assume the truth of your opponent's worldview and then deconstruct their arguments from the inside out is a common and very effective way to argue. This series bypasses the need to first find out if the Judeo-Christian bible is credible and reliable. Instead it simply examines the stories and analyzes the flaws -- absurdities and all -- by taking it to its logical conclusions.

We continue the series with a story from Genesis featuring a man called Lot. This man was supposedly the most moral and upright person in the town of Sodom. In fact, everyone else in the town was so immoral that God sent fire to wipe it off the planet!

There's Incest In 'em Thar Hills!
After their city is destroyed and their mother is turned into salt, Lot's two daughters escape with him to a cave in the mountains. The night before this, Lot had offered his two virgin daughters to a mob to be raped (we'll cover this in a future Unholy Word). Apparently they're still really horny, because they proceed to get their father drunk and have sex with him...on two consecutive nights. Lot doesn't seem to be aware that these are his own daughters.

Genesis 19, verses 31-32 state: The elder said to the younger, "Our father is an old man, and there is no one here to marry us in the normal way of the world. Come on, let us ply our father with wine and sleep with him. In this way we can preserve the race by our father."

So the eldest daughter gets good ol' righteous dad hammered on enough wine to make him forget where he is and who he's with, and precedes to engage in a little father-daughter coitus. Any man of God would do the same, right?

When I Drink My Dick Hurts
The next day, the eldest tells her younger sister what she did, and advises that she do the same. So here's poor old Lot, just lost his wife, all his friends, and his hometown because of immorality. For the second day in a row now, he's getting shit-faced drunk and pleasured by some strange woman -- "though he was unaware of her coming to bed or leaving." (19:35) Have you ever been that drunk; so drunk you didn't realize you were having sex?

After that night, and presumably mysteriously to Lot, both of his daughters became pregnant. Maybe he thought that the guys from the mob knocked them up. Neither Lot nor his daughters are criticized here or anywhere else in the bible. He probably didn't know about Leviticus 18:6, so we should blame him, huh? Even 2 Peter 2:7-8 cites Lot as "just" and "righteous". Professor Richard Dawkins muses, "If this dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals, some might begin to feel a certain sympathy with God and his judicial brimstone."

Family Values From "The Good Book"
I suppose we are to look upon this fictional story as a metaphor of some kind. We're to understand that Lot's "race" seeded the nations of Moabites and Ammon, from each respective daughters' child -- two nations that are subsequently slaughtered by and/or for God. Some of you may be saying that it was the daughters who were wrong. If so, why did future-seeing God let them go when he was burning down Sodom and Gomorrah? Even still, I wouldn't call Lot blameless. Do you? After all, the poor girls just wanted their children to be good like daddy, and not heathen scum.

-STA

Through the Fire

2009-02-03T15:03:00.010-06:00

After pointing out how immoral an all-powerful, all-loving God that doesn't remove human suffering would be, I received this quote from a recent disputant:

"Diamond cannot be polished without friction. Gold cannot be purified without fire. Trials and suffering makes you a better person."

I must admit that at first I was at a loss for words. Then I realized where the problem lay: an obfuscation of terms.

A Value Judgment
What does "better" mean in that context? Sure, in some sense it's true that overcoming adversities builds character. Is a person's character what we're talking about here? Is the inherent complex of attributes that determine a person's moral and ethical actions and reactions what is being referred to? If so, we can substitute that in and again ask the question: Does suffering build character?

As I said, in some sense yes, but we are again dealing with ambiguity, for what type of "suffering" are we talking about? Does stubbing your toe constitute a notch-up in moral character? What about true suffering...what about starving because you're too poor to purchase food? How does that build character? Does it make you a stronger, more resourceful individual because you have to find alternate was of getting fed? Most importantly, why does this particular "trial" a necessity from an all-loving God?

Betterment Without Horrid Suffering
As I see it, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God could find a way to -- if not completely remove suffering and misery altogether -- at the very least lessen it. Why must humanity suffer so much? The more you suffer, the better you are? I don't see how that argument is cogent in the least. If your loving god requires affliction and suffering from his sheep, then count me among the goats.

-STA

Real Seven Sins

2009-01-28T20:46:00.000-06:00

I don't believe in "sin", but here are seven actual things that I would qualify as truly wicked:

