DangerousTalk

I don’t understand why Christians believe in Earthly justice. Why send a murderer to prison for 60 or 70 years when they will be sentenced to Hell for all eternity? Isn’t Hell enough?

It seems to me that from the Christian perspective, human justice is somewhat meaningless. How can evil sinful humans compete with God’s perfect justice system of eternal torture for every offense and no parole? Murder a million people, Hell! Work on Saturday, Hell! Both crimes are equal in the eyes of the Lord.

Since Christians can be more than confident that God’s justice system will catch all wrongdoers, wouldn’t it be merciful to let these criminals out of prison. Shouldn’t we trust God with their fate?

If God wants to punish them in live as well as death, I am sure he would find a way to do it. I don’t think Christians ought to put their trust and faith in human justice.

As an atheist, I have no confidence in God’s justice and no faith in the judge. So I strongly support the imperfect justice systems of humans.

Filed under: faith, Judge God, Law, Religion, sin | 3 Comments »

Professor Stephen Hawking recently stated that aliens almost certainly exist and that it is probably unwise for humans to attempt to contact them at this time. Sure, in the context of his Discovery Channel television series such a statement seems innocent enough, but what the smartest man on the planet didn’t foresee was that every news station in the country would rebroadcast his comments to teabaggers.

Hawking’s reasoning is that aliens capable of faster than light travel would probably have been driven to such technology out of necessity; in particular the necessity for resources. If our history is any indication, we could be the next Native Americans to an alien white man. This is certainly sound reasoning and intelligent people should always be skeptical when dealing with unknown beings (be them human or alien). However, we must also reach out and try to make friends with our neighbors (be them human or alien).

I think Hawking takes that for granted. Unfortunately, we have teabaggers who are generally too emotional, superstitious, and fearful to begin with. Making them more afraid of the unknown is probably not the best idea.

What if we did make contact with aliens and they seem friendly. Rational people should still of course be skeptical but not to the point of being unfriendly or undiplomatic. Not too trusting, but trusting enough. Unfortunately, we have religious wackos who might see an alien race as a threat to their belief system. These people (not necessarily mutually exclusive from the teabaggers) tend to already be fearful and don’t really need Dr. Hawking to give them any more reason to pick up their pitchforks and form lynch mobs.

I think there is a middle ground between handing a stranger the keys to the city (or the planet) and chasing them off the planet with pitchforks. Could you imagine a President Sarah Palin having to deal with an alien first contact? Even if those aliens were genuinely friendly, I think we would be at war. Lesson to Dr. Hawking, don’t scare the superstitious.

Filed under: culture war, Current Events, ignorance, palin, Religion, The Future | 9 Comments »

Yesterday was Boobquake and even though we don’t live in a Muslim nation and hopefully no one in America actually thinks boobs cause earthquakes, breasts are still considered dangerous. Yesterday facebook labeled at least some if not all of the boobquake photos indecent and pulled them from the site.

For those who don’t know what Boobquake is, please check out my examiner article. I am pretty sure that the administrators of facebook weren’t worries that all the photos of partially covered breasts would cause an earthquake under the facebook servers. So why were these photos taken down?

Yes, they obviously were a violation of Sharia Law, but that was the whole point. Breasts aren’t actually dangerous and these breasts were partially covered anyway.

I posted a photo on behave of Dangerous Talk to the boobquake page. This was a photo taken of Dangerous Talk supporter Sachiko McLean. I actually had the choice of posting a fully nude version, but decided that it might be too great a risk if children saw it, there eyes might literally pop out of their sockets. I didn’t want to be responsible for blinding anyone.

I know it sounds silly. I don’t think nude women cause eye balls to pop out of their sockets either. That would make about as much sense as the claim that immodestly dressed women cause earthquakes. Still, facebook pulled down many of these boobquake photos including the Dangerous Talk photo. Why?

I know the reason they gave, but it is just unreasonable. They claimed the photos were indecent. What about them makes them indecent? Why are they indecent? What makes something indecent, anyway? They didn’t cause any earthquakes nor did they cause people’s eyes to pop out of their sockets. So what’s the big deal?

Filed under: Blasphemy, censorship, culture war, facebook, family values, islam, Religion, sex | 7 Comments »

Today’s blog needs a little back story. A few years ago when I was interested in working with progressive Christians on our shared goals, I read a book by progressive Christians and founder of Sojourners Magazine, Jim Wallis. After reading his book, God’s Politics, I realized that he wasn’t much better than the fundamentalists and definitely not an ally. In fact, I have become slightly obsessed with him because he is the leading voice of progressive Christians and is not actually all that progressive.

The Washington Post online has a section called “On Faith” in which they bring up a topic of conversation related to religion once a week and asks prominent people from various religions and atheists to comment on it. In addition to my daily blog here on Dangerous Talk, I also write for the Examiner.com and I have made a point of responding to the “On Faith” topic every week on Examiner.

A few weeks ago, the “On Faith” topic mentioned Jim Wallis and I had the opportunity expose him for the fundamentalist he is. It was then that I originally got the idea to look Jim Wallis up on facebook and add him as a friend.

Last week’s “On Faith” topic had to do with whether religion can handle sex. I of course wrote my response to the topic and for a goof and maybe ever to get a conversation going, I posted a link to the article on Jim Wallis’s facebook page. This is where things get interesting.

Obviously, my response highlighted the fact that religion (Abrahamic religion) cannot handle sex, sexuality, or nudity. In any case, I got an facebook message from Matt Hildreth, the Interactive Media Producer for I assume Sojourners.

Here is part of the message that Matt sent me:

“I have removed you comment not because of the content of the article, but because of the image that had accompanied it. I am afraid that many of our community members will view the cartoon as inappropriate. Feel free to re-post the article without the thumbnail.”

The cartoon in question was titled, “What Atheists Cry Out During Sex” and showed a couple having sex crying out, “Oh Scientific Method,” and “Math.” Here is the cartoon:

Of course this only proves the whole point of the article. Religion really can’t handle sex, sexuality, or nudity. Christianity even the progressive Christians still get up tight about cartoons dealing with sexual themes. While Sojourners hasn’t threatened to kill me over this cartoon like a Muslim group might have done, but still these guys are supposed to be the progressive Christians.

Matt also wrote in his message to me, “We hope that our online community can be a place where people of different beliefs can interact in a welcoming environment.” From the context of the message, Matt seemed to be inviting me to start a conversation. After all, he did say they were a “welcoming environment” and that I should “feel free to re-post the article without the thumbnail.” So that is exactly what I did.

I reposted the article without the thumbnail and added a comment that the request to remove the thumbnail proves the point of the article. All of a sudden those welcoming progressive Christians deleted the link and blocked me from posting on Jim Wallis’s facebook wall.

What if a Christian were to post a Christian article on my wall? I would probably read it and respond. I would feel no need to request that the thumbnail picture no matter what it was be removed (unless it was child porn… you gotta be careful with those Catholics). Now, I can understand if I got a ton of articles from Christians. That would be different. Then I would probably take some kind of action, but one article by one atheist seemed to really scare someone over at Sojourners. For the record, I don’t think Matt Hildreth was the one who blocked me. He seemed cool enough, but you never know. I did point out that he proved the point of my article.

Filed under: Blasphemy, conversation, facebook, Progressive Christians, Religion, sex | No Comments »

The Catholic sex scandal continues and the Vatican has continued to blame everyone except themselves. Most Catholics in America don’t even agree with the Pope on a growing list of important issues and yet they continue to go to church and donate money which gets funneled back to the Vatican to fight for and against issues they don’t agree with and to protect pedophile priests from getting prosecuted.

On the issues front, many Catholics in America and probably other parts of the world tend to be pretty liberal people. Many are very supportive of gay rights including the right to marry, women’s rights to… be equal and to have an abortion if they choose, birth control including sending condom’s to Africa, comprehensive sex education, stem cell research, etc., etc.

Even if some Catholics agree with the Pope on all of those issues, why are they continuing to fund the Vatican’s pedophile protection and relocation program? No Catholic could possibly agree with that, right?

The fact is that any Catholic who continues to fund the Catholic Church is supporting these things overtly and any Catholic who continues to identify with the Catholic Church gives tacit support to the Vatican on these issues. Both world and local authorities are afraid to prosecute child abuse cases involving Catholic priests because the Vatican can boast one billion believers. While some cases have been and are continuing to be investigated, there is certainly a stigma against going up against the Catholic Church.

The fact that there are often Catholics in law enforcement and other positions of public trust can be intimidating to those abused by a priest. It becomes hard to know who to trust. Will those in positions of public trust side with their Church or with the victim? While most of the time, these public servants will take the side of the victim in a professional and unbiased manner, however the very fact that they identify with the Catholic Church is intimidating.

It is time for current Catholics to decide whether or not they can in good conscience remain Catholic. Are they going to continue to give their tacit and overt support to the Pope and the Vatican, or are they going to side with their conscience and help to prosecute those who raped and sexually assaulted children and those who have tried to cover it up by leaving the Church and ending their support to the Catholic Church?

Filed under: abortion, Catholics, culture war, morality, Religion | 1 Comment »

Last night I wrote a great blog for today’s Dangerous Talk continuing the whole South Park controversy. Then, I posted it to the Examiner page instead. So now I can talk about how ridiculous the Muslims are and the Catholics. Both religions are now feeling to the heat from the mainstream religious-ass-kissing media.

The media generally treats religion with reverence even when religious individuals or groups do morally indefensible things. But lately, the media has been taking a more critical tone with the Catholic Church and Islam.

This whole South Park controversy has gotten the media to step up against Islam while using South Park as a shield. The media isn’t attacking Islam, South Park is and the little old media is just covering the story. Unfortunately, Islam is too powerful right now. However, since the Muslim religion has little to no power in America, that fight is more a European battle for the time being and outraging Americans isn’t going to help much. This may be a wake up call to Europe though. We’ll have to see.

The Catholic Church however is really on the run. They might actually lose this fight. When the media started to report all of the sexual abuse and the related cover-ups, most people thought that the Church was too powerful to be held accountable. They still may be, but one thing is certain, they are not nearly as powerful as they were.

I think one of the reasons why the Catholic Church might be losing this one is because they didn’t take it seriously early along. They really thought God had their back and they horribly miss-managed he situation. Instead of being humble, admitting the problem, and being open to the media and the authorities they decided to blame everyone else including the media. That just makes the media double down and people suspicious about what the Church is hiding and who they are really protecting.

It is becoming more and more obvious to the general public (Catholics included) that the Church is more about the money and protecting themselves than doing what is just and right.

The Pope still doesn’t realize it yet, but the world is coming for him. The Catholic Church is going down. Islam might take awhile longer.

Filed under: Blasphemy, Catholics, censorship, culture war, Current Events, Decline of Religion, free speech, islam, journalism, Religion | 2 Comments »

It is pretty well known that Muslim fundamentalists freak out when anyone criticizes their religion or even depicts an image of their prophet Mohammad. In fact, Muslims are even known to get violent about it. Their severe reactions to such trivial things have frightened the media and the entertainment industry.

Yesterday, I published an Examiner article about the website RevolutionMuslim.com’s “warning” to the creators of South Park. I read what Abu Talhah al Amrikee had to say about the South Park episode in question and tonight’s anticipated second part. Amrikee stated:

“We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

“Theo Van Gogh – Have Matt Stone And Trey Parker Forgotten This?”

While I didn’t see this on the website, CNN had reported that RevolutionMuslim.com had posted the home addresses for South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone as well as Comedy Central’s New York City office. The website appears to be down now, so I was unable to investigate that further. I will have to take CNN’s word on that.

While Abu Talhah al Amrikee claims that this is merely a warning and not a threat, he very clearly is lying. There is no doubt that this is a threat. He told CNN that he posted the addresses not as a threat, but merely so people could protest. That is pretty thin unless his idea of a protest is what happened to Theo Van Gogh.

In any case, I guess turn about is fair play so I am going to give Abu Talhah al Amrikee a warning. South Park has a lot of fan Abu and when their creators are “warned” fans of the show just might do what Eric Cartman did the Scott Tenorman’s parents. This is not a threat Abu, just a warning of the reality.

Scott Tenorman’s parents – Has Abu Talhah al Amrikee forgotten?

Oh, and just in case anyone should want to protest Abu Talhah al Amrikee, his real name is Zachary Chesser and he lives at:

13101 Bathgate Way
Bristow, VA 20136
(703) 600-9926
zchesser@gmu.edu

Filed under: Bears, Blasphemy, Current Events, free speech, islam, Religion | 14 Comments »

There is a terrible double standard going on in the world today. Could you imagine how society at large would respond if the headlines of the morning newspapers reported that the largest atheist group in the world had allowed members of their group to molest children? What if the atheist group used member donations to help those who had molested children to move to other areas of the country or even other countries entirely in order to avoid prosecution?

I wonder, do you think people would be spending weeks debating whether this was a criminal act, or whether anyone should be arrested? The Pope is calling for the arrest of the leaders of the atheist group for covering up such heinous crimes. There might be weeks of discussions about how of course the Pope wants to arrest these atheists; he is obviously an atheist hater. Besides, he must be calling for the arrest of atheist leaders as a publicity stunt in order to sell more books.

The fact is that if that were the headline of newspapers across the planet, the FBI would waste no time at all arresting any and all atheists who were suspected of child molestation and those who were involved in the cover up. Other nations would of course take similar measures and no one would debate about whether it was the right thing to do.

It would be front page of the newspaper for a day and a half and then the case would be closed. Groups like Focus on the Family would of course keep reminding people about the evil atheists who molested children and the atheist group that tried to cover it up.

But we aren’t talking about the largest atheist group. Instead it is the largest Christian group, the Catholic Church, which has allowed their priests to molest children and used their members’ donations to fund the relocation of those who molested and raped children so that they could avoid prosecution.

Despite the heinousness of the crimes, the volume of victims coming forward, the evidence against the Catholic Church and even the Pope himself, the media debates whether or not any one should be held accountable. When some people suggest that arrests should be made, they are the ones who are attacked by the media. This media circus has gone on for weeks now and yet most people knew this had been going on for years and even decades.

This should be an open and shut case. Arrest the Pope and all those responsible for committing these crimes and covering them up. What is the problem here? These priests have molested, raped, and sexually assaulted children! The Catholic Church has attempted to cover up these crimes and has attempted to protect those guilty of these heinous acts. Why are we still debating what to do here? It really is ridiculous.

Filed under: Catholics, Current Events, journalism, Law, morality, Religion | 11 Comments »

Over the weekend, I read an interesting article on Huffington Post by Roy Fitzgerald. The article was titled, “Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering up Atheist Crimes?” While there are many problems with this article, there is one issue in particular I want to talk about.

Fitzgerald’s main focus is on Dawkins’s “selective campaigning” against the crimes of the Pope and the Catholic Church. This argument has also been used by the Church itself when they attempted to deflect from their crimes by pointing out that guidance councilors, couches, and others also have sexually molest children.

In Fitzgerald’s article, his claim is that Dawkins is selectively focusing on the Catholic Church and not talking about the crimes of Hitler or Stalin. This Fitzgerald claims amounts to a cover-up. While Dawkins would obviously agree that Hitler and Stalin ought to also be arrested if they weren’t of course DEAD, it should be pointed out that Fitzgerald himself is selectively campaigning for Dawkins’s arrest while ignoring (according to Fitzgerald’s own logic covering up) the crimes of so many other criminals in the world.

The point I am trying to make is that everyone selectively focuses on issues and crimes that we feel particularly passionate about. That doesn’t mean that we think other criminals should not be held accountable for their crimes. However, when the entire justice system as a whole ignores a particular crime because of the power of the person or people committing the crime, then there is a real problem.

The fact is that it isn’t that the Pope is selectively campaigning against other things like condom use, the Beatles, and gays that is the problem. It is that he has actively and deliberately attempted to cover up these crimes. As spiritual leader of about a billion people, he seems to think he is above the law.

No one can focus on all crimes or all issues we disagree with and find immoral. We selectively focus on those issues which we feel passionate about. Just because Dawkins or someone else doesn’t talk about a particular issue doesn’t suggest or even imply that such an issue is morally acceptable.

Filed under: Catholics, culture war, journalism, logic, morality, Religion | 4 Comments »

When I was in grad school, I was already a vocal atheist and was pretty knowledgeable about the greater atheist community. One day a fundamentalist Christian friend of mine was excited to tell me that the most famous atheist in the world had just converted to Christianity. Antony Flew was so famous that I had never heard of him.

On April 8th of this year the most famous (and possibly only) ex-atheist died. To me, Flew’s fame came more when he announced that the vague higher power concept of a creator deity can’t be ruled out and so some kind of god might exist. Christians immediately took Flew’s statement as a declaration of his conversion to Christianity.

Flew found out that Christians were claiming that he had converted to Christianity and wrote a short response titled, “Sorry to Disappoint, but I’m Still an Atheist!” The title says it all, but there were still a few Christians who remained undeterred. Postmodern Philosopher Gary Habermas, Physicist Gerald Schroeder, and others flew to Flew’s side to make the case that God is real.

In 2007, the book titled, “There is a God” reached bookshelves all over the world. The book was authored by Antony Flew… sort of. The book was actually written by ghost writer Roy Abraham Varghese because Flew was starting to literally lose his mind.

Flew was now in his mid-80s, didn’t know much about the internet, started to show signs of senility and memory loss, and was being bombarded by Christian intellectuals who were feeding him inaccurate information which he did not have the ability to fact check.

Richard Carrier, long time friend to Flew had been in snail mail correspondence with him. Carrier is a member of the Jesus Project and a well known atheist. According to an article in HumanistLife:

“Flew wrote back to say he had been mistaken in trusting his Christian correspondents; that Schroeder and his modern-science-is-Genesis theory obviously wasn’t up to date, and that he would withdraw the forthcoming introduction to a new edition of one of his books.”

He continues to say,

“The statement which I most regret making during the last few months was the one about Habermas’s book on the alleged resurrection of Jesus bar Joseph. I completely forgot Hume’s to my mind decisive argument against all evidence for the miraculous. A sign of physical decline.”

Another long time atheist friend of Flew’s, Mark Oppenheimer visited Flew to get a sense of his mental stability:

In “There Is a God,” Flew quotes extensively from a conversation he had with Leftow, a professor at Oxford. So I asked Flew, “Do you know Brian Leftow?”

“No,” he said. “I don’t think I do.”

“Do you know the work of the philosopher John Leslie?” Leslie is discussed extensively in the book.

Flew paused, seeming unsure. “I think he’s quite good.” But he said he did not remember the specifics of Leslie’s work http://rxtadalafil.com/.
“Have you ever run across the philosopher Paul Davies?” In his book, Flew calls Paul Davies “arguably the most influential contemporary expositor of modern science.”

“I’m afraid this is a spectacle of my not remembering!”

… As he himself conceded, he had not written his book.

“This is really Roy [Varghese]’s doing,” he said, before I had even figured out a polite way to ask. “He showed it to me, and I said O.K. I’m too old for this kind of work!”

Antony Flew was 87 when he died and had never accepted Jesus in his heart as his lord and savior. The story of Antony Flew is not one of an atheist converting to Christianity, but rather the tragic story of how the brightest minds in Christianity conspired to take advantage of an old atheist who was losing his mind. While this hasn’t been confirmed, it wouldn’t surprise me if Antony Flew’s last words were, “There is no God… Oh my.”

Filed under: Anthony Flew, conversation, de-conversion, death, deathbed conversion, Evils of Christianity, Religion, Religious Manipulation, Vague Higher Power | 33 Comments »

During the 2008 primary, I strongly opposed Barack Obama as the candidate. I didn’t buy into his message of Change and Hope. While I voted for him in the general election, I still think that he was full of shit. As a point of fact, he hasn’t changed the healthcare system or any other policy he said he would. But today I want to talk about the Hope part and how that affects the community of reason.

Recently, Obama cut the NASA budget and scrapped the Constellation project including the Orion space craft. Obama has pretty much stranded America to the Earth.

Yesterday, Neil Armstrong (the first man on the moon), Jim Lovell (Commander of Apollo 13 – played by Tom Hanks in the film Apollo 13) and Gene Carnan (Commander of Apollo 17) wrote a letter to the President calling his new plan for NASA, “devastating.” They are not alone in that view. Astrophysicist, educator, and director of the Hayden Planetarium Neil deGrasse Tyson echoes their view:

Neil deGrasse Tyson is correct, people are not dreaming about tomorrow any more. This move by Obama kills Hope. But not all of the blame is on Obama here. The fact is that even our television and movies have stopped dreaming about tomorrow or at least have put a more negative spin on the future.

Not long ago science fiction was about space exploration, solving problems, the strength of diversity, and the hope for a better world. I think of shows like Star Trek, Babylon 5, Stargate, and others. Today there is very little sci-fi on television and the shows that were recent hits like Battlestar Galactica were depressing shows about how people and technology sucks.

The community of reason depends of hope for the future. We need to teach people to dream and to reach for those dreams. Technology and science aren’t the cause of our problems, but are our partners in finding solutions. The universe is wondrous with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross, but it’s not for the timid. Today’s dreamers are tomorrow’s explorers.

Filed under: atheism, Current Events, education, Hope, Obama, People of Reason, Politics, science, The Future | 17 Comments »

The Pope is the leader of the largest single religious organization in the world. The Catholic Church prides itself of their strong faith in God, their Lord and Savior. Now that the Pope and the Church are in the middle of a worldwide scandal and literally a billion people are praying for them, I have to wonder if God will answer those prayers.

This really is a test of the Pope’s faith since he and the Vatican have all but ignored the actual scandal. Instead of being open to world authorities and inviting a comprehensive impartial investigation, the Vatican has closed their doors, doubled security, and blamed the media, gays, the devil, the Jews, and anyone else they could think of.

On one hand they seem to have a tremendous amount of faith that all this will simply go away without them having to present an actual defense. On the other hand, they seem to have such little faith in that they have doubled their security and lashed out so strongly against everyone.

Maybe they should just turn themselves in to world authorities, open their doors to a full investigation, and leave it in God’s hands. They always talk about how God works through people, so let him work through the world authorities in open court in front of the entire world.

They say God works in mysterious ways, but there is nothing mysterious about hiding from the law. The more the Church blames and attacks everyone else instead of addressing the real issues and being open to investigation the more they look like a gang of thugs and less like a shining example of God’s love for the world. In fact they look more like a shining example of sexual love for under-aged children.

Filed under: Catholics, Current Events, faith, god, Law, Religion | 16 Comments »

I often break religious believers down into two categories fundamentalists or mainstream. There is however at least one other category that is important to talk about. That is the theologian or scholarly believer.

I was reminded of believers in this category after writing my latest Examiner article dealing with Dispensational Theology. In any case, when we think about the stereotypical fundamentalist, we generally visualize a person who tries to take the Bible more or less at face value. The mainstream believer generally focuses of the parables and the warm and fuzzy parts without much concern for the little details like God’s wrathful, vengeful, angry, arrogant, and tyrannical disposition toward almost everyone.

The scholarly believer is sort of a mix of the two. He or she takes the Bible as seriously as the fundamentalist perhaps even more so but still manages to focus on the warm fuzzy parts. The scholarly believer has mainstream moral values and through lots of mental gymnastics attempts to rationalize the bronze-age stories to fit with modern sensibilities and morality.

These scholarly believers seem to think that if they spend years doing intense and intellectual study of the Bible that some how it will end up meaning the exact opposite of what it obviously says and means. The obvious fact that they tend to overlook is that the Bible was written by men for men (not mankind, men! No women allowed).

The men who wrote the Bible wrote it thousands of years ago for men thousands of years ago. People have learned a lot since those days. We know more about science, history, morality, and just about everything else. Don’t get me wrong, modern readers can learn a lot from old books. Ancient thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, and others have a lot of wise things to say. But when a modern reader finds some aspect of their philosophies that don’t fit our current understanding of the world, we ignore those parts acknowledging that those thinkers didn’t know what we know now about the world.

With the Bible, scholarly believers can’t seem to make that acknowledgment. God some how inspired the Bible authors’ writing and so there must be some reason to rationalize the irrational way so that the aspects of the Bible which don’t fit our modern conception of the world really do fit if one studies it long and hard enough.

Filed under: Biblical Scholarship, conversation, Religion, the bible | No Comments »

PZ Myers had an interesting story on his blog this morning. Apparently the Connecticut legislature is pushing a bill designed to eliminate the statute of limitation on child sex abuse cases. Of course the Catholic Church is less than pleased. I wonder why?

Connecticut’s three Roman Catholic bishops issued a join statement opposed to this bill which has already passed the Connecticut House. In the letter, they urge their parishioners to fight against this bill using some interesting scare tactics.

According to the “pulpit announcement” the bill is targeting “Catholic parishes, dioceses, charities, and hospitals.” The fact is that the bill doesn’t target anyone except those who abuse children sexually. The Catholic Church has nothing to worry about, right?

The state legislature has already revised the bill out of the Catholic Churches semi-legitimate concern that people might file frivolous abuse claims. It is interesting to me to see just how concerned the Church is about this bill. Check out their website and let me know what you think.

Filed under: Catholics, Political Activism, Politics, Religion | 3 Comments »

YouTube has become one of the largest websites on the internet. It gives people a voice and allows for the free flow of ideas. This is one of the main reasons why atheism dominates YouTube so much. But there are some concerns in regard to censorship.

While I understand YouTube’s concerns in dealing with copyright issues and even pornographic content (because even I don’t want YouTube to become Chat Roulette) I think YouTube need a better system of checks and balances to prevent people from flagging videos that they simply don’t agree with as some how a violation of YouTube terms of service.

Here to explain the issue better is Dusty Smith:

Filed under: atheism, censorship, Current Events | 16 Comments »

One of the main reasons why the Catholic Church attempted to cover up the abuses that their priests where engaged in was because it would ultimately impact on the Church’s bottom line. The Catholic Church is after all a business.

I read an article the other day which talked about how a lot of accused priests were moved to remote regions of Canada and Alaska. The reasons for this was that there were less people there and the Church could still get parishioners from more densely populated areas to donate to Churches in more remote areas. In other words, the Church can still make money off of those less populated parishes.

I think it needs to be pointed out that money donated to local parishes don’t necessarily stay in the local community. The Vatican gets their cut from all the local parishes. In other words, when someone donates to their local Catholic Church, they are also giving money to the Vatican to shield pedophiles from prosecution. Money donated by good people wanting to help their community in good faith is actually supporting the systematic obstruction of justice and the perpetuation of more child rape and sexual assault.

Most Catholics in America and all over the world are completely disgusted with the activities of these priests and with the Vatican’s systematic cover-up and obstruction of justice. We need to let our Catholic friends know that by continuing to donate to the Church they are fiscally supporting this system of abuse and they are funding child rapists and child sexual molestation.

The Catholic Church is a business and it is time to boycott that business.

Filed under: Catholics, morality, Religion | 3 Comments »

Last weekend two young Jehovah’s Witnesses knocked on my door. While most people would probably slam the door in their faces, I was happy to engage them in conversation.

These two young women were probably college aged and they were happy to talk about their religion. When they asked if they could talk to me about Jesus, I said enthusiastically, “absolutely, I have been waiting for you guys.” They handed me a copy of the Watch Tower and I asked them if they had always been Jehovah’s Witnesses or if they converted to it from some other belief system. Both girls told me that they had “always believed in ‘the Truth.’” One of them then added that they have also learned about other religions though. They are “encouraged to do so” she told me.

So next, I asked them what they enjoy most about being a Jehovah’s Witness. The lead girl responded by saying that she really loves the lifestyle. She told me that while it isn’t a law or anything, the Church encourages that they don’t smoke, drink, do drugs, or get tattoos. They are encouraged to keep their bodies pure. I told them that I respected that since I don’t do those things either, but I have nothing against people who do. “So you believe more in the lifestyle than the actual religion itself,” I asked. She told me that she believed in both.

It was at this point that an older Jehovah’s Witness saw that I was engaging these two younger women in conversation and came over to see what was going on. She was probably concerned for their welfare considering that most people would have slammed the door in their faces and here I was talking to them. I am sure it became clear to this woman that I was not threatening at all and we were having a very polite and friendly conversation.

I started to address my questions to the older woman now. I asked her why she believed. She told me that she believed in the Bible because it had been handed down unchanged for 2000 years. I quickly informed her that wasn’t true. I told her that the Bible has changed quite a lot since 2000 years ago and pretty much gave her a quick summery of Bart Ehrman’s book, “Misquoting Jesus.”

I turned to the younger women and told them in a pretty enthusiastic tone that the great parable in which Jesus says “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” wasn’t added to the Bible for hundreds of years later probably by some Catholic Priest.

The older woman didn’t dispute my claim. In fact, I think she actually knew it was true. So she quickly changed the topic to faith. She said that I can put my faith in science if I like, but that she puts her faith in “the Lord.” At this point it was pretty clear to both of us that we weren’t going to convince each other. Now we were playing for an audience. She seemed pretty worried that this conversation might de-convert the two younger women.

She then took out her Bible and started to work out her exit strategy. “Before we go, I want to leave you with this one verse,” she said. I turned to the younger women and told them that I don’t have faith in science. Science is testable. I then got very enthusiastic and told them about a recent study in which scientists were able to uses magnetism to alter people’s morality. I went on to say that lots of people think that morality comes from the soul and yet here is this experiment, which shows that it is all in the brain. “Isn’t that fascinating,” I added. The older woman mumbled that she thought it was scary. I agreed and then repeated that it was also fascinating and tells us a lot about human morality.

The older woman finally came up with another exit strategy. She asked if she could take down my name and the best time to visit again stating that they have to “share the message” with more people. I gave her the information, but she didn’t seem to be writing it down. The lead younger girl said that she enjoyed the conversation and that she liked my name. To me this means that she will remember this conversation and talk about it with her friends. The seeds of doubt have been planted.

In retrospect, I probably shouldn’t have let them go so easily. I should have commented on how most people aren’t interested in their message and will probably be hostile toward them and/or slam the door in their faces. Their time might be better spent talking to me. I am open to their message if they can provide adequate evidence. I’m sure the older woman would have hated that. But the younger women seemed genuinely interested in what I had to say. They likely have never really had their beliefs challenged before and I wasn’t been hostile or confrontational. We were just having a conversation and an interesting one at that. I do hope they will come back, but I don’t think they will.

Filed under: conversation, Jehovah's Witness, Preaching, Religion | 13 Comments »

I have been a vocal atheist for a long time and have had long and in depth conversations with people of  many different sects of various religions. Christianity is of course the most prevalent religion in America and I have talked to many Christian sects. But until recently, I had never talked to a Jehovah’s Witness.

A few times I came close to talking to a Jehovah’s Witness. I remember when I was in college, I was home for the summer and a Jehovah’s Witness came to the door of my parents’ house. Unfortunately, my sister answered the door. She rudely informed the Jehovah’s Witness that she was Jewish and practically slammed the door in their faces. After she told me who was at the door, I practically ran after them, but they were gone.

Then a few months back, a Jehovah’s Witness came to my door and I answered it. The problem was that she didn’t tell me she was a Jehovah’s Witness. Instead, she asked me about depression and offered me a pamphlet on the subject. I took the pamphlet and opened it up. By the time I saw that it was a Watch Tower pamphlet (which was pretty quickly) she had already run off. I mean she literally ran.

This woman clearly did not want to spend her Saturday going door to door trying to convert people. I bet she prayed every time that she rang a door bell that no one would be home and that she could just leave the pamphlