Hey Guys! I'm Not Dead!

Hello again,

Of course it happens that, just when I think I have found the time to keep this blog up to date, life happens. Science is crazy work: there are some weeks when you're thinking "what am I doing here? Why do I have nothing to do? This is odd..." and then, the world explodes. I found myself buried under such a workload these last couple of months, but I amazingly found time to go to the International Atheist Conference in Cologne last weekend. 

Thanks to PZ Myers (whom I managed to nervously meet there and have a brief chat with) I had an unbelievable time. It was, in short, AWESOME.

I'd like to blog a bit about the various talks, but I am also anxiously awaiting the videos of them to come out. I might talk a bit about them before, and can always add in the videos of the talks later (if they are made publicly available, but I assume they are), but I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, let me just say that I am so happy I decided to take the chance and go to the conference on my own.

I have also decided to become an individual member of Atheist Alliance International. They really do amazing work, they operate on volunteers, and $30 a year is really nothing given all the good they do. I really suggest you all check it out and see for yourselves.

Is Secular Humanism Only Compatible With Socialism?

I've been on a bit of a The Atheist Experience binge lately during my hours of pipetting and sitting in front of the microscope, and so I came across one particular episode in which an interesting question came up, and one that I do not think was answered or discussed in sufficient detail. The caller (watch from 38:00 of the video below for full context) basically floated the idea that an atheistic morality is only compatible with socialism as an economic structure, because it is centered around humans having inherent value, rather than capitalism, which promotes competition and stepping over your fellow man.

While the discussion travelled towards the limits of how much you can morally expect from an individual to put the needs of others over their own, the caller was steering the conversation towards economic policy, which forced Russell (much to his chagrin) even defend right-wing capitalism a little bit.

What they all failed to acknowledge is that most successful societies are based on an amalgamation of capitalism and socialism. While I agree that a pure cut-throat capitalistic society is not the best strategy, especially from a moral standpoint (what would that even look like? Pure libertarianism? More on that later) pure, unadulterated socialism doesn't work either.

Don't get me wrong, there are good reasons for socialism. The fundamental principle is to base a society on meritocracy, where every person is born equal and is not inherently superior by sole fortune of the circumstances in which they were born. Of course this is also why so many socialist countries have needed to rely on propaganda and censorship in order to convince their people that those in power actually deserve their leadership position (for an extreme example, see all of the ridiculous stories that come out of North Korea to justify the awesomeness of their leaders), but for the sake of argument lets forget about regimes which pervert the fundamental principles of their purported economic structure. Even disregarding the tendency of purely socialist states to devolve into dictatorships, a purely socialist economic structure does not take into account the fact that human beings respond to reward for their efforts.

My father tells an amusing story about when he was in Prague at the very end of the communist era. He had to travel a lot for work, and in this case he was in Prague for the first time with some colleagues which had traveled there before. They arrived late and hungry, and so they all went out in search of a restaurant where they could have dinner. When they knocked on the door of the first one they could find, the manager answered and informed them that the restaurant was completely full. While my father accepted this and turned to leave, his more experienced colleague protested and barged into the restaurant, which turned out to be completely empty. This man then explained to my father that this lie was commonly told because, since the people who ran the restaurant earned the same (and rather meager) wage regardless of the number of clients they served, they clearly preferred showing up to work and doing as little as possible. If your wages at the end of the day were the same regardless of the success of the restaurant, why bother busting your butt to serve as many people as well as possible?

Of course I also do not think that the other extreme is fair either, like servers in the States which have to basically prostitute themselves for tips because their base wage doesn't even come close to the minimum wage, let alone a living one. A healthy balance, in which people are rewarded for their hard work but at the same time do not have to worry about making ends meet at the month, is the most successful model that we have yet come across.

In my opinion, it is possible to have a healthy balance of the capitalist reward structure and basic socialist principles and safety nets. In fact, the most successful societies available today have a mixture of these two principles. Even if we are to disregard the "what makes for a successful society" argument and focus exclusively on morality, how does providing monetary rewards for hard work infringe on the morality of caring for your neighbor? How does allowing people to earn small luxuries, like a nice vacation or a day at the spa, after they have earned it with their efforts bring people to care less about their fellow man? While I absolutely concede that the US has struck the balance too far in favor of capitalism, I do not think that a purely socialist structure is the only one that is compatible with a secular morality. I think there is room for a bit of both within our moral principles.

 

An Atheist's Reason For The Season

This post is appropriate for (two days after...oops) the 8th of December, which as I have mentioned before is the day in which, traditionally, the Christmas season officially starts in Italy. It is the day the trees go up, the Christmas lights come on on the streets and the Christmas markets officially begin (although I have noticed that this year, in light of the economic crisis, they were given permission to open shop earlier than usual) all to coincide with that famously confusing Immaculate Conception. I am one of those atheists that does in fact celebrate Christmas, or Mithrasmas, or Xmas, or whatever I may feel like calling it. I like it, its fun, and every year I act as Santa for my grinchy Italian family buying everyone's gifts for everyone else, so getting to Christmas knowing what's in all the packages except for my own. This does not mean, however, that I do not know plenty of people that are of Taslima Nasreen's opinion, that it is silly to celebrate Christmas:

I get surprised when ex-Christian atheists instead of celebrating a day off work, celebrate Christmas. Christmas is a Christian holiday, a religious event — it is for the celebration of the birth of Jesus. Atheists don’t believe in God the father, Jesus the son or the holy spirit. Atheists are not Christians, they do not need to participate in Christian holiday.  

Well, I think that part of the answer come in her next paragraph (emphasis my own)

Many atheists even celebrate the pagan festival of winter solstice. Why do they need to celebrate a Pagan festival? It is true that many rituals of modern Christmas celebrations are pagan. But this is not a good reason to celebrate Christmas or Solstice. Atheists are neither pagan nor Christian. They don’t uphold ancient pagan superstitions, so why do so with those which happen to be popular at Christmas time? There’s nothing about ancient paganism which is any more rational than modern Christianity.

That's exactly it, Christmas celebrations as we know them are really bastardizations of much older pagan rituals, adopted when Christianity became big. Those who believe in a historical Jesus say that, if he did exist he most likely was born in September, so why change it all up in order to fit nicely with a pagan holiday which has nothing at all to do with Christianity?

Well, because people like their holidays and like their traditions. They are some of the best childhood memories for some people, and often they want to continue those great memories for their own kids. For Christians it was strategy: it's much easier to convince people to switch over to your religion when you tell them they don't have to change some of their favorite things about their old one, but for many atheists it's for similar reasons that we continue to celebrate it. People have been celebrating this time of year for ages, all under different names, so why can't we do the same thing this time around and have atheistic Xmas? I had some great Xmases in my time and I want to have that for my kids, the tree, the presents, the dinner, the family, all of it holds a special place in my heart and is an experience I wouldn't want to deny my future children. So what if Christians also celebrate this time of year for their own purposes? Why should that affect my celebrations with my family?

Now, do any atheists have to celebrate Xmas? Of course not! If they don't have any special memories attached to it or don't like it, then don't celebrate it! Celebrate, as Taslima suggests, Women's Day or Anti-Slavery Day, or hell make up a random date and call it My Family Day and come up with a bunch of traditions for your family alone!

The only thing that I would personally suggest, as I did to a friend of mine who does not have the happy Xmas memories that I do, is not to forgo having any holiday at all to celebrate, especially if you have kids. I know people say "well I can see my family at any time", but when life starts to get going and each family member starts doing their own thing, it's amazing how quickly time slips by until you stop for a minute and think crap, how long has it been since we've all been together in the same place at the same time?

 Having an xmas-like holiday gives everyone something to look forward to. It makes you stop and think what would my brother/sister/uncle/mother really like? What present could I get them that would make them happy? It gives you an excuse to bake cookies, make a nice meal or whatever else you don't indulge in when you're far too busy working. Most importantly, it gives everyone an excuse to drop whatever they're doing, take a break and visit with family and friends. I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all.

So as for me? I just bought my xmas tree and decorated it over the weekend listening to Nat King Cole carol for me. I then made myself a nice hot chocolate and relaxed, enjoying the beginning of the season, amazingly watching it snow outside. I was content, and I could care less that at the same time there were others boring themselves silly at mass. They're celebrations have nothing to do with me, and mine are for my benefit, not for Christianity's.




As an aside, if you haven't seen Taslima Nasreen's blog yet, do check it out. I may have disagreed with her in this case, but I do think her writing is remarkable. However I do think a trigger warning is in order: many of her posts are very hardcore: she blogs about women's rights and fundamentalist Islam, so the sad hard truth about rape, beatings and torture, including graphic images and videos, can often be found there.

Like Multi-Tasking, I Can Multi-Care

Over the weekend dprjones came out with a new video that quite honestly got on my nerves. While it was created to promote a cause that I 100% support and am contributing to, I found it entirely unneccessary in its presentation.

Well, I was going to show it here, but he seems to have taken it down as I cannot find it anywhere on his channel. Well, the title of the video was "Atheism +?? Atheism -?? I don't care!" I suppose I can't totally bash it now that there is no objective proof of its existence or way to objectively decide whether or not I'm exaggerated in my reaction or misinterpreted it, but I still want to bring this up because I had found it to be a perfect example of an argument that I encounter quite often. 

The basic sense that I got out of it was "I don't get this Atheism+ movement, but who cares about stupid semantics! I have more important things to worry about like suffering! Look at all the pictures of the poor sick African children!" Well pat yourself on the goddamned back dpr. It was a video promoting the MSF charity event, which as I said before I think is great and I am contributing to it, but it was also an unnecessary dig at a movement whose values, ironically, line up very well with the MSF charity event, not to mention that some of the participants of the event listed in his video are part of Atheism+.

Shitting on something that you haven't bothered to look into or research aside, this argument is one that really gets under my skin and one that I have been confronted with often. Suffering animals in sub-par shelters and puppy farms? Who cares! Don't you know there are people who suffer? Drunk college girls getting raped? Who cares! I'm much more interested in stopping child rape! Innocent people put to death by the death penalty? Who cares! I only care about really important things, like genocide! 

Well I can't speak for the rest of you, but I can speak for myself, and my question is this: why the fuck do you always insist that I have to pick one issue, just one thing, to care about or to think is important enough to speak out about? I don't know about you, but I retain the (rare?) ability to care about a variety different things, without having to artificially squash them onto one ultimate ladder of importance and picking only the one that occupies the top rung. 

This is what I care about: science education and real science as opposed to pseudoscience, equality for all people regardless of race, gender identidy, socioeconomic status or sexual orientation, feminism, gay marriage and other LGBTQ issues. Oh, all of those things are included under Atheism+? Well sign me the fuck up, it seems as though it's values are also mine.

I also care about democracy and freedom to choose your government, free speech, free elections, animal rights, human rights, war and persecution, bringing affordable health care, food and clean water and education to everyone regardless of what circumstances they happen to be born in, literacy, slavery, child abuse, oppression and freedom from as well as of religion. 

I understand that some of those things may not be "as" important as others, and if I really had to choose one there are some that I would more easily discard. But ultimately the question is, why should I have to?

Book Review: God Is Not Great

My laptop is still on the fritz, but I have a little time at work today to squeeze this one in...

A while ago, when ordering my bulk book package from Amazon, I realized that I have never actually read any of Christopher Hitchens' work. He was certainly not as likeable as other atheist contemporaries of his like Stephen Fry, but nevertheless I recognized in him a monstrous intellect that could only be admired, even if not fully agreed with. Why not then, I thought, get a couple of his most famous books and see for myself? Well the first one I read was God Is Not Great, and holy hell he makes a devastating case.

The first chapters of the book justify one of his most famous positions: "religion poisons everything". He goes over some terrifying things that have been and are still done in the name of religion, and brings up a very good point about how religion facilitates these atrocities. I have explained in a previous post that I am fully aware that bad people in the world will do bad things and that in many cases it is not their religion that "made them" do it, it just gave them a good way to get away with it. What I missed in that post however is this other aspect that Hitchens touches on in this chapter: Religion causes people to accept terrible things, things they would normally cry out against in disgust and horror had they not been done by a religious figure, and this attitude is something that greatly stunts our ability to evolve and move forward as a society.

Case in point: if you found out that Hitchens went about sucking on injured baby penises, spreading herpes as he did so, you would cry out in outrage for his arrest and many for his lynching, and I would be right there alongside you. How disgusting, vile and cruel! Well, it's actually not illegal in New York City to do so thanks to mayor Bloomberg, if you're a rabbi that is. That's right, in a passage of the book that made my skin crawl and I had trouble believing was true, there is a practice amongst a faction of Jews whereby the rabbi, after cutting the foreskin off of a little baby, puts that bleeding injured penis in his mouth and sucks the foreskin off. Babies started getting venereal diseases this way, at least one of them died, but Bloomberg did not make the practice illegal, lest he offend the Jews. Are you fucking kidding me? Does anyone think that this would not be headline, national news with the perpetrator in isolation in prison for his 0wn safety, if he was hacking away and sucking on and infecting baby penises for any reason other than a religious one?

While the God Delusion is more of a philosophical reasoning behind atheism, this book focuses on organized religion, how it was invented by men, how it has done far more harm than good and in the world and how it is silly to believe in such a fabrication. It does not address mysticism or deism, so its a book that many more people are going to agree with. The style he adopts in his writing is so similar to his style of speaking that I could almost hear his voice in my head, a-mile-a-minute touching all the right points though never in profound detail, which means that this one book has added a dozen others to my reading list. The vastness of his knowledge is astounding and his personal experiences remarkable, he truly led a full, if too short a life.

He is obviously not a scientist, so do not expect a book about how evolution and cosmology makes the belief in a creator irrelevant (although I applaud his attempt at understanding the science and alluding to it, albeit superficially). Do also expect that cocky arrogance that Hitchens was so famous for, and you probably wont agree with him on every point. It is not perfect, for one thing he did trip over himself in the brief section he dedicated to abortion, but the best part of this book is that it is an excellent stimulant for debate. It touches on pretty much everything that he could think of, just enough to give you a taste, and almost every sentence can be used as a jump-off point for an hour-long discussion. I would have loved to have the opportunity to sit and chat with him, and be awed at how I could never keep up with his mind.

Thoughts On: Defensible Arrogance

I have mentioned before that I have a friend that is struggling to accept the fact that she is losing her faith, and so I suggested that she read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, a book I know has helped a lot of people in her same position. The other day she tells me that she is having a very hard time reading it, because despite the fact that she agrees with much of what he says, the arrogant tone with which he says it is putting her off. “There are millions of people around the world that have faith”, she told me, “are you saying that they are all stupid? Are you presuming that you are more intelligent than all of those people, that they have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the philosophical conversation, that you are smarter than all of them, simply because they believe?” Now I do not presume to speak for Richard Dawkins and I do not know how he would answer this specific question (though I am sure there are some videos of him responding to similar questions floating around, as he is often accused of this smugness), but there are a few points of contention that I would like to bring up.

First of all, I pointed out that The God Delusion is a book about the reasons why one should not believe, and that if there is a believer with something to offer they are by no means prohibited from putting forth an argument in contradiction to something in the book and hashing it out. Secondly I pointed out that the “smug” tone of the book would not be nearly so criticized if he was taking shots at Bigfoot believers, reptilian conspiracy theorists or AIDS denialists. She agreed with me on both points, but still maintained that the tone of the book is something that is unnecessary and off-putting.

I am not going to sit here and pretend that Richard Dawkins has no arrogant or smug bone in his body, that is not true and I am perfectly aware of it. I also realize that I was talking to someone that wont be derisive to anyone, not even the stupidest idea alive will make her snarky towards them, so this was not an issue of putting religion on a pedestal. However, here comes one of my extended analogies to address her initial question: there are millions of believers around the globe, are you saying that they are all stupid?

First of all, there mere presence of numbers of people that believe a certain thing is a terribly piss-poor reason to give credence to that particular idea or theory. The classic example is 1000 years ago the vast majority of the world believed that the Earth was flat, it does not mean that “there might be something to that” and it does not mean that everyone who thought that way was stupid: they just didn’t know any better.

To second that point, let’s say that I wrote a book similar to The God Delusion but about racism. I hate racism, I think it is an incredibly stupid belief system, and my frustration in having to deal with multiple racists throughout my career prompted me to write a particularly scathing book about all the reasons that I think the concept of racism is ridiculous, regardless of how mild or extreme, and that it should be renounced altogether. I truly believe that I am right and that the evidence backs me up, and I go on to cite all of the reasons why racism has had a terrible, poisonous influence on society as a whole, how it has impeded education and how the genetic variability within races is higher than the genetic variability between races and that thus annihilating the basis for racism.

You may come up to me then and rightly say hey, you realize that there are millions of racists around the world, and that they outnumber people that are not racist? (Not to suggest that all people are racist the way die hard Nazis are, which would be more analogous to the Westboro Baptists and Al Qaeda fundamentalists, but it is true that the majority of people around the world do have some prejudices based on race). Are you saying that those millions of people around the world, those who outnumber you, are all stupid, or bad people? The answer to that question is no.

There are plenty of stupid people around the world, and there are plenty of smart ones as well. There are stupid racists and smart racists, and then there are a bunch of people that are in the middle. There are plenty of people that do not have access to good education, have not heard the evidence against racism, and have never sat around to ponder the question because honestly they have more important things to worry about like how to feed themselves and their families. There are plenty of people that have never traveled outside of their town of birth, have never seen someone of a different race and are thus very understandably wary of the unknown. This does not mean that the people that fit this description are terrible people, or that they should be considered “just like the Nazis”. Many people of this description are very good people, they help out in their communities and are amazing, empathetic people. They do these things because they are good people, not because their racism towards other tribes or colors causes them to want to help out people of their own color and tribe.

There are also people that go on TV and spout hateful racism out to the masses, trying to convince as many people as possible to give them money, power and status. There are people that believe them, follow them and do unspeakable things in their name. Many times these people are intelligent, often times they are charlatans that do not believe their own hype, and sometimes they are stupid but possess a flair for rhetoric. I, as the author of this book, should be allowed to point this out for the awful, hurtful crap that it is, without having to constantly repeat “yes, I am aware that not all racists are like that!”. Also, the fact that a large portion of racist people do not harm others and are good people does not mean that I should not be allowed to attack the core principle of what they believe, or that I cannot express that I believe they would be even better off if they let go of their racism altogether and all of the fear, mistrust, anxiety and hate that comes with it.

At this point you might say that it is a false analogy, because racism is something that is undoubtedly hurtful to society, to which I say exactly! That is what many of these authors are saying about organized religion as well! Nowadays it’s OK to vilify racism and its loudest proponents, but even 150 years ago it most certainly was not. To even mildly suggest that maybe African Americans were also human beings, Like Harriet Beecher Stowe did in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, got her the same kind of hate mail and death threats that many prominent atheists get today, including a package containing an African American’s severed ear. The two points are more similar than you may think.

Anyway, I suppose the main point is that yes, despite the arrogant undertone of the book, there are always going to be instances in which people will feel that an arrogant undertone is perfectly justified. The question in the end becomes, is it justified in this case? And if not, what is the real reason that it annoys you?

Is it really because you have a zero tolerance for smugness in any shape or  form and are never smug about anything yourself, or is it because some fragments of religion’s historical pedestal still remain in your mind?

Repost: Why I Am An Atheist - Gregory Greenwood

As I have mentioned before, PZ Myers has started a "Why I Am An Atheist" series of essays submitted by his readers - something that I suggest anyone who is struggling with coming to terms with their own atheism, or anyone who has misconceptions about atheism, should read. 

A perfect example of addressing the common misconceptions surrounding atheism was wonderfully and concisely summed up in this essay, which I have had permission from the author to repost here. I would love to use it as a starting point to delve into some of the key arguments later on, but for now I would like to start with this. As of course I cannot presume to speak for the author please leave any comments or queries relating directly to his essay on the original post. 

Why I am an atheist – Gregory Greenwood

July 26, 2012 at 7:31 am PZ Myers

In order to properly address why I am an atheist, I think it might be helpful to first deal with those common misconceptions about why atheists don’t believe in god.

I am not an atheist because I am ‘angry at god’. As an atheist, I don’t believe in god, any god, at all. I see no reason to express anger at a fictional character. Declaring that someone’s atheism is motivated by anger at god is as irrational as saying that it is caused by anger at Sauron. I am angry about the harm that religion causes to innocent people all across the world, but this is hardly the same thing.

I am not an atheist because of a commitment to ‘nihilism’. I am not a nihilist at all. As a secular humanist, I believe that all human life has value, but not because of any unevidenced deity. As a rationalist, I find the universe beautiful and fascinating, but I do not believe that it was designed, and I do not believe that its beauty is somehow lessened by the absence of a designer. I do not refer to any undetectable phantasm to inform my sense of what has worth and value. If anything, it is religion that is truly nihilistic – to the fervent believer, the world and all the people in it have no innate worth, their value is dictated solely by the supposed edicts of god – a non parsimonious god asserted without evidence. Take that all pervasive construct of god away, and on what basis can the theist claim that anything has value on its own merit?

I am not an atheist because I am an immoral or ‘evil’ person. The idea that a person ‘cannot be good without god’ is one of the most repugnantly offensive and dehumanizing tropes of religion – it asserts that people are inherently vile and unethical creatures that are only kept in line by the threat of fire and brimstone. I do not hold such a low opinion of our species, and I believe that it is nobler to strive to act in the best interests of your fellow humans simply because it is the right thing to do rather than as a means of buying your way into some postmortem Disneyland.

I am not an atheist as a means to make some nonconformist statement or to appear ‘trendy’. Atheism is hardly associated with anything remotely fashionable. For the most part we are misrepresented and demonized by those who are either ignorant or actively malicious – the Pope even went so far as to seek to directly link atheism to nazism, and he was far from alone in making that assertion.

I am not an atheist because atheism ‘is just another religion’. Atheism is a loose catch all term for a very broad and decentralized community of people who only have to share a single factor in common to claim the title ‘atheist’ – a non-belief in gods. Beyond this, we are extremely diverse. Many atheists are also sceptics, rationalists and humanists, but not all. We have no dogma, no rigid authority structures and, contrary to the more hyperbolic claims of our opponents, no ‘high priests’ (or priestesses).

Now that we have had our little bonfire of the strawmen, lets return to the original question; why am I an atheist? The answer is simple; it is because there is no evidence for god. I think that the fundamental importance of this point is hard to overstate. Religions make all sorts of sweeping claims about the nature of physical reality based upon the supposed agency of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent godhead and yet no evidence for this supposedly all powerful being is provided. As with any truth claim, if no evidence is forthcoming then the null hypothesis must stand. More than this, I think it downright irresponsible to confer belief on such a radical claim that is so often used as a basis for political, legal and social authority without the most comprehensive evidential base.

If the god proposition cannot be established, then all the theological manouevring of so called ‘sophisticated theology’ becomes moot. Asking ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’ is pretty pointless if you cannot prove that angels exist. In the absence of evidence for god, atheism is the only intellectually consistent position to adopt.

And yet theists are never convinced by this simple point. They claim that they have an explanation as to why there is no evidence for god – apparently this entity has a strange fetish for using its power to cover its tracks. An all powerful being that demonstrates its power by rendering itself undetectable? This is perhaps the quintessential circular argument.

Even if we set aside the lack of evidence for a moment, that still doesn’t suffice to justify a belief in any one god over another. The fact is that atheism is actually highly ubiquitous; even the most committed theist is an atheist in regard to every god in the history of humanity bar their own, and there seems no rational basis for their choice of that god over any other. Why is belief in Yahweh or Allah somehow better than belief in Odin, Ra, Mithras or Zeus? Or, for that matter, belief in vampires, werewolves or fairies? In terms of evidence, each  is the equal of the others, and all are fictional. Religion demands that we treat certain classes of fictional character as sacred (and thus above debate) but not others, and never gives a compelling reason why this should be the case. The only reason why people afford the myth of god such greater standing in our culture than other classes of unevidenced superstition is because religion enjoys an unjustified, privileged status in our society as a relic of the theocratic past.

When I say that ‘I don’t believe in god’ I say it for the same reason that I might say ‘I don’t believe in fairies’. Very few people would argue that belief in fairies in the modern age is anything other than ridiculous; our understanding of science is such that positing the existence of fairies flies in the face of all that we know. I am an atheist because, if you look objectively at the evidence, there is no more reason to believe in god then there is to believe in fairies.

Gregory Greenwood

Why Do You Believe?

I often get into debates with people about religion, sometimes heatedly (usually when the person I am speaking to is being arrogant and thick-headed), other times for the simple reason that I am curious as to why they believe what they do (when the person is nice, non-judgemental and otherwise seems quite intelligent). Recently I have had two such discussions with two people, which started amicably enough with me pointing at all the places the bible contradicts the “free will”, “god is love”, “justification for baptism” etc. arguments, which brought us directly to the central question of why the hell do you believe anyway? It always comes down to that, as it is impossible to continue the conversation without first establishing a sans-goal-post-shifting basis for the argument. They both happened to respond with an answer that is supposed to be a conversation stopper, an “oh well, this is where we agree to disagree and amicably go our separate ways” response.

I believe because I feel it, I feel something inside me when I pray

How shocked were they then, when all of a sudden I got a little frustrated with them, not only not accepting it as an end of the conversation, but rather answered

That’s not a fucking answer!

I was amazed that this was the first time that they had someone not accept that ridiculous answer. While I am sure many of you are fully aware as to why that is, but for those of you who have not thought too much about it, let me elaborate for you as I did for them:

Here we need another pinning down of what you do and do not believe. Do you believe in ghosts? Do you believe in aliens visiting the earth? How about vampires? No? Well, trust me, there are people that do. Many of them believe because they feel it. They feel the presence of their departed mother or spouse or pet, and therefore believe that their spirit is still walking the earth and keeping them company. There are people that are absolutely convinced that they were abducted by aliens and there are people that are sure vampires really exist, because they feel it. Why then, do most people in the world not accept those personal feelings as proof of the existence of ghosts, aliens or vampires? Because personal feelings are subjective, of course they are. You need external, objective evidence to back up these things in order to be justified in believing them. Personal opinion has no bearing on reality. Without objective evidence you can find other more plausible explanations for these feelings: that you’re grief over losing a loved one and being in the house you shared with them causes you to feel like they’re still there, that you suffer from sleep paralysis, that you really want live to be a little cooler.

If you accept someone’s personal feelings about what they believe, then you’re not allowed to scoff at ghosts, faries, aliens, vampires, or any other such fantasy. Going even further, if “I believe it exists because I feel it” was a valid argument, any hallucination a schizophrenic person has ever had exists too, from the voices to the people they see. This is why “I believe in God because I feel Him” does not qualify as a good reason to believe in God, not by a long shot.

And anyway, this personal fuzzy feeling you have inside is not only a terrible reason to believe in a god, but how in the hell did you jump from “warm fuzzy feeling” to “the God of the bible as interpreted by the Vatican”?! How do you know that your personal feelings are “evidence” for that specific god, and not Zeus, Thor or Buddha?

One of them did not have an answer, mostly because she is swaying away from theism and is honestly trying to identify the source of this “feeling” that is keeping her from really calling herself an atheist. The other one used “it’s a matter of faith” as the centre for all the circles he began to spin in. But that’s a whole can of worms for another time.

The Atheist Religion

So I keep getting sicker and sicker so I really don't have it in me right now to come up with detailed posts when all I can think is argh why doesn't my eyeball just make up its mind and explode already enough of this pain!!! So I figured I'd post a few videos instead.

This one came to mind due to a conversation I had last week when I met a young man who, while he was in fact an atheist, refused to state the fact because he felt that "atheism has become as much of an institutionalized religion as Christianity". This made me think of my original meanings post in that I realized "atheism" was a word I forgot to include on my list, as the whole "atheism is still a religion" meme is one aggressively pushed by religious extremists. I also wanted to show him this video, which I think sums it up in a great and funny way

Repost: No Rights: The Life of an Atheist

It's the Streisand Effect people and it's back with a vengance!

Once again school administrators blatantly violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment try to sweep it all under the rug by silencing those that have concerns about it. I mean, why should prayer in school or Bible quotes on the chalkboard bother anyone? It's not like you're being forced to believe in them or go to church or anything! So long as no one complains or calls attention to the fact that these things are not strictly legal it's all fine, it's all good, we're just expressing the majority opinion anyway. Well fuck that.

Krystal Myers, a high school student at Lenoir City High School in Tennessee, attempted to do just that by writing an opinion piece in the school newspaper about the discrimination and unequal rights of atheists compared to Christians in her school. The administrators shut her down of course, not allowing her to publish the piece saying they wanted to avoid the "potential for disruption".

But this is the internet, and it is time that these people realize that it takes a hell of a lot more to sweep something under the rug nowadays. If they had just shut up about it and let it be published, a few students would have read it and no one in the country would have ever heard about it. Now, her piece has reached more people than it ever would have before, bringing Lenoir City High School under scrutiny.

So thank you, school administrators, for helping Krystal Myers in her efforts to shine a light on the problems with the separation of church and state that you have in your school. Of course thank you PZ for getting your hands on a copy of her piece and posting it for all of us. I would also like to repost it here.

No Rights: The Life of an Atheist
By Krystal Myers

The point of view expressed in this article does not necessarily reflect the point of view of the Panther Press, its staff, adviser, or school.

As a current student in Government, I have realized that I feel that my rights as an Atheist are severely limited and unjust when compared to other students who are Christians. Not only are there multiple clubs featuring the Christian faith, but youth ministers are also allowed to come onto school campus and hand candy and other food out to Christians and their friends. However, I feel like if an Atheist did that, people would not be happy about it. This may not be true, but due to pervasive negative feelings towards Atheists in the school, I feel that it would be the case. My question is, “Why? Why does Atheism have such a bad reputation?” And an even better question, “Why do Christians have special rights not allowed to non-believers?”

Before I even begin, I just want to clear up some misconceptions about Atheism. No, we do not worship the “devil.” We do not believe in God, so we also do not believe in Satan. And we may be “godless” but that does not mean that we are without morals. I know, personally, I strive to be the best person I can be, even without religion. In fact, I have been a better person since I have rejected religion. And perhaps the most important misconception is that we want to convert everyone into Atheists and that we hate Christians. For the most part, we just want to be respected for who we are and not be judged.

Now you should know exactly what an Atheist is. Dictionary.com says that an Atheist is, “a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.” However, this does not mean that Atheists do not believe in higher causes; we just do not believe in a higher being.

With that being said, I can move on to the real issue. Before I begin, I want you to think about your rights and how your perceived “rights” might be affecting the rights of others.
There are several instances where my rights as a non-believer, and the rights of anyone other than a Christian, have been violated. These instances inspired me to investigate the laws concerning the separation of church and state, and I learned some interesting things. However, first, I would like you to know specifically what my grievances are against the school. First and foremost is the sectarian prayer that occurs at graduation every year. Fortunately, I am not the first one to have thought that this was a problem. In the Supreme Court case, Lee v. Weisman, it was decided that allowing prayer at graduation is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Special speakers can pray, but the school cannot endorse the prayer or plan for it to happen.

Public prayer also occurs at all of the home football games using the public address system. This has, again, been covered by the Supreme Court case Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The Court ruled that school-sponsored prayer is an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. If a speaker prays, it is fine. However, as soon as the school provides sponsorship, it becomes illegal. Sponsorship can be almost anything, even something as simple as saying that the speaker can pray or choosing a speaker with a known propensity to pray or share his or her religious views.

However, it is not just the speakers who we have to fear at Lenoir City High School. We also have to fear some of the teachers and what they might say about their own religious beliefs. On at least two separate occasions, teachers have made their religious preferences known to basically the whole school.

One teacher has made her religious preferences known by wearing t-shirt depicting the crucifix while performing her duties as a public employee. Also, Kristi Brackett, a senior at Lenoir City High School, has said that the teacher, “strongly encouraged us to join [a religious club] and be on the group’s leadership team.” Yet again, this violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. When asked if this was true, the teacher replied, “As a teacher I would never use my power of influence to force my beliefs or the beliefs of [a religious club] on any student in the school.” Regardless, the religious t-shirts are still inappropriate in the school setting. Teachers are prohibited from making their religious preferences known; the Constitution requires them to be neutral when acting in their capacity as a public school teacher.

Not only are religious preferences shown through shirts, but also through a “Quote of the Day” that some teachers write on the boards in their classrooms. One teacher has Bible verses occasionally as the teacher’s “Quote of the Day” for students. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been violated, yet again with no regard for non-believers.

But perhaps I would have more hope in our school and the possibility of change on the horizon if our own school board did not open their meetings with prayer. A person who wished to remain anonymous that has been present at school board meetings says, “They do have prayers. They pray to ‘Our Heavenly Father’ and end with ‘In Jesus’ Name We Pray.’” Not only is this a violation of Supreme Court law, but also a violation of the board’s own policy that prohibits prayer at school-sponsored events. The whole foundation of how our school is conducted is established by obvious Christians. Somehow, this is unsurprising. If our School Board chooses to ignore the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court, then it is no surprise that teachers choose to do the same.

I know that I will keep trying to gain my rights as an Atheist and as an American citizen, but I also need your help in educating other people to realize the injustice done to all minority groups. The Christian faith cannot rule the United States. It is unconstitutional. Religion and government are supposed to be separate. If we let this slide, what other amendments to the Constitution will be ignored? I leave you to decide what you will or will not do, but just remember that non-believers are not what you originally thought we were; we are human beings just like you.

Tough Questions: Are You Allowed To Be Insensitive?

I feel like weighing in on this Jesus and Mo debate, because I think that it is indicative of a larger question that I would like to discuss. While I've seen the cartoon and have decided that I don't think it's inflammatory, racist or insensitive at all, that is my personal opinion and I understand that there are some people that may disagree. I thought it was funny, others might think it was in poor taste, but whatever. Compounded with the fact that the cartoon itself was on the London School of Economics Student Union Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society's Facebook page, not even tacked up all around the university (so if you don't like it, don't go on their facebook page right?) it seems a little ridiculous that the Uni's Student Union would call an emergency meeting over it or have any case to call it "bullying".

But let's put all that aside. Let's say the cartoon was a little more insensitive and racist. Let's say the cartoon was tacked up on campus and not displayed on some Facebook page that many of the people it would be likely to offend would never visit anyway. The issue that is worth discussing is whether or not such things should be allowed. Are you allowed to offend people based on their race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion or political opinion? If the answer is no, where do you draw the line between good natured satire and banned offensive language?

I'll give you an example from my own college years. I started college in Dublin in 2005, and as I've told you before I was a bit of a stranger in a strange land, considered by most to be an annoying American girl and didn't really have that many friends. Also remember that Hurricane Katrina had hit only a month before, I had friends there for the cleanup efforts and what happened was just settling in. My first week in college I, along with all the other First Years, got a free copy of the student-run magazine. On the cover was a picture of the University, almost completely under water, and the title was "Fuck America. We're Fucked Here". Wow. Bad fucking taste, not to mention the fact that it made me feel even more self conscious about my accent, and it made me think that people were going to be even more hostile towards me because of it than they turned out to be. I thought it was insensitive, not to mention completely misdirected. If you're upset with the US government's actions why are you making jokes about the poor peoples lives that were lost in a natural disaster, people that were also foresaken by the US government? I thought it was stupid and they should have picked a better cover, especially for the very first issue given out free to the new students.

Here's the thing though, should they have been allowed to publish it? I vote yes. Sure it affected me in some way or another, but I understand that while I reserve the right to be offended, others reserve the right to offend. I don't think that any club should not be allowed to display or say anything about anyone, even if it is racist or whatever. Let public opinion tear them down and let the racists declare themselves. I never bought a copy of that magazine throught my entire college career. If I was part of a club that displayed something that I thought was racist or homophobic I would no longer be a member, and neither would other students such as myself, until the club would only contain other racist people. If that number is large enough for the club to continue at least everyone knows that they are a racist bunch. If it is not the club is cancelled, but not because they were not allowed to express their racist thoughts.

What I am saying is that, even though I don't think the Jesus and Mo cartoon is racist, or bullying, or insensitive, or anything like that, even if it was I would tell the London School of Economics Student Union to grow the fuck up. You're in college now, get rid of the baby blanket and get ready to step into the real world. There are people that you're not going to agree with, and there are people that are going to be extremely vocal about what it is they are not agreeing with you on. Deal with it.

What If You're Wrong?

If, like myself, you make no apologies for your atheism and are quite open, if not eager to discuss it with others, you will have definitely heard this question from the religously affiliated at least once in your life. It came to me over the weekend, and I could not have been more delighted. Why? Well, I had had a couple of beers and I was pleased to get such an easy one to respond to.

This question, at least in my experience, almost always comes from a genuinely nice and engaging religious person, and frequently from Christians. The Bible-bashing crowd tend to go for either the angry "you're going to Hell! Repent!" or the even more annoying condescending "I feel so bad for you, you're so brainwashed, you poor soul". Because of the uncharacteristic friendliness and openness to discussion from this other breed, some atheists can be slightly taken aback from this seemingly innocuous question, and instead of responding logically simply revert to a "well let's just agree to disagree shall we? You're nice, I don't want to be insulting and tell you I know you're full of shit, cause I get very annoyed at the bible-bashers who do the same to me". I am not advocating for getting arrogant or condescending with your questioner, but I feel that there is a perfectly civil and rational way to respond nonetheless.

The question essentially bolis down to this: What if you are wrong about your beliefs? If you're right and there is no heaven or hell then nothing bad happens to me when I die, I just cease to exist. But if I'm right and you're wrong, you miss out on heaven and have to spend the rest of eternity in torment and hellfire. I have nothing to lose, but you have heaven to lose.

There are two aspects of this question that make it a poorly thought out question. The first part is the one that we have seen from Bill Maher in Religulous, for example. It can be viewed as a slight deflection of the question, but it makes a valid point nonetheless. The gist of it is that fear of a God and hell is not a good reason to become a Christian. Plus, if God is all-knowing and all-powerful, wouldn't he be able to call your bluff? Wouldn't he know that I think you're religion is stupid and that I'm only joining just in case he exists, without truly believing that he does? If I think it's silly it's just silly, joining your church wont save my soul

A good point, true, but missing the central core of the problem with this question.  Richard Dawkins did adress this second part somewhat, although the heated way in which he responded and the words he chose made some people miss the point he was making.He mentions that the only reason said person believed what they did was because of the time in history and geographical location they were born in, and that is true, but he hits the nail on the head when he turns it around and says: what if you're wrong?

The central fallacy that this question is based on is the idea that there are only two possibilities to chose from: the religion that the person happens to believe in, or atheism. If that were the case then yes, they'd have a slightly better point to make with this question. However, that is obviously not the case. There are thousands of denominations of Christianity alone, never mind all the other religions out there, and many of them believe that their religion is the one true religion and that everyone else is going to hell for being mislead and worshipping in the wrong church. What if you picked the wrong denomination? You'd be on a fast train to hell same as I am, except at least I would have enjoyed my life in the process. Worse, you probably have converted others to your faith, and therefore are responsible for their souls eternal torment as well. So, what if you're wrong?

This is generally followed by a split second of wide-eyedness, then a condescending smile, then something along the lines of "well, I don't really believe that only my specific church is going to heaven. If you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and you lead a good and honest Christian life, then it really doesn't matter what specific denomination of Christianity you adhere to.

And this is where you press your advantage, not shrug your shoulders and agree to disagree. It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is that there are many denominations that do believe that their version is the only true version and that everyone else is going to hell, regardless of whether or not they are just "a different kind of Christian", Muslim or Atheists. So, what if you're wrong? If you're right, and you all get in to heaven, then great, everybody wins. But if you're wrong you go to hell and the Mormons/Westboro Baptists/whomever was lucky enough to get it right will be laughing at your burning tortured soul from heaven. So what is stopping you from joining a much more extreme version of Christianity? I mean, you have nothing to lose right? What if they're right and gay bashing and abortion-clinic protesting and evolution-denying is the only way to get your ticket into heaven?

Is it perhaps because you think they can't be right, because their version of religion is a little ridiculous? Is it because you think they have been brainwashed at a young age? Is it because you just like your version better? Since when does what is real and what is true depend on what we like or want to be true? I would want and like a world with no wars, torture or rape, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that none of those things exist because that is what I would like reality to be. Is it that you think that if these people just reasoned with themselves, really thought about what they were saying, then maybe they would fall into your category of Christianity?

So, when is the last time you applied the same logic and reasoning to your own beliefs?

Explain Your Bigotry Please

So I'm late to the party, as usually happens when something like this happens over the weekend, but I wanted to express my own distaste at the open displays of bigotry that are becoming ever more evident.

So remember Jessica Ahlquist? The girl that won her court case against prayer in public schools, who was called some terrible, condescending names in the media, but who held strong and saw her cause through to the end? Well, the Freedon from Religion Foundation wanted to send her flowers as a sign of encouragement, and lo and behold, the florists in Cranston, RI refused. PZ has given the links to the four florists' websites in hopes we might all voice our displeasure (civilly), and while one link is only a google-maps reference (which now has some hilarious comments to its name), only one had an email address to contact them by. I, living far far away, did what I could to be scathingly civil in the following email I sent to Floral Express:

To whom it may concern,

I am writing you because I have a question regarding your delivery policies. It has come to my attention that your floral shop has refused to deliver roses to a teenager in Cranston, RI because she is an atheist. While I am perfectly aware that, as a private organization you are fully within your rights to discriminate against whomever you choose, I simply wanted some clarification. Reading the "About Us" section of your website I found no reference to your business being religiously affiliated in any way. If it is a Christian business I wanted to know why it was not more clearly stated, and whether or not your delivery policy extended to other groups as well. For example, do you also have a policy not to deliver to Muslim or Jewish families? Openly homosexual couples?
Some clarification from you would be greatly appreciated, as well as a more detailed policy to be published on your website to avoid customer confusion in the future when making online orders and having them refused.

Thank you for your time

Crys

Ever one to want to hear both sides of the story, I am very curious what response I will get, though I think it doubtful I will get any. For those of you that live there and therefore with more direct means of contacting these businesses, here's the link again where you can find their phone numbers. Discrimination is something that should be shunned and abhorred, not tolerated to the point that this 16 year old girl becomes a social paraiah for exercising her constitutional rights.

Tough Questions: Will You Lie To Your Kids?

This one is tougher than it seems. My initial gut reaction is no! Of course not! My mother lied to me about drugs/sex/her past and it was stupid and it drove a wedge in our relationship and I want to have an open and honest full disclosure relationship with my future kids and and and...... Then I stop and think wait, what age exactly are we talking about when we say "kids"? And about what exactly?

I think everyone's answer to this question will be different and especially swayed by their own personal experiences growing up. While I am personally convinced that lying is not the way to go when it comes to relating to your teenagers, especially when it comes to things you did yourself that you don't want them to do (as if teenagers want to emulate their parents right? That'll work far better than them being well informed about the drugs/sex/whatever in question I'm sure). However, there is another part of a kid's childhood that is actually filled with far more lies than teenagerdom, so much so that many don't even consider them to be real lies. Will you tell your child that Santa exists? Will you tell your child that there is a God, or heaven, even if you don't believe in it yourself?

I have thought about it a lot, but I feel that my answer does need a rationalization because I don't think it should be an automatic "yes", especially for free-thinking, atheist parents. I remember when I found out that Santa was not real the hurt did not come from finding out that the magic I believed in wasn't there. I felt fooled, I felt stupid, I felt like adults had laughingly played this elaborate prank on me and I fell for it and it make me sick to think about it. A friend of mine told me that when her little brother found out there was no Santa, he looked his mother dead in the eye and said "you know, I never really believed in Santa. The only reason I believed is because you told me he was real, and you told me that you would never lie to me". The idea that I would ever fray my child's trust like that terrifies me.

But then I remember how much fun believing in Santa was. I remember the anticipation of going down the stairs on Christmas morning and finding presents that had magically appeared under the tree. I remember being older and fully aware that there was no Santa, but asking my mother to hide the presents and act like I still did, just to recreate a fraction of that thrill. I remember trying to cope with my Grandfather's death when I was six, and peppering my mother with questions about heaven and what happened when you die. I remember the pit of emptiness in my stomach trying to fathom such a loss, and I don't know how I would have coped with it if heaven had not been there to soften the blow.

So this is my decision: Yes, I will tell my child there is a Santa. Yes, I will tell my child that their pet hamster went to hamster heaven. Yes if, Zeus forbid my child has to cope with the loss of a person at such a young age, I will tell them that that person is in heaven with their family just waiting for us to join the party. However the day my child looks me in the eye and asks "Really? Is it real?" I will give them the honest answer, because whatever age my child is when they begin questioning the word of adults is the age at which they are old enough to know the truth. If they get upset, accuse me of being a liar, I will hug them and say that phrase that all kids detest but all parents must pull out at some time or another: "One day, when the hurt is gone and you are older, you will understand".

So what do you think? At what age will you stop lying to your children? Or will you take the bold route, and raise a child that never believes in magic or fairy tales at all?

Let's Stay On Topic People

This discussion came up when I was chatting with a cousin of mine about atheism and religion. While I have been an open and out atheist for quite a few years now, he still strongly identifies himself as a catholic. That's not to say he ever goes to church (outside the occasional family funeral), he doesn't adhere to any of the rules and doesn't even celebrate the vast majority of the holidays, but he still clings to a very private undiscussed belief in a god and considers his catholic upbringing an identifier of his culture and family values. He went to catholic school as a little boy and while he does not have particularly fond memories of the place he still gets quite defensive if you just outright insult his religious institution.

He was telling me about a friend of his who is also, as he likes to put it "a huge atheist". He was telling me that said friend absolutely despises religous institutions and everything that they stand for, believes that its followers or either evil or stupid or both and that religion is solely responsible for all the horrible things that have happened in the world. To this my cousin bristled defensively, and automatically responded that his catholic upbringing was where he learned his morality. I told him to stop right there. I've heard this old tune before, and I'm not buying it. Here's the thing though: I'm not buying either argument.

Yes, I concede, more bad and immoral things have been done in the name of religion than good things have. However this does not mean that all bad things have religion at their core, and that if we were to obliterate religiosity from the face of the Earth we would all live in a wonderful Utopia of rainbows and sunshine. Sometimes religion is the cause. Sometimes religion acts as a perfect excuse. And sometimes, believe it or not, terrible things are done in the name of no religion at all.

On the other hand, don't even try to tell me that your religion is the source of your morality, cause you know that's bullshit as well as I do. It's not your holy book that is the source of the morals you were taught in catholic school, but the morals of the guy that just happened to be in charge of your religious institution at the time. The bible, let us not forget, contains some pretty ridiculous to outright gruesome excuses for morality. Don't forget the bible was used as an excuse to deem slavery moral in the southern US states, whereas now no one would dream of arguing that slavery is a moral thing because the bible says so. No one is protesting clothing factories for making cotton and polyester blends, cause technically you're not allowed to wear those either. Let's face it, Christian morality does not come from the bible, it comes from the guy that interprets it for you and tells you what to believe in.


And therein lies my real problem with the istitution of religion. Religion encourages and values blind faith and acceptance of whatever the guy in charge tells you. It disencourages or outright condemns critical thinking and people making up their own minds. It creates masses of sheep people which not only hinders the advancement of society at large, but it also makes for very gullible people that an evil person, once gaining power, can easily control and manipulate into doing whatever atrocious thing they have in mind. I think this is the core value of religion that let it be a breeding ground for sociopaths and a vector for doing terrible things, not the belief in a supernatural being itself. My hypothesis fits in to what happened in communist Russia, where one of the core values was rejecting religion, yet they took a page right out of the religious handbook by creating masses of brainwashed propaganda-fed people who were not allowed to dissent or discuss or think for themselves and manipulated them into doing some truly unspeakable things, no religion necessary. I think this friend of my cousin's might objectively agree with me, but either he has a bone to pick with a certain religous institution for personal reasons or perhaps he just angrily expressed this same opinon in a slightly warped and confrontational way.  


My cousin also agreed with my opinion, and told me that he would not have been so oddly offended if this same message was delivered in this objective, not insult-filled way. Of course someone that was in the throes of the catholic lifestyle would undoubtedly take offence to what I have just described, but I think it is important for atheists to remember that not every person that defines themselves as religious are brainwashed fundies. While I still do not agree with my cousin's now patheistic-type belief, I'm not going to begrudge him his non-interfering-yet-still-there god because honestly I don't see a problem with it, and I have bigger fish to fry. Some many accuse me of being a "soft atheist" but I don't care, that's part of the beauty of atheism, none of us have to agree with each other or any institution and when stating our beliefs we represent no one but ourselves. I see my cousin is one step away from being the catholic version of a secular jew, and if he never takes the final step I don't think it matters all that much. 


I love debate, and if there is something I have discussed here that was either not clear or a point of disagreement please point it out and I'll explain further. I just want both sides to stay away from faux arguments that do nothing other than to annoy the opposite party, which degenerates into huffing and hurt pride as opposed to reasonable debate and opening each others minds to new possibilities. If the other party is offended by the truth then that really can't be helped, but don't set out to annoy or offend without providing a sound argument unless, of course, you're not looking for a debate at all, just trying to legitimize your confrontational rant.

He's Not Crazy, He's Just A Bald-Faced Liar

I have always been particularly fond of Hanlon's Razor, I feel it is wonderfully appilcable to a subset of silly conspiracy theories, religious mania and the like. However, unfortunately, there are many instances in which it simply does not apply.

I suppose my fondness for Hanlon's Razor also has very much to do with the fact that I tend to not think people are bad or immoral by choice, I would rather believe that people are tricked, misguided, ignorant, uninformed, crazy or just flat out stupid rather than being "malicious" or evil people. This is why I roll my eyes at the ignorant fuckwits that plague the human race, but I don't automatically attribute their actions to malice.

Wouldn't it be nice if the world worked the way I wanted it to? An ignorant person can be educated, a crazy person can get therapy, a tricked person can be enlightened, but a willful liar and evil person will go on lying and being evil, they cannot be helped because they don't need fixing. It's a depressing thought but unfortunately, with some people it is absolutely the case. Just look at Marjoe, James Hydrick, each time I see these people just confess they were fully aware that they were making everything up I'm surprised and yet angry at myself for being so naive. But I am getting better at telling the difference, which I realized after seeing this video

As soon as I saw the title of the video I said Ooh great! Let's see what he has to say. As soon as I saw what he said I thought fucking bullshit. I always thought Pat Robertson was crazy. He's one smart pathetic excuse of a human being. Pat Robertson is not stupid or crazy, he's just a fucking liar and he is fully aware that every single sentence that comes out of his mouth is a pile of stinking horseshit. From this interview I'm pretty sure he is also an atheist.

Why do I say that? Contrast him with Harold Camping. Remember him? Harold Camping, I believe, was crazy. So why? What is the big difference between the two?

The difference is that one of them made falsifiable claims by predicting a future event. Harold Camping gave a solid, concrete date that came around relatively shortly after he made the prediciton. It was a date that, once things did not go as he thought he would, people could look at him and say dude, you were wrong. What would a flat-out con artist do? They would say things like "the rapture is coming some time soon, within our lifetimes", or "God told me when it will happen, but I'm not allowed to tell anybody about it".

And that is exactly what Pat Robertson did here. He said he knew, for sure, who the next US president would be, but couldn't tell us. Well why the fuck not Pat? Wouldn't that gain your cause a few extra followers once they saw you made an accurate prediction thanks to your chat with Yahweh? He will not risk being flat-out, wiggle-room-free wrong, and that is why I am convinced he knows that he is full of shit.

Why do I think he is an atheist? Because I cannot fathom someone believing in a vengeful, punishing God taking the piss out of him in front of millions. Can there be greater blasphemy? Would he risk Hell for some blood diamond money on Earth? No way. That guy doesn't believe in a single word he says, including in the very existence of the almighty deity he credits for the amassing of his fortune.

The jig is up Pat. I'm just embarassed it took me this long to figure it out, probably because you really are irrelevant enough to the rest of the world that I was unaware of your very existence until a couple of years ago.

It's Official, I Like This Guy

I keep humming my new favorite Christmas carol of all time, so seeing as I found a few spare moments I thought I'd watch a couple more of his videos on youtube. It is official, I really fucking like this guy!

Now before you feel like thrusting your hand in the air like a good pupil to point out all of the little mistakes he makes when describing evolutionary theory please give a little artistic liberty on this one, it's a stand up routine with a funny conclusion not a fucking science lecture!

And we must conclude with this little nugget of purely offensive-and-yet-really-not-offensive-at-all fun
(animations done by someone else of course)

Yup, it's official. I really like Tim Minchin

Goodbye Christopher Hitchens

Today we lost a great mind. He was a freethinker, he was a drinking badass, an intellecutal, an activist with balls of steel. I didn't always agree with all of his methods, but he was an incredible mind that was lost too soon. djarm67 has posted a great tribute to him to remember him by

May you rest in peace in the nothingness