Credulity to the point of gullibility
Believing in everything is stupid and dangerous. Believing "just in case" or accepting a claim as true by default and not requiring supporting evidence is foolish. Faith falls into this category.
Voluntary, willful ignorance
Keeping yourself in the dark on purpose is a sin in my book. Knowledge is always a good thing. Sure, ignorance is bliss but it's also ignorant. I'd rather be happy I know (or don't know) something and know it. You should always be willing to learn and be willing to change your mind if you find out you don't have the right information.
Letting fear prevent you from understanding reality
Being afraid of the truth because it hurts or is too scary to face can be reasons for committing the aforementioned sin. I might go as far as to say the main reasons for the existence of religion are to A) make the unknown less scary (by claiming it to already be known), and B) to provide a more palatable version of reality. Yes, the truth sometimes hurts. Knowing that your lost loved ones aren't waiting for you in some magical realm is sad. Knowing that you're going to die is scary. But replacing knowledge for a false reality because of fear doesn't change reality, and it only makes it that much harder to come to grips with. As one religious text says, the truth will set you free.
Limiting the rights and freedoms of others in order to make them abide by your standards
The standards of your religion are up to you to follow -- don't push them onto others. This "sin" is probably the main cause for many atheists and freethinkers such as myself to speak out so fervently against religion. Almost on a daily basis in the United States, Christians are pushing to get their religious standards into the law of the land. (California's Prop8 is a current example.) Keep your God out of my government and I'll leave you to your delusions.
Sacrificing the mental, emotional, and physical well-being of a child in deference to your religion
Forcing religion on kids is child abuse. A child can be told almost anything at a young enough age and believe every word of it. Not allowing them to learn or ask questions is tantamount to keeping them locked in the basement. And it goes much further than just the psychological trauma of telling them things like they'll go to hell: kids actually die because parents just pray instead of seeking medical attention. If you want to die for your beliefs then that's fine, but don't endanger anyone else's life -- especially a child's.
Wasting your one and only life worrying about and working for an afterlife that somebody told you might exist
Not living your life to the fullest is something that I would consider sinful. Spending that life hoping for an afterlife is even worse. It's foolish to try to prepare for something that has not been demonstrated even one tiny bit. Sure it's okay to hope, but you can't waste your life -- the only one you know for sure you get -- on blind faith.
Only doing good based on the sole purpose of receiving a reward or avoiding punishment
Doing good because God tells you, not for goodness sake. We nonbelievers can help people because it's the right thing to do. Humans are cooperative, social creatures. Together, we've made the world what it is today. We learn from each other, teach each other, and pull ourselves up from the pits of ignorance -- and we don't need a god to do it. If you truly think you need a god to be good, then please stop reading this blog and do whatever it takes to keep your theism!

To commit most of these sins requires a religious worldview, but for whatever the reason, ignoring reality for what it really is and trying to push your skewed view onto others is a transgression to humanity.

-STA

A Giving Heart

2009-01-24T22:02:00.005-06:00

I was recently averred the story of a man who enjoyed parting and hanging out with friends; a completely "normal guy". He fell in love with a Christian woman and was eventually "saved" at her church. That day, I am told, the young man changed forever. Gone were the nights of drink and party. Lost were the days of reminiscence of such things. He sold all he had and moved to Africa to do missionary work because "God told him" to.

Since hearing this, I've been pondering the effects of the live-changing decision of accepting a religion. I too was once a "born-again" Christian, and once you accept the religion God gets credit for everything you feel you're doing right anyway. I began to wonder about this young man. Is it possible that he would have decided to do charity work without Christianity?

It occurs to me that several contributing factors might be at work here -- nothing supernatural of course. That particular religion is well versed in the art of applying culpability, afflicting its followers with a deep-seated sense of guilt and shame. One must also consider the state of things in the young man's life that led him to accept the religion in the first place. For many in such a position, one question to ask yourself would be, "am I doing good things...am I a good person?" The mind struggles with self-redemption, speaking from experience. For most people this is perhaps the first time they've ever studied this question. And since they are now under the banner of a specific religion, with specific models of virtue, a choice such as "follow Jesus" is generally high up on the list.

I am not criticizing the young man for giving up his life selflessly to help others (though I wonder about the true motives and indeed the work itself). We should do good for goodness sake, not to earn the rewards of a deity or because voices in our heads tell us too.

-STA

STA Answers Frank Turek, Part 2

2009-01-23T19:14:00.002-06:00

(Read Part 1 first!)

#5 - Logic and Reason Exist
Thus begins Frank Turek's short-list of "evidences" for his God being real. He states the fact that logic and rationality work and cannot be explained by materialism. In a materialistic worldview, Turek suggests, our brains are "just molecules and atoms" and therefore cannot be capable of…creating logic? This part of his argument gets a bit fuzzy for me (perhaps it's because I don't have a God to look up to?). I suppose he's saying that logic and reason are objective, thus there must exist a creator for these, and it's Jesus's daddy.

Again this is the same argument spun anew: "there is law, there must be a law-giver". While direct theism again doesn't follow this argument, a question that can be extrapolated from this is, "why does nature work the way it does?" To me, this question is nonsensical; it's equivalent to asking, why is water wet? Things are the way they are. We don't know why. But when we do find out -- just as we've found out the naturalistic explanations of so much else -- the answer won't be "God did it".

#6 - Mathematics
I'm unsure as to why Turek decided to make this a separate argument from the aforementioned as he's essentially arguing the same point, that is, math exists and can't possibly come from matter alone. This argument contains the same pitfalls of the god-of-the-gaps argument he made before as well as the fallacy of asking "who made it so".

Turek states that "mathematics is the product of mind not matter". However, mind is what the brain (matter) does. It's hard to believe that in this day and age there are people who don't seem to understand that the brain controls the body, and it's where thoughts are stored.

#7 - Human Freedom and the Ability to Make Choices
"If we are just molecules in motion," asks Turek, "how do we have human freedom?" Turek seems to be arguing against determinism here, and proposing in a round-about way the idea of theistic free will.

We are not "just molecules in motion", Frank. We have our own worth because we can say that and understand its implications. However, I will remove subjective worth from the equation and allow the argument to be predicated on the original fact. Sure, we're just a collection of molecules in motion. How then comes choice-making, you ask? You think something like that requires your God? Can you seriously not find a naturalistic mechanism for the ability of the human brain to pick something? I'm quite sure you could if you really cared to look for it, so I'll leave the task in your hands. If you'd like to ponder the philosophical ramifications of determinism, I highly suggest you read Richard Carrier's book, Sense and Goodness without God.

Turek also ties this in with his morality argument, even absurdly blurting, "What is the murder molecule? How much does justice weight? These are questions that can't be answered in a materialistic worldview!" Turek is clearly an imbecile.

#8 - Consciousness
"Why are some carbon-based molecules conscious and others are not?" begins Turek. He appears to be hell-bent on trying to show that we are more than mere chemicals and molecules (which I would agree in a sort of way), and that this is the direct result of an intelligent creator (which I wholeheartedly disagree).

After misinterpreting a sentence from Daniel Dennett's book, Turek merely asserts the proposition he used again and again before: there is consciousness, therefore there must be a consciousness-giver. Again he provides no evidence for making the claim, and again his argument does not follow through to theism. Turek is simply using a god-of-the-gaps argument over and over.

In summation of the above, Turek wrongfully charged Hitchens to explain the following from an atheistic perspective:

how the universe arose from nothing
how extreme fine-tuning and design arose from chaos
how life arose from non-life
how morality arose from materials
how reason and the laws of logic arose from matter
how mind arose from mud
how mathematics arose from molecules
how human freedom arose from blind, repetitive forces
how consciousness arose from chemicals

Although Hitch ignored most of this list (and rightfully so, I feel), Turek seemed to forget the burden of proof rests on his affirmative shoulders -- not Christopher's -- to explain why the answer to all of them must be "God" (and then further, a specific god). He of course offered no such evidence.

Essentially, most of these arguments come down to us non-believers freely admitting that we don't know; we do not yet have an answer. Many of these questions have at least begun to be explained in naturalistic and materialistic terms, some of them are just the wrong question, some are incorrectly based on false pretenses (Turek's use of Thermodynamics' Second Law, for example), and some are the result of Turek not taking the time to research and learn what we do know, or at least the state of science now. It seems that when he discovers a reputable source on a subject, Frank Turek's first instinct is to ridicule and take sentences out of context.

I wrote this response in order to show how those who hold to a theistic worldview must grasp at straws and liberally apply logical fallacies to their arguments for their God, yet none of them can provide the necessary and convincing evidence. The same arguments get used time and again -- these arguments are usually phrased incorrectly, are fallacious, or have already been shown to be unsubstantial. No new arguments can be made, only these incorrect ones. And yet, somehow, these arguments are convincing to theists, even touted as flawless by many. If one fails to see the invalid and dangerous way of thinking that this kind of pseudo-logic delivers, then I fear one is doomed to the mires of ignorance forever.

-STA

STA Answers Frank Turek, Part 1

2009-01-23T14:39:00.002-06:00

In a recent debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek, hosted by the United Secular Alliance at VCU in Richmond, Virginia and focused on the question, "does God exist?", Turek employed the oft-used apologist tactic of volume -- that is, listing off as many "proofs" of God as he could in the hopes that at least a couple would stick. While I'm not going to dissect the debate (you can watch it for yourself), I would like to answer Turek's arguments, worn-out and defeated as they may be, for myself.

Turek gave three main arguments (two of which I will separate) and four minor points for why he believes in a theistic universe (note, specifically theistic, not deistic), and peppered Christian theology in along the way. He also offered a list of attributes for this deity: a space-less, timeless, immaterial, personal, powerful, intelligent, moral creator. I shall deal with these throughout my discussions on his arguments.

#1 - The Cosmological Argument
Turek summarizes this as "how could something come from nothing"? Hoping that if no one can answer this question scientifically then his premise must be true by default, Turek offers the idea that time, space, and matter all came into existence at the same time -- effectively, nature was created in the Big Bang -- and therefore the Big Bang can't be explained naturalistically because nature didn't exist to cause it, and can only be explained in supernatural terms.

I have no problem in saying that nature came into being during the Big Bang. I am not a scientist, but I do know that what is said in Big Bang cosmology is that space-time itself expanded. Turek himself has no problems with Big Bang theory at all and even did a fairly decent job in providing some proofs for it. The only difference is that he thinks he knows for sure "who banged it", that is to say, he believes his particular God was the root cause of the Big Bang expansion. As I said, he's fallacy is that since no one can provide the answer as to what was "before" the Big Bang, then it must have been Jesus's daddy. Obviously this does not follow -- you simply cannot move from the question "what caused the Big Bang" to theism. I, just as his opponent in the debate did, will grant deism as a slim possibility, but one requiring evidence to first be put forth as an answer.

Since it created space, time, and matter, Turek apples the first three attributes to his God here including that it must be powerful because "it created out of nothing", yet Turek offers zero evidence for this claim. Turek then asserts the following: "you can't go from a state of nonexistence to a state of existence without making a choice", therefore this God is a personal deity because only personal beings make choices. Yet again, he offers no evidence for this bold-faced claim. The onus is still on you, Frank Turek, to bolster your claim that existence demands choice.

#2 - The Teleological Argument
Turek uses the standard fine-tuning argument to try to prove theism. Essentially he states the various ways at how things seem to be precisely set just for us to exist -- the position of the sun and other planets, the tilt and rotation of the Earth, the force values of gravity, etc. He didn't have time to get into them all, but doing a simple internet search will provide you with these standard Christian apologetics for the argument from design.

Frank Turek is effectively capitalizing once again on the ignorance we, as the human collective, have. We do not yet have full understanding of all the laws of the universe. We don't know for sure that messing with any of the constants would result in complete absence of life. Regardless, even if we did know for sure that no life could exist with any other configuration of constants, the fact that he's using it as an argument for a specific brand of theism misses the point altogether: we wouldn't be here talking about it if it hadn't been the case. Welcome to the Anthropic Principle, Frank.

#3 - Irreducible Complexity
Continuing on his buffet of tired old arguments, Turek cites the complexity of DNA as a reason for the existence of a particular God. This tied in with the argument from design of course, being touted out as a reason for the intelligence attribute Turek ascribed to his God at the beginning. The amazing amount of information contained within our DNA, as well as various quotes mined from Collins, Crick, and Hoyle, was given as a proof for a theistic God that must also be intelligent.

Again, Turek is guilty of capitalizing on the ignorance of his audience (as well as a non sequitur). A simple search through any reputable source for evolutionary biology will yield extensive amounts of research and results that stifle the argument of "irreducible complexity". I won't waste time here, read them yourself.

#4 - Objective Morality
One of the major arguments Turek gave (and indeed a topic that Hitchens spent a great deal of his time on) dealt with morality. Turek made it clear that he wasn't saying that atheists can't be or are not moral people, nor that atheists don't know what morality is. His argument was, "atheists cannot justify morality" because there's no authority outside of them.

I personally think that morality can be justified without the need of a deity, but as an argument for the existence of a specific God, Turek's argument is pretty weak. I've written on matters of morality before, so I won't go into it here. Nevertheless, as Turek is strained to point out, the subject is objective morality. Perhaps in some sense there cannot be objective morality? We don't need an authority to be moral, Turek freely notes that he doesn't need Christianity to be moral. And, as Turek is arguing for the Christian God's existence anyway, wouldn't Yahweh's rules on incest and rape and murder have to be the objective moral standard? If so, count me -- and millions of other sane, compassionate human beings -- out. (This also raises the question of God's morality and the Euthyphro Dilemma, subjects covered elsewhere.)

I'll post Part 2 soon.

-STA

Achoo!

2009-01-22T15:16:00.003-06:00

Although I often still catch myself doing it, I tend to avoid saying "bless you" when someone sneezes in my presence. If you're a non-believer like me, what is there to do that appropriately takes the place of such a colloquial icon? Aside from respectfully ignoring it as with most other bodily functions, here's nine things I've found to say (in no particular order):

1. "Goddamn you!"
2. "Hurry up and die already!"
3. "Blue shoe!"
4. "Gesundheit." (German for "good health")
5. "Stop that! And cover your mouth when you sneeze, idiot."
6. "I hope you don't sneeze again."
7. "Salud." (Spanish for "your health")
8. "Are you okay?"
9. (quoting Dane Cook) "Nothing happens when you die!"

Oh, and before I go I'd just like to say, fuck Dane Cook!

-STA

And Their Eyes Were Opened

2009-01-21T16:36:00.003-06:00

I find that I can’t argue with someone unless one of us accepts the other’s framework of reference. Therefore, most of the time you’ll see me take the “let’s-assume-this-is-all-real” approach when I’m blogging. I’ll be doing the same for this post as well. After all, if we believe it’s 100% true then we’ll be more likely to throw it out when we see it doesn’t fit with reality.

According to the book of Genesis, once Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, she and her husband became “as gods, knowing good and evil”. I say having knowledge is never a bad thing, but that’s not the road I’m on here. Assuming their lineage passes down to us (and that there is a standard of Good and Evil apart from God), we should have the same knowledge about what good and evil are that god does. In a sense, we should be in agreement with decisions God makes (and vice-versa) regarding right and wrong, right? Furthermore, we humans should all be in agreement with each other about such matters.

Since this isn’t the case in either way, we must resolve this by one of three ways: 1) the godly knowledge Adam and Eve acquired was not passed down to us, 2) either God or humanity is going against the Knowledge, or 3) God’s views on good and evil ARE the same as the views of us humans: to each his own, so to speak. I won’t speak to number one, but for number two, I can personally judge God’s knowledge of good and evil to be at odds with my own. I make this judgment based on his record of inhuman and evil acts all throughout the book of which Genesis begins. Perhaps I do so via number three – morality is subjective.

Genesis says that once they learned right from wrong, Adam and Eve clothed themselves. Nudity is bad. Remember, when they were clueless, being naked wasn’t shameful. So we see that one of the edicts of this god-like knowledge of good and evil is that being naked (as we were created?) is evil. Nope, not in my book (pardon the pun). My morality doesn’t decree such an inane idea. So without having to leave the book of Genesis, we can come full circle and resolve the issue of this divine secret that God tried to keep from his creation.

Sure, it’s fun to psychoanalyze and tear down these old stories, but it’s best to realize that they aren’t real. Genesis is not a history book. It was written by people trying to make sense of it all, and trying to tie together the ideas that were around during their time. The fact is that we don’t need a God or a book to tell us how to be kind to one another, what good and evil mean to us, or whether or not being naked is wrong. If you think we do, read this book again and try to practice the morality it prescribes. Oh, and have fun in jail.

-STA

Braving the Storm

2009-01-07T18:56:00.000-06:00

If you haven't read it yet, check out Tim Minchin's poem "Storm":

Inner North London, top floor flat
All white walls, white carpet, white cat,
Rice Paper partitions
Modern art and ambition
The host’s a physician,
Lovely bloke, has his own practice
His girlfriend’s an actress
An old mate from home
And they’re always great fun.
So to dinner we’ve come.

The 5th guest is an unknown,
The hosts have just thrown
Us together for a favour
because this girl’s just arrived from Australia
And has moved to North London
And she’s the sister of someone
Or has some connection.

As we make introductions
I’m struck by her beauty
She’s irrefutably fair
With dark eyes and dark hair
But as she sits
I admit I’m a little bit wary
because I notice the tip of the wing of a fairy
Tattooed on that popular area
Just above the derrière
And when she says “I’m Sagittarien”
I confess a pigeonhole starts to form
And is immediately filled with pigeon
When she says her name is Storm.

Chatter is initially bright and light hearted
But it’s not long before Storm gets started:
“You can’t know anything,
Knowledge is merely opinion”
She opines, over her Cabernet Sauvignon
Vis a vis
Some unhippily
Empirical comment by me

“Not a good start” I think
We’re only on pre-dinner drinks
And across the room, my wife
Widens her eyes
Silently begs me, Be Nice
A matrimonial warning
Not worth ignoring
So I resist the urge to ask Storm
Whether knowledge is so loose-weave
Of a morning
When deciding whether to leave
Her apartment by the front door
Or a window on the second floor.

The food is delicious and Storm,
Whilst avoiding all meat
Happily sits and eats
While the good doctor, slightly pissedly
Holds court on some anachronistic aspect of medical history
When Storm suddenly she insists
“But the human body is a mystery!
Science just falls in a hole
When it tries to explain the the nature of the soul.”

My hostess throws me a glance
She, like my wife, knows there’s a chance
That I’ll be off on one of my rants
But my lips are sealed.
I just want to enjoy my meal
And although Storm is starting to get my goat
I have no intention of rocking the boat,
Although it’s becoming a bit of a wrestle
Because - like her meteorological namesake -
Storm has no such concerns for our vessel:

“Pharmaceutical companies are the enemy
They promote drug dependency
At the cost of the natural remedies
That are all our bodies need
They are immoral and driven by greed.
Why take drugs
When herbs can solve it?
Why use chemicals
When homeopathic solvents
Can resolve it?
It’s time we all return-to-live
With natural medical alternatives.”

And try as hard as I like,
A small crack appears
In my diplomacy-dike.
“By definition”, I begin
“Alternative Medicine”, I continue
“Has either not been proved to work,
Or been proved not to work.
You know what they call “alternative medicine”
That’s been proved to work?
Medicine.”

“So you don’t believe
In ANY Natural remedies?”

“On the contrary actually:
Before we came to tea,
I took a natural remedy
Derived from the bark of a willow tree
A painkiller that’s virtually side-effect free
It’s got a weird name,
Darling, what was it again?
Masprin?
Basprin?
Asprin!
Which I paid about a buck for
Down at my local drugstore.

The debate briefly abates
As our hosts collects plates
but as they return with desserts
Storm pertly asserts,

“Shakespeare said it first:
There are more things in heaven and earth
Than exist in your philosophy…
Science is just how we’re trained to look at reality,
It can’t explain love or spirituality.
How does science explain psychics?
Auras; the afterlife; the power of prayer?”

I’m becoming aware
That I’m staring,
I’m like a rabbit suddenly trapped
In the blinding headlights of vacuous crap.
Maybe it’s the Hamlet she just misquothed
Or the eighth glass of wine I just quaffed
But my diplomacy dike groans
And the arsehole held back by its stones
Can be held back no more:

“Look , Storm, I don’t mean to bore you
But there’s no such thing as an aura!
Reading Auras is like reading minds
Or star-signs or tea-leaves or meridian lines
These people aren’t plying a skill,
They are either lying or mentally ill.
Same goes for those who claim to hear God’s demands
And Spiritual healers who think they have magic hands.

By the way,
Why is it OK
For people to pretend they can talk to the dead?
Is it not totally fucked in the head
Lying to some crying woman whose child has died
And telling her you’re in touch with the other side?
That’s just fundamentally sick
Do we need to clarify that there’s no such thing as a psychic?
What, are we fucking 2?
Do we actually think that Horton Heard a Who?
Do we still think that Santa brings us gifts?
That Michael Jackson hasn’t had facelifts?
Are we still so stunned by circus tricks
That we think that the dead would
Wanna talk to pricks
Like John Edwards?

Storm to her credit despite my derision
Keeps firing off clichés with startling precision
Like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition

“You’re so sure of your position
But you’re just closed-minded
I think you’ll find
Your faith in Science and Tests
Is just as blind
As the faith of any fundamentalist”

“Hm that’s a good point, let me think for a bit
Oh wait, my mistake, it’s absolute bullshit.
Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I’ll spin on a fucking dime
I’ll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It’s a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it’s memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it’s had in it!

You show me that it works and how it works
And when I’ve recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.”

Everyones just staring at me now,
But I’m pretty pissed and I’ve dug this far down,
So I figure, in for penny, in for a pound:

“Life is full of mysteries, yeah
But there are answers out there
And they won’t be found
By people sitting around
Looking serious
And saying isn’t life mysterious?
Let’s sit here and hope
Let’s call up the fucking Pope
Let’s go watch Oprah
Interview Deepak Chopra

If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo.
That show was so cool
because every time there’s a church with a ghoul
Or a ghost in a school
They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The fucking janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide.
Throughout history
Every mystery
EVER solved has turned out to be
Not Magic.

Does the idea that there might be truth
Frighten you?
Does the idea that one afternoon
On Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you
Frighten you?
Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural
So blow your hippy noodle
That you would rather just stand in the fog
Of your inability to Google?

Isn’t this enough?
Just this world?
Just this beautiful, complex
Wonderfully unfathomable world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention
That we have to diminish it with the invention
Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
If you’re so into Shakespeare
Lend me your ear:
“To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw perfume on the violet… is just fucking silly”
Or something like that.
Or what about Satchmo?!
I see trees of Green,
Red roses too,
And fine, if you wish to
Glorify Krishna and Vishnu
In a post-colonial, condescending
Bottled-up and labeled kind of way
That’s ok.
But here’s what gives me a hard-on:
I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant lump of carbon.
I have one life, and it is short
And unimportant…
But thanks to recent scientific advances
I get to live twice as long as my great great great great uncles and auntses.
Twice as long to live this life of mine
Twice as long to love this wife of mine
Twice as many years of friends and wine
Of sharing curries and getting shitty
With good-looking hippies
With fairies on their spines
And butterflies on their titties.

And if perchance I have offended
Think but this and all is mended:
We’d as well be 10 minutes back in time,
For all the chance you’ll change your mind.

The Road Ahead

2009-01-02T10:49:00.006-06:00

Well, there's another year down. I hope you all enjoyed yourselves as we said goodbye to 2008 and looked forward to -- hopefully -- a brighter and better year. We made some great progress but we still have a hell of long way to go. I got a lot of time off to spend with friends and family. I played music with my friends and hung out with my brother-in-law (who's soon leaving for overseas military endeavors). And I got to visit with all of my bigoted, racist, bible-thumping, homophobic Southern kinfolks...

It just wouldn't be Christmas without them!

As I look back at my January '08 post, I'm forced to think about the resolution I had made for myself and whether or not I have fulfilled it. It was simply to "be more open about my stance on religion", and I think I did succeed for the most part; I joined a number of online communities and had numerous discussions with religious people. A few other people in my personal life have become aware of my disdain for religion and superstition, and I'll continue to slowly announce myself when and where it is called for.

Last year was a great time for me. It seemed atheism was riding a big wave with the release of several books and lots of mentions on television news channels (though most were degrading). Seeing rational thinking force its way onto brain-dead TV gave a good feeling. I continued to read and learn more about the way people think and some reason for why they believe what they do. Like I said, I created accounts on several social networking sites including Gather.com and Atheist Nexus, as well as started making video blogs on YouTube. As for this blog, I didn't keep up a steady stream of posts; spreading myself between work/family/medical needs was a tad trying. I'll attempt a better effort this year, but I'd like your help. My past resolution is still going for this year as well, but I'd like to know what my readers want from me. Do you like the running series (Atheism 101, Fallacy Friday, Day in the Life, Movie Review, Unholy Word)? Want more small snippets or do you prefer longer articles? What are you getting out my work? Let me hear from you, and together we can change the world.

But right now I'm gonna go change a light bulb.

-STA

My Gallbladder is Gone

2008-11-26T11:21:00.004-06:00

I'm wounded, but still alive.

See you soon!

Wake Me Up for The Truth

2008-10-24T11:12:00.005-05:00

I got woken up today by my doorbell ringing. This is a rarity, so I jumped into some close and went upstairs: no one in sight. Then I noticed the piece of paper tucked into the door handle. I groaned and shut the door. It's an occasional thing that we'll get a service schedule from one of the fifteen churches within walking distance. When I went back out to retrieve it after sleeping some more, I saw that it was even better than a Come-To-Jesus-Meeting invite. It's a tract put out by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania for a book titled "What Does The Bible Really Teach?". Since I wasn't able to chat with the person who delivered this wonderful bit of morning tripe I'll have to make due with refuting it here. Why waste my time doing that?

Because it's easy.

The tract contains two front-and-back pages with "answers" to six of life's big questions that are posed underneath the heading, "Would you like to know THE TRUTH?". Each question contains a sentence or two about why the question arises, then a paragraph on what the bible teaches. I'm actually reading this for the first time as I'm writing, so let's break it down one apologia at a time.

Does God really care about us?
First off, the tract admits that the world is riddled with cruelty and injustice. It also states that many religions teach that suffering is God's will. This obviously isn't one of the Calvinist brands of Christianity...must be Jehovah's Witnesses. Under it's subheading for "What the Bible teaches" are the words "God never causes what is wicked", followed by verse references to Job 34:10, Matthew 6:9, and John 3:16.

But hang on...Isaiah 45:7, anyone? "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." ?!?!?!?! Even if you want to use your New World translations, you still are left with "I bring prosperity and create disaster", "I make harmonies and create discords", "[I am] creating calamity", "I send good times and bad times", "[I create] happiness and sorrow". I would have guessed that the only way to make sense of this was to hone in on one verse, then find others to match and conveniently ignore the ones that contradict that idea. Sermons are crafted by this approach.

Will War and Suffering Ever End?
More suffering. Again, the tract starts by using the Logos tool of argumentation that is concession. It agrees that, yeah, bad shit is happening. Let's see what God's Book says about it.

I have good news my friends! The answer is a roaring YES....but only when the world ends. The tract points to Revelation and Isaiah where promises of God establishing his kingdom on earth and ending suffering. So just hang in there, all you starving children, all you sick and dying. When Jesus brings the pork chops, God will make you forget.

What Happens to Us When We Die?
I was prepared to be sarcastic, expecting the usual drivel about Heaven, but here's what I found. I was so shocked I had to read it a few more times to make sure: "Most of the world's religions teach that something inside a person continues living after death. Some hold that the dead can harm the living or that God punishes the wicked by condemning them to eternal torment in a fiery hell. What the Bible teaches: At death, humans cease to exist."

I'm stunned. This is usually not something a Christian would admit -- but, are Jehovah's Witnesses "Christians"? It references Ecclesiastes 9:5 ("The dead ... are conscious of nothing at all") and says "Since the dead cannot know, feel, or experience anything, they cannot harm--or help--the living; Psalm 146:3,4". Yeah, that's about right. I didn't think I'd be saying that anything in this tract would be correct, but it seems they're right about this point...although their source is shady.

Is There Any Hope for the Dead?
"Most people who have died will be resurrected." Oh. So that's the tricky way you're gonna sneak it in? And here I was thinking that maybe, just maybe, you were onto something. Shoulda known better. Read John, Luke, Job, and Acts to see where they get their "credible information" on this.

How Can I Pray and Be Heard by God?
The tract tells you to listen to Jesus' words on not praying by repeating set formulas, but that "if we want God to listen to our prayers, we must pray in the way that he approves". To do that, we have to learn God's will and then pray accordingly. So basically, if you want me to drive you to the store, don't ask me unless I was already planning on going there. Only then would you actually have a shot at going. Gee, thanks God.

How Can I Find Happiness in Life?
Like all good Christians, the people passing out this tract target those who are unhappy in life. After all, there's no better need for religion than suffering, depression, or general sadness. And like most Christians, this tract offers the same old story: don't hold to worldly possessions like money, fame, or beauty, but seek spiritual (whatever that means) happiness. So don't worry about being able to feed yourself, or try to make a better life for your family; you should be focused on the spiritual realm.

This tract then offers a form to order the book, or to enroll in a program in which a Jehovah's Witness "friendly neighbor" will come to your house and teach you the Bible each week. Maybe I should...they have a lot of shit wrong with their flier.

Well, I guess that's all for now. It was simple to discredit this, and I somewhat enjoyed the exercise since I haven't done much writing since my gall-bladder episode (which, by the way, should be ripped from my body sometime next month).

-STA

I Help Edit A Book!

2008-10-07T11:41:00.001-05:00

Yep, a friend of mine on YouTube named Todd Allen Gates asked me to help edit his 2008 edition of "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer".

The book takes a different approach to talking with fundamentalists. Based on the Socratic method, Todd crafts a series of arguments that ultimately force the theist to question themselves. It's sort of a long approach, but getting a believer to become internally conflicted is much more fruitful then just attacking them "from the outside", so to speak. Anyway, it's a great read for anyone who is skeptical, questioning, seeking, or doubting (and I'm in the credits!).

Buy a copy today!

Here's Todd talking about the book.

-STA

STA meets Roy Zimmerman

2008-09-29T13:47:00.001-05:00

So Roy Zimmerman came to my state last night during his 48-State tour. He's "a big-ol-lefty" with songs about the religious right, Republican politics, and the addled shortcomings of George W. Bush. I went up and met him after the show, cheesing and drooling and stumbling over myself like a teenybopper meeting one of the Jonas Brothers.

Roy played for a benefit for the new Voice of Reason Radio. The show was a blast and Roy's a real nice guy. Pick up one of his CD's and check to see when he'll be in your state here!

My Gallbladder is Diseased

2008-09-25T18:39:00.001-05:00

It appears that I will be undergoing surgery to remove my diseased gallbladder. I've inherited the malady from my mother, and she from hers. My mother and grandmother have both had the procedure done and both are fine and fully functional. I'm not worried and I trust our advances in modern medicine. (Here's a [graphic] video of the relatively simple and common procedure.) Having a camera shoved into my bellybutton doesn't sound too appealing, but you do what you gotta do.

I'll be blogging again once I recover.

The Failings of Pascal's Wager: Atheist's Wager

2008-09-14T12:46:00.006-05:00

So far now I've show how Pascal's Wager uses fundamentally flawed logic and ignorant deductions to coerce you into accepting a religion and/or deity. But now let's turn that around.

The Atheist's Wager is a variant of Pascal's Wager in which you divide the gods who reward faith from the gods who reward works. Upon doing this, we find that it is better to not believe and do good works, for maximum benefit.

An All-Loving Pyromaniac
If you discount the possibility of a God who sends good people to hell for bad reasons, we are left with a completely different payoff table. Now, regardless of your belief about a benevolent God, the results still favor a "good life". Pascal's Wager relies on the judgments of an evil God who sends good people to hell for not believing in him/her/them/it. But there's an infinite number of such possible gods, and picking the right one out of infinity is the long-shot of all long-shots. Even if a faith-rewarding God existed, believing in an incorrect faith-rewarding God might anger such a deity more than not believing in any gods with good reasons (ie, evidence).

And for me, it all comes down to evidence. I don't believe in something without a good reason to do so, and telling me that I'll be tortured forever isn't going to work. It's important to understand how humanity knows the things it does, and how we go about uncovering the truth about all things (and I'll give you a hint in case you don't know: it do not involve uncredited stories of wandering desert tribesmen from the Bronze Age).

Epic Fail
Pascal's Wager fails on every single level. It's logically flawed and ignorantly applied, but it's so common (to any religion) and it is even used by otherwise intelligent individuals. You just have to take a moment to look at it to see its glaring holes.

-STA

The Failings of Pascal's Wager: Fooling God

2008-08-28T14:39:00.005-05:00

Continuing on with more hurdles this ridiculous argument can't swing its dangling fallacy over, today's counter-apologetic depends strongly upon how you answer the "What religion should I pick?" question: Can you fool God?

Pascal's Wager states that it's better to believe (in whatever god you're arguing it for) so that that particular God will bestow his/her/their/its particular blessings/rewards upon you in the afterlife and avoid the punishments. But those rewards and punishments depend greatly upon which religion and deity the argument is advocating.

God Is Not Mocked
Blaise Pascal used the argument as a proponent for Catholicism, and here in the Bible Belt we small-towners will most likely hear it used to sway us toward Christianity. So now we have a deity to plug into the argument and weigh the outcome of believing or not. But before we can do that, we must first determine some characteristics of this God.

It's been said that there are as many versions of God as there are believers, and this is apparent to anyone who has had a discussion with a theist. Christians are no exception. Therefore -- depending upon the convictions of the one using the Wager, of course -- if we consider the majority of fundamentalist Christians who think that their Creator is all-knowing, is it really possible to "just believe" in a God who possesses such a superpower? Such Christians will probably tell you that "God knows what's in your heart", and surly a "true believer" doesn't believe just because they're afraid of hellfire. So how then -- even if you could force yourself to believe -- can you expect to make it to the Judeo-Islamo-Christian God's heaven? Would He really accept that kind of faith?

Won't Get Fooled Again
Of course, I'm not going to do your theologising for you...I don't believe in any version of any of this in the first place. Forcing others to act as if they believe is a form of social control, and any being who uses it isn't worth my time. I'm just using the hypothetical to point out yet another hole in Pascal's argument; an argument that so many Christians are still fond of using to this day.

Keep mind mind that the counter-arguments for the Wager aren't necessarily "atheist" arguments; any religion can use these. It all depends on which religion the argument is proposing you subscribe to. I'll cover more in the next installment.

-STA