Today I will be performing my duties as an elected official. Last year I won the race for Minority Election Inspector for my local precinct. I won this election by exactly one vote… mine.
Let this be a lesson to everyone, if there is no candidate for a local office that you like, don’t be afraid to write yourself (or someone else) in. If you go to the polls early, see the ballot, and you don’t like any of the candidates for a local office, go home and write up some quick fliers and start a write-in campaign for yourself.
I also would like to encourage everyone to vote Democrat even though they are mostly wusses and let the Republicans walk all over them… and us. The Republicans are just going to be worse and they have already said that if they win majorities in the House and/or Senate they will not compromise in any way.
Here is a great video:
I would like to add that I remember which Party doesn’t believe in the Separation of Church and State and that I remember which Party is batshit crazy!
Over the weekend, Jon Stewart held the Rally to Restore Sanity and tomorrow is Election Day so I thought I would talk about this myth that both political parties are equally extreme.
Toward the end of the rally, Stewart gave his closing speech in which he talked about how people from both sides of the political divide work together everyday when merging from two lanes of traffic to one lane. This was a great point, but during the rally he tried to criticize both parties equally for the extremism in our political system as if to say that both sides were equally as extreme. In fact, that seemed to be the message many people got out of this rally and it is absolutely false.
The fact is that there is no liberal counterbalance to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Fox and Friends, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin, John Boehner, Christine O’Donnell, etc. etc. I could go on all day with Republican extremists. Who is the most extreme liberal? Michael Moore? He is actually a moderate. He has only been labeled an extremist by right wing extremists.
The fact is that there really are no liberal extremists… at least not in the same way that there are conservative and libertarian extremists. Those who showed up at the Rally to Restore Sanity were mostly liberals and hopefully mostly realize that the extremism is really one-sided.
When Jon Stewart said that we are living in “hard times not end times,” I don’t think anyone on the liberal side actually believes we are living in the end times, but that is far the opinion of many on the more conservative side who really do believe that the end times are near. This of course only adds to their extremism.
The problem with Stewart’s message is that Democrats already compromise too much in our current political discourse and so criticizing us for being too extreme is not really helping. While the Republicans complained that Obama wouldn’t compromise even after he started from a compromised position and then only continued to compromise until his Health Care bill was pretty much what the Republicans proposed just few years ago, John Boehner and other elected Republicans have recently swore that when they get into power after this election there will be no compromises.
Stewart said that there was only one or two assholes who would cut people off when merging, but the fact is that in politics most of the Republicans have just been cutting everyone off and Democrats have been just sitting there unable to move out of fear of getting into an accident. The Republicans have already shown that they are not about merging into traffic peacefully by being the Party of no. Currently every bill that the Democrats put up the Republicans vote against even if it was a bill they suggested. Obama has been able to get one or two Republican votes on a few issues, but for the most part, the American people are being held hostage to the Republican assholes who won’t let anyone else merge into traffic.
This is going to be a pretty packed weekend. Saturday is of course the DC Rallies and Sunday is Halloween. I love Halloween. It is one of my favorite holidays.
I talk about why I love Halloween more in today’s Examiner Article, but I do have some reasons for loving Halloween that I only hinted at there. To give you some idea of how much I love Halloween, a few years ago I started the Halloween Forever Project here on Dangerous Talk. Although, I haven’t gotten a whole lot of submissions for this in the past, I am really hoping this year will be different.
So this weekend I am really asking a lot of all the Dangerous Talkers out there. If you are going to the DC rallies or going to watch the rallies with groups of people, I am asking you to take some photos with the DT Logo for a future blog and/or Examiner article. And I am asking you to take some photos with the DT Logo for the Halloween Forever Project.
Also, feel free to comment about any interesting Halloween conversations you have with the religious this weekend. Have fun and Trick or Treat! No, it’s not just for kids, dammit!
While the forces of sanity and fear square off in our nation’s capital, the forces of reason are also converging. For those going to the Comedy Central rallies hosted by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, atheists are gathering together at the event.
I just posted an Examiner article with all the details. Unfortunately I will not be able to make the event, so I need your help. If you are going to the event in DC or to any of the smaller events in which people will be watching the dueling rallies on television, please take photos. I would love it if you would send me photos of atheists at these events. Also, Dangerous Talk needs to be represented. So if you are so going to the DC Rally, please consider printing out a Dangerous Talk Logo and waving it around.
I am disappointed that the rallies are taking place the night before Halloween and the last weekend before the election. That really is a bad time for this kind of event. They should have done it a few weekends earlier, but oh well. I do think this is a great event for atheists to come out in force and to show that we are out there and passionate about the political climate we live in.
It does annoy me that “sanity” is being mistaken for “apathy” in a weird sort of way. Usually people don’t rally for apathy (mainly because they just don’t care), but some of the signs I have seen that the Daily Show is trying to get people to hold seem to be more supportive of apathy than sanity and reason. So I am hoping atheists go to the rally with signs supporting reason and maybe even signs critical of religion. After all, Glenn Beck’s rally was primarily a religious one.
Print out a Dangerous Talk Logo, take lots of photos, e-mail them to me @DangerousTalk@Gmail.com, and post your any interesting stories here.
I once joked that if there is anything in me that could be considered faith it would be my faith in people. This however is a slightly different use of the term “faith” and so it would be more accurate to say that I don’t really have anything in me which could reasonably be considered faith.
When I first started using my line about having faith in people, a friend of mine pointed out that it was less of a faith thing and more of a reasonable expectation. When you get to know people, you begin to form bonds with them and trust them to varying degrees. Because of those bonds, one has a reasonable expectation that they “have your back” so to speak.
Now I will admit that I take that reasonable expectation to the very edge of reason, but there is reason there. It isn’t the same thing as faith which the Bible defines as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” To put it simply, faith is belief without evidence.
So my use of faith in reference to people really is a misuse of the term. We trust those close to us because we have experience with them. Based on the evidence of that experience we often get a reasonable expectation that they will help us when we need help.
I still like my line that if there is anything in me that could be called faith it would be faith in people. I think that line helps to show believers that they have their priorities turned around. Instead of hoping for help from their imaginary friend, they should be asking for help from their actual friends. In fact, instead of trying to help God with his divine plan, they really should be trying to help their friends and family with their more earthly plans and endeavors.
Over the weekend, I seem to have gotten into a few conversations with various progressive Christians. These are Christians who take their faith seriously, but who tend to focus more on poverty issues than the culture war issues. They are the so called, “good cops.”
First, I got into a conversation with the progressive Christians of Sojourners. These are the followers of the Reverend Jim Wallis. If you don’t know him, he is the James Dobson of the Christian Left (although he would disagree with the analogy).
Wallis posted an article on his website talking about how he was happy to wear purple to show solidarity against gay bullying. The thing is that Wallis is against gay marriage. Ever since I read his book, “God’s Politics” I have had something of an obsession in exposing Wallis as being a not that great good cop Christian. Sure he is more liberal than Dobson, but he still supports lots of things that are immoral and wacky.
When I commented on his article on his website, many of his fellow progressive Christians started to talk about these issues. It turns out that some of the liberal Christians agreed with me and also wanted Wallis to throw his weight in support of gay marriage. Other however seemed almost indistinguishable from the Christian right.
Then I was reading an article on the FriendlyAtheist that was written by a progressive Christian. One of the arguments he made was that atheists have faith in reason. This type of view really pisses me off especially on Hemant’s website because I had seen a discussion that Hemant had at a Christian college in which they really beat him over the head with this argument. So I really had to get into it. If you are interested in defending against that argument check out THIS ARTICLE.
The Christian who wrote on FriendlyAtheist, also admitted that he thought his own beliefs were ridiculous, yet he still claimed to believe them. His view of Christianity was so vague that anyone could be considered a Christian regardless of what they believe or don’t believe.
With a little over a week to go before Election Day, it is time to start playing the Lawn Sign Game as a predictor of the election. It is a pretty easy game to play and can be great fun for small road trips. While it isn’t a perfect prediction of local election outcomes, it does give you a good idea who might win.
Here is how the game is played. When you drive around an area, it is important to notice signs for the various candidates. On public property, candidates often put up multiple sign. This only count as one if they are in the same area of public property. So if you see four signs grouped together for the same candidate on public property that is only one point. Public property signs are one point because they really just represent the effort of the campaign and not really any votes.
When you see signs on private property such as a business or on someone’s lawn count as two points per household. Larger homes may have multiple signs to cover various angles, but that still only counts as two points. One house, one vote! But since this represents an actual voter or multiple voters, that is worth more points than a sign on public property.
Bumper stickers for a candidate are worth three points. Most people just aren’t willing to put a bumper sticker on their car for a candidate except in a presidential election year. So if you see a bumper sticker for a lower office that represents not only a vote, but also a high level of enthusiasm.
You can score this just for a quick trip to or from work, when you go out to the grocery store, or you can keep a rolling tally for a day or up until Election Day. Feel free to post your Lawn Sign Scores and let’s see if it is a good predictor for the election, or just a fun little game.
Not long ago, I made the case that the Tea Party was a re-branding of the Christian Right. A few “Tea Baggers” disagreed and reiterated the position that it is an pro-Constitution/cut government waste movement. Well, this is their lucky day, because I have discovered a perfect test to see which one of us is correct.
It has come to my attention that the House and Senate religious Chaplains are paid with tax payer money. This is clearly an issue of Church/State separation (i.e. unconstitutional), but more then that, this is an issue of government waste.
The Tea Party candidates pride themselves for being outside the “establishment” and as a result they seem to have no problem questioning little things like the 14th, 16th, 17th, and even the first amendment. Those are some pretty bold positions to take, so they clearly are willing to take on unpopular positions like pulling the tax payer salaries of these Chaplains.
So here is the test. Please go to your next Tea Bagging Mob… I mean rally and tell them that you think the local candidate should pledge to stop tax payer funds from going to the Congressional Chaplains. Tell them it is wasteful government spending (because it is). Let your Tea Bagger candidate know about this and see if they will take up the cause of stopping this government waste or whether they will refuse to take this challenge because they value religion over saving tax payers money and the Constitution. Let me know your experiences. Come back to this post in a few days and tell us what you have learned.
I bet you that even the Son of Dr. No won’t touch this unconstitutional waste.
Yesterday I talked about the perception that criticism and mockery is often considered going negative. Today I want to talk about the value of criticism and mockery. Quite simply, it is how we learn.
When presented with an idea (good or bad) we have to think about the idea. Sometimes we don’t do that or we don’t think deeply enough about the idea. This is where someone else comes along and points out why the idea is poor by criticizing the idea. Their criticism may or may not have merit, but at least now we can think about those criticisms.
Sometimes however, ideas become deeply held beliefs and regardless of how valid the criticism might be, we still reject that criticism and cling to the belief. We might even insist that the belief be taken seriously and believed by others on insufficient reasoning and/or evidence.
This is where mockery comes in. When people refuse to take our deeply held beliefs seriously, we might dig in deeper in trying to get people to take our beliefs seriously. The more people mock the belief, the more we are confronted with the criticisms of the belief and he more we must try to deal with those criticism if we still expect our beliefs to be taken seriously.
Mockery is withheld as a last form of criticism for those who refuse to have their ideas criticized. It is more dismissive of the idea and usually only comes in when the particular idea is really ridiculous and worth mockery. It is a message that, “hey, your idea has way too many criticisms and is just so ridiculous that is really isn’t worth taking seriously at all.”
A lot of people criticize me and other atheists because we criticize religion. They seem to think that criticism is “being negative.” Oddly enough, these people don’t think they are being negative when they criticize us for being negative.
People keep asking me to stop being critical of religion and to stop mocking religion. But we have to remember that we ought to be critical of all ideas and beliefs. That is called thinking critically. Those ideas that cannot stand up to criticism should be abandoned and mocked. I’ll stop mocking ridiculous beliefs when those beliefs stop being ridiculous.
The fact is that the way I and other atheists treat religion is no different than the way everyone else in society treats any other ridiculous idea. The famous example is the belief that Elvis is still alive. If someone went into a job interview and made a point to talk about their strong and deeply held belief that Elvis lives they would probably not get the job. Is the company discriminating against this person’s strong faith? You bet they are. Should they? Maybe, if they feel that someone who holds such a ridiculous belief may not be sane in other areas. But if a few million people believed that Elvis was still alive, that would be a religion and completely immoral to discriminate against, right?
Criticism can be negative, but it doesn’t need to be so. Sometimes we criticize ideas so that they can come up with better ideas. When criticizing bad ideas isn’t enough, mocking bad ideas may be the only way to get someone to think critically about those ideas.
Being “negative” through criticism and mockery can help people abandon bad ideas in favor of better ones. This of course does not mean that all criticism and mockery are good. Criticizing someone for a trait that they cannot control helps no one; nor does mockery of the same sort. Calling someone stupid is also not helpful. Calling someone ignorant however, might be helpful if it inspires them to learn.
Mathematics is one of those things that is not open to interpretation. It doesn’t matter who counting the numbers, they should always add up the same. But there are a few instances within Christianity in which the divinely perfect numbers just don’t add up.
The first an obvious mathematical equation that doesn’t add up is not really Bible based, but most Christians today accept it as Christian doctrine. That of course is the Holy Trinity. This is where 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 (God Head + Jesus + Holy Ghost = God). Of course Christians have all sorts of rationalizations about this including the idea that these are three different states of the same form. The problem with this line of thinking is that the Bible seems to disagree. Jesus is often found to be ignorant of the mind of God just as much as everyone else. If he was simply another form of God, he would not have that ignorance problem and would not need to ask God questions like, “Why has thou forsaken me?”
This brings us to Jesus himself who is 100% human and 100% God and yet still manages to equal only 100%. It seems that fractions aren’t Christianity’s strong suit.
The final example of flawed Christian math for today is in 1Kings 7:23-26. In this passage the Bible claims that the PI is 3.00 and not 3.14etc. This is something that even people living in other parts of the world knew at that time. There really is no excuse for why God didn’t know this except maybe that the first book of Kings wasn’t written by God but rather by a really uninformed human being with no divine inspiration or input.
A lot of people get tripped up on labels and people in the greater atheistic community are no exception. Two of the main labels that tend to confuse a lot of freethinkers are atheism and agnosticism. Of course many religious people have learned to exploit this confusion.
I have written quite a bit about the difference between atheism and agnosticism before and it has even become the first in my Atheism 101 series for Examiner. You check out that article HERE.
But over the weekend, I found a video that does a great job addressing some of the objections to the distinctions made between those two labels. I will post that video at the bottom of this post. But first I want to stress that the problem for most non-believes seems to be more in the labeling and less in the actual positioning.
Some people who use the term “agnostic” just think that the term “atheist” has a harder and more aggressive connotation while those who prefer the term “atheist” tend to think that the term “agnostic” is too wishy washy. Regardless of the label used, we are all on the same side. Religious people might exploit the confusion, but make no mistake that to the fundamentalist, we are all heathens who have rejected their God and are destined to be tortured for all eternity.
There are lots of different types of believers in the Abrahamic God and they all have different reason for why they believe. But at the end of the day, whenever they are advocating for belief it almost always comes down to the carrot and the stick. Belief basically amounts to a threat of eternal torture or a bribe of eternal bliss.
Fundamentalists tend to focus on the threat of torture so much that there really is nothing more to be said. That tends to be their first and usually only line of argument. But more mainstream and progressive believers, the lure of eternal bliss has a much stronger appeal. This covers the arguments of what happens when we die, purpose, revelation, etc.
Either way, believers in both camps tend to focus on the after life rather than on this life. Even when a believer does talk about how their belief has changed their life… while they are still alive it is almost always in the context of giving them direction to get to the blissful Heaven or scare them straight away from the torturous Hell.
This is a real difference compared to Humanism. We have no threats, no bribes. Why believe in a god, just be good for goodness sake. The focus is on reality and our common desire to live a good life and to help others live a good life. If you don’t, you will not be tortured for all eternity. The only bribe here is that you live a life that you can be proud of and that others can be proud of you for living.
So yesterday was the big debate between Delaware Senate candidates Christine O’Donnell and Chris Coons. The debate has gotten a surprising amount of press for a race that seems all but decided. Despite Chris Coons’s unfortunate name he came into the debate up almost 20 points in the polls.
It isn’t like this is an important debate. They aren’t running for President or anything. They are running for Senate in Delaware and one of the candidates is up nearly 20 points! Still, Wolfe Blitzer moderated the debate and it got center stage in the national media. Here in Pennsylvania we have an exciting Senate race in which the two candidates are separated by only 3 points and the outcome is much more in question. Will CNN cover any of the PA Senate debates?
It is Doubtful CNN will cover the PA debates with the same coverage as they did this Delaware debate because let’s face facts, this debate isn’t about the Senate, it is about Christine O’Donnell. People want to see what wacky thing she is going to say next because she is a clown and people want to be entertained by her. While I only watched half of the debate so far, it is clear that Wolfe’s questions seemed focused much more on O’Donnell’s wackiness despite Coons’s attempt to keep it focused on actual issues. The whole show was designed to see if they could get Christine O’Donnell to say something wacky.
Republicans will call this the left wing media conspiring against them, but the reality is that the media is conspiring to be entertaining and they think O’Donnell will deliver. They pretty much failed. Sure O’Donnell didn’t get all that specific, Coons had to correct her when she talked about Iraq when she meant Afghanistan, and O’Donnell couldn’t name a Supreme Court case she didn’t like, but those are really minor flubs compared to the things she has said on other shows and in her own commercials.
Chris Coons came off as a knowledgeable statesman who was embarrassed by having to debate a clown in a circus tent. Christine O’Donnell came off as less clownish than she had previously, but her continued ridiculous attacks on Coons did seem a bit childish.
Still, in a race between a statesman and a clown, most people will vote for the clown every time.
No one actually wants politicians to fix problems; they just want to be entertained by them. So I am predicting an O’Donnell victory in Delaware despite the fact that she is almost 20 points behind Coons. George Carlin put it best when he said that the reason we have stupid politicians is because we have stupid people voting for them. We get what we deserve.
I was talking to a Christian the other day and I mentioned that the Bible didn’t say anything condemning rape. My Christian friend corrected me by pointing out Deut 22:25-27. But it seems that he took the verse out of context.
Let us just take a look at the verse that my friend pointed out using my favorite Bible tool, the BlueLetterBible.org:
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; [there is] in the damsel no sin [worthy] of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so [is] this matter:
For he found her in the field, [and] the betrothed damsel cried, and [there was] none to save her. (Deut 22:25-27)
Well that certainly does say that the rapist should be put to death. So that must mean that rape is morally wrong, right? Well, not so fast. Let’s look at the very next verse:
If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. (Deut 22:28-29)
In other words, rape is just a property dispute. The key issue in the first verse was that the woman was “betrothed.” She belonged to someone else. But in the latter verses the woman was a virgin and didn’t belong to anyone. The rapist had damaged the goods as it were and so was then legally obligated to purchase the damaged goods (i.e. the woman).
Not only does this group of verses not state that rape is morally wrong, it actually shows that women are property. This is just one of the reasons why the Bible is not a good guide for morality. If someone where to state that rape was not morally wrong in today’s society, they would and ought to be treated as insanely dangerous.
Today we rightfully consider rape to be one of the most immoral acts someone can do and yet it isn’t even in God’s top ten list of things not to do. According to the Ten Commandments, it is more immoral to work on Saturday than it is to rape someone.
I was talking to a fundamentalist Christian friend yesterday and I asked him if he thought gay marriage should be illegal. He informed me that homosexuality was a sin and that he has no objections to making “wallowing in sin” illegal. So I asked him if all sin should be illegal and he said, yes.
While my friend is certainly not he typical fundamentalist, I do think many if not most fundamentalist/born again/evangelical/etc. Christians would agree with my friend on this one. In fact, while my friend is actually more indifferent to law, I would say most fundamentalists aren’t.
Fundamentalist and family values groups are actively working to change our laws so that they match with Biblical laws. These people are envious of the Taliban and of many of the Islamic nations which have been able to enact laws to fit with their interpretation of their holy book. If they can make all forms of “sin” illegal, they will.
Over the weekend, two of my friends got married… I mean Civil Unioned. This was the second Civil Union I’ve attended. While everyone had a great time and I am very happy for my friends, I can stop thinking about the fact that technically they are not actually married.
While they have most of the same rights as married couples, society treats them separate and not quite equal. Unfortunately, the main group of people responsible for the fact that they can’t get married in New Jersey is the religious. In fact if the religious right had their way, gay people won’t even be allowed to have Civil Unions. They might not even be allowed to live.
Again, I am forced to realize that if the large number of religious fundamentalists had their way; America would be much more like Islamic countries and many issues. On gay issues especially, the religious right stand in solidarity with their Islamic competitors. But it isn’t just the extreme fundamentalists that prevent gays from getting married. We like in a society of vocal religious wackos and spineless mainstream religious believers who allow the wackos to run the show. The mainstream religious believers tend to support gay marriage in most polls, but they are afraid to go against the fundamentalists.
Worse yet is that whenever secularists and atheists criticize religious fundamentalists on this issue and many others, the mainstream religious believers jump to the defense of the fundamentalists. It annoys me that my friends have to be treated differently because some ancient book says that gay people should be put to death.
I think there seems to be some confusion. When someone does something horrible, I often hear others (even non-Christians) claim that the behavior in question wasn’t a very Christian thing to do. Have these people read the Bible?
Yes, there are passages in the Bible where Jesus says to turn the other cheek, love your enemy, and do unto others. What most people seem to forget however is that there are also passages in the Bible in which Jesus says to hate your family, pluck out your eyes, cut off your hands, follow him or to Hell with you… literally, non-Jews are swine, etc. And that is just the New Testament.
The fact is that murdering someone because they are gay IS the Christian thing to do. Going around and calling people one disagrees with “swine” IS the Christian thing to do.
It seems like there is some confusion even among non-Christians about exactly what the Bible says. So whenever you hear someone say that some abhorrent behavior isn’t very “Christ-like,” I hope you will take the opportunity to explain to them exactly what the Bible says and why anyone with any shred of morality would reject such a hate-filled holy book.
I never really understood the idea of a Church… at least not from a theological point of view. If God is supposed to be everywhere, then what is the point of having a house of God? Now of course there are other reasons for have Christians to build Churches.
From a historical stand point, it seems like churches were built because our culture at the time was used to building temples to the various Gods. So it made sense to just change the name of those temples to a different God and then build more. It was much easier than tearing down the temple and building something useful like a school, hospital, or a strip mall.
Then there is the fact that when you get down to it, religion is a business and businesses need to make money. Having people come to a fancy building every week really helps to sell the God thing. You have the beautiful stained glass, the shiny gold trim, and masterful works of art all of which are designed to make people feel in awe. Church goers are so dazzled by all the shiny objects that they ride an emotional high which the Church takes advantage of to elicit more devotion and to get people to donate more to the Church.
Having everyone chant in unison also helps to create a stronger bond with the “in group” and with the Church leadership. When the collection plate gets passed around, people a are more willing to give.
But none of this has anything to do with their imaginary God. God is supposed to be everywhere (except Hell of course). So again what would the theological reason be for building a house to God? When Christian fundamentalists say that “the holy spirit is present in this room,” isn’t that a given? So much for omnipresent.
If I through a loud party, there would be a pretty good chance that he police would come over and either talk to me about it or ticket me about it. There are of course local town ordinances dealing with sound. Yet everyday at noon, I am forced to hear church bells ringing from every other street corner.
Not only are these bells loud, annoying, and from multiple churches in a 5 block radius, but they also serve as a constant reminder that religion is everywhere. It is reminder that these bells are on tax-exempt land. They don’t pay their fair share, so I have to pay their share for them so that they can use that money to spread hate, ignorance, ridiculous stories, and annoy me with their constant bell ringing.
More then that, these bells are a reminder that churches are above the law. If I decided to go out and buy some super loud and obnoxious sound device, I would be in violation of noise ordinances, but churches can get away with it.
The other day, I got an e-mail from Liberty University. It was actually more of a spam mail. It seems that the Jerry Falwell School of Brainwashing has started an online degree program.
I feel sorry for online colleges like Phoenix University that already struggles to be taken seriously and not they are put in the same boat as Liberty. I do think that this home schooling university program will not be as successful as Liberty administrators might think.
One of the advantages of a Christian collage for fundamentalist Christians is that everyone there thinks and believes the same thing. A campus of likemindless creates a group think. Those who “study” at home will not have the “advantage” of the group think and so they will be more vulnerable to actual thinking. So when they have a question about the questionable material, instead of turning to a professor of fellow students, they will probably turn to the internet since that is where their classes are being held anyway.
Of course, atheists dominate the internet. So Liberty University Online will attract fundamentalists, but will lead them eventually away from religion toward atheism.
Christians often accuse me of being too vocal about my atheism. Some have even claimed that I wear my atheism on my sleeve. While I do have a few atheist t-shirts (maybe three), I rarely wear them except to atheist meetings and meet-ups. Sure I have a bumper sticker, but that really is about it. If people don’t talk religion with me, they might not know I am an atheist. On the other hand, there is no hiding from religion.
Religion is everywhere and you can’t escape it even if you go out of your way to try. How any atheists wear atheist jewelry? Not many. How many Christians wear crucifixes or other religious symbolism? Even those people who aren’t all that devout in their beliefs seem to wear religious jewelry.
There are Church vans and cars with Jesus fish driving around all the time. For every one car with an atheist bumper sticker, there are about 1000 or more Christian bumper stickers. But my bumper sticker is being too vocal about atheism?
How many atheist meeting halls does one pass on a daily basis? Oh none, because most atheist groups don’t have meeting halls and have to meet in libraries, coffee shops, and restaurants. On the other hand, there are churches on almost every other street corner in America.
Atheists have started to put up some billboards in the last few years, but our billboards (despite the controversy surrounding them in the media) are tame compared to the Christian billboards all over the country.
My challenge to people both theist and atheist is to see if you can go one day without religion being in your face in some capacity (without deliberately seeking it out). This challenge will be difficult because you won’t be able to spend any “In God We Trust” money. If theists are interested, they can even try this with atheism and see how much atheism is really in their face. Let us know what you find.
Why are people convinced that ancient people knew some great secret to the universe that all our modern knowledge just can’t figure out today? This is not just an issue with religion, but with supernatural mysteries also.
I’m not saying that we know everything. That would be stupid. But I am saying that we know more today than we knew yesterday. That’s called learning and it generally doesn’t go backwards. We don’t generally lose knowledge and yet most people seem to be convinced that ancient people who had far less knowledge then we do today knew some great secret that we have missed.
Whether it is the secrets of Atlantis or the secret knowledge written in holy books that only the faithful can decipher, the belief is the same. Ancient people who didn’t even come close to the level of knowledge we have today knew an amazing thing that we don’t know today.
Don’t get me wrong, there were some pretty smart people in the past who had some really great ideas that modern science much later confirmed. Religious people always jump on this by taking obscure Bible verses and taking them to mean things that were only confirmed by modern science within the last few hundred years.
But I think of Democritus who thought up the idea of atomic particles 2500 years ago. The thing is that while Democritus thought up the idea, he had no way to test it or to confirm it as a fact. It was just an idea and Democritus had a million of them. Some were really good and we remember them, but most probably weren’t. Besides, there is a difference between coming up with an idea and actually proving that the idea is a reality.
The fact is that today we know more about the world around us then we ever have known and we are still learning. While we can learn new things from the past, it is extremely unlikely that people in the distant past who knew far, far, less about the world then we do today knew some ancient secret for profound significance that we just can’t figure out with our modern science. It is such a counter-intuitive idea that I am genuinely surprised so many people buy into it.
Religious believers often claim that God doesn’t care about material possessions. Many fundamentalists claim that God doesn’t care about works. So what does an all powerful God what’s he care about?
Of course most Christians will give you the standard line. We are all evil sinner and don’t deserve to be rewarded in Heaven. God saves us through his grace… wait for it… only if we believe in him and accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior.
Basically, the only thing God cares about is for one species of animal on one insignificant plant to worship him based on insufficient reason and in the face of a ridiculous lack of evidence. God want people to love him for being a jerk and will even threaten you with eternal torture if you don’t love him.
Obviously, this is a made up story created by people who lack imagination. There is no God so it really is moot to ask what he cares about. But I am trying to see this through the eyes of a Christian and it still doesn’t make sense. Why would anyone worship such a self-absorbed asshole?
This is one of the reasons why I often tell Christians that I wouldn’t be a Christian even if they could prove the existence of their God… and fir the record, they can’t even do that.
Unlike most Christians, I have actually read the Bible… all of it. While there are a few positive things in the Bible, most of it is very poorly thought out and very immoral. In fact, you would not be able to find a single person who believes in everything the Bible says and yet you have a whole lot of people who swear they are Christians. So I have to ask, how little does one need to believe to be considered a believer?
Yesterday, every atheist in the country wrote about the new Pew Research survey that showed that atheists know more about religion than the religious. I commented on it on my Examiner page. After taking the 32 question quiz, I got 29 correct (9 above the atheist average and 12 above the average fundamentalist Christian). I often ask professed Christians why don’t give away all their money like Jesus told them to do. Why don’t they stone adulterers, disobedient children, gays, and atheists?
Some Christians tell me that I am taking the Bible too literally while others try to find Bible based loopholes to get around they lack of faith. Ultimately, I don’t have a problem with Christians not following the Bible, but I just want to know how little does one need to follow in order to call themselves a Christian.
Some Christians have told me that the only thing that is required is to believe that Jesus Christ is their lord and savior and I have even meet some Christians who don’t even believe that. In other words, one could ignore all of the Bible and still be considered a Christian. So it seems that one doesn’t have to believe any of the Bible and still consider themselves a Christian.
After 9/11, four atheists started to write books criticizing religion. While the media has dubbed these atheists “New Atheists,” Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett have jokingly labeled themselves as “The Four Horsemen of Atheism.” Now I think there is a fifth horseman, Stephen Hawking.
At the beginning of the month, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow released their new book, “The Grand Design.” While I have not yet read the book, according to reviews and interviews the book seems to address the First Cause argument. According to the Multi-verse Theory described in the book, God becomes unnecessary in the role of Prime Mover. While Leonard Mlodinow insists in interviews that they are not arguing against the possibility of a God, just the necessity of a God, Stephen Hawking has made no apologies.
While promoting the book, Hawking has been extremely critical of religion. One of my favorite of his criticisms was when he stated, “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”
Interestingly enough, before promoting the book, Leonard Mlodinow was vocal in his criticism of religion. During the Nightline debate between Sam Harris and Deepak Chopra, Mlodinow was in the audience and had some questions for Deepak. He actually grilled him on the issue of Quantum Mechanics.
But on the book tour, it is clear that Mlodinow is playing good cop and Stephen Hawking is playing the bad cop. This is why I now consider Hawking to be the Fifth Horseman.
While there are many really important people and great voices within the greater atheistic community, there are two people in particular that I consider my atheist heroes (currently living). Over the weekend, I got to hang out with one of them.
The so called “Four Horsemen of Atheism” are all great people and worthy of admiration but out of the four there is only one which I really consider my hero. Sam Harris is that one. I think I like him the best because he is able to make our case and be funny at the same time and because he is quick on his feet and constantly thinking up new arguments. I however did not get a chance to eat dinner with him over the weekend.
But I did get to eat dinner with my other atheist hero, Fred Edwords. A lot of people don’t even know who Fred Edwords is. He first got my attention when he was the director of communications for the American Humanist Association and appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s show. He kicked O’Reilly’s ass so hard that I took instant notice. I think he did better against a Fox Pundit than any other atheist I have ever seen including Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins. Don’t take my word for it; I’ll post the clip at the end of this blog.
Currently, Edwords is the head of the United Coalition of Reason (UnitedCoR). He goes around the country to various cities and helps to organize local groups of non-believers to work together. UnitedCoR is responsible for putting up most of the atheist billboards and bus advertisements around the nation.
I was a little worried about meeting him because sometime you admire someone until you meet them. But that was not the case with Fred Edwords. After talking to him at dinner and going to his media training class the next day, I admire Fred Edwords even more.
Last night I noticed that Reverend Rick Warren had an interesting facebook status worth commenting on. His status had something to do with unbelievers not wanting to know the Truth of God or some such nonsense. After replying that unbelievers aren’t convinced by the claims made by believers, I checked back to see what other people wrote. One Christian actually said that atheists are afraid of the unknown. This is coming from people who generally speaking believe in an afterlife because they are… afraid of the unknown.
The way I see it, most people of reason love the unknown. We tend to see it as wondrous and exciting. We want to know then unknown and so the unknown fires up our curiosity. The unknown is what fuels our thirst for scientific discovery. More importantly, we have no problem admitting that we don’t know certain thing while the religious tend to be so afraid of the unknown that they label everything known.
Generally when a Christian doesn’t know something, they just fall back to “God did it.” God is the answer to everything unknown. It is the answer to every question. In fact, I bet if Rick Warren put that as his status, all his followers would agree.
Even though the term “agnostic” means without knowledge and pretty much applies to anyone who admits that we can’t know everything, there are some people who insist that agnostic is a category of belief in and of itself. These people insist that atheism is a dogmatic view that someone is 100% certain that there is no god.
These people claim this to be true on the scientific level rather than the general sense. It would be one thing if we could all agree that in a general sense most people are pretty sure that Santa Claus is not real, but can we really say that with 100% certainty on a scientific level? Christians often argue that we would have to know everything and observe that Santa Claus is not part of the set of everything in order to make a 100% certainty claim. This is of course ridiculous.
In the general sense, we can say with reasonable certainty that Santa Claus is not real. No one would or should demand that we must claim to know everything in order to make the claim that Santa Claus is not real. Could you imagine a parent telling their older child that Santa Claus isn’t real and the child then claiming that the parent can’t make such a claim unless they admit to knowing everything?
This has prompted the fictional Atheist Evangelist, Sam Singleton to ask on his very real Twitter, “Do agnostics still put out cookies for Santa?” If there are really people out there who make the claim that we can’t know with certainty that Santa is fictional, then they ought to still put out cookies for Santa because he might exist and we can’t really know for certain.
In a Christmas version of Pascal’s Wager, we can say that it is better to put the cookies out just in case. Yet no one would take such a position for any imaginary being except for God.
I got a message today from a fellow atheist asking why so many atheists take a literal view of the Bible rather than argue the Bible from a more metaphorical position. I think it is a fair question to some degree.
For starters, here in America we tend to run into a large number of Christians who do in fact believe the Bible literally. It is not a small number of extremists who claim that Noah’s Ark was real or that despite being all-powerful God actually had to rest on the seventh day. These are the actual people we have to deal with on a daily basis.
With that said, I do on occasion meet up with Christians who take very different views on Christianity and on the Bible. There are lots of Christians who do take various parts of the Bible as metaphoric. The problem is that few agree on which parts are metaphoric and even fewer have any real justification for why those parts of the Bible are metaphorical.
It seems like the Bible is metaphorical only if it advocates something that a particular Christian doesn’t agree with. This is even the case with the literalist Christians. When Jesus talks about how he didn’t come to bring peace, but instead came with a sword (Matt 10:34) all Christians tend to be quick to call this a metaphor. Well shit on a stick, I really didn’t think anyone actually thought Jesus was wielding an actual sword. Of course that is a metaphor! But what is it a metaphor for exactly? To me, I think that is obvious. A sword generally is a metaphor for violence especially when Jesus just talked about not coming to spread peace. But surprisingly no Christian (not even the literalists) see it that way.
The thing is, when we talk to people who take the Bible as a metaphor, they tend to be Christians who haven’t fully read the Bible cover-to-cover and have very little idea of what the Bible actually says. In fact, they don’t even care what the Bible says. They have pretty much made up what they think the Bible ought to have said and call it Christianity.
It is actually easier to argue with Christians who actually claim to take their religion seriously than it is to argue with Christians who have just some vague view of God and who have created their own religion and call it Christianity. I can go to a fundamentalist/literalist and point out to them what the Bible says. But with a metaphoric believer, I have nothing to really point to because their Christianity is so vague and random. They have nothing to really stand on.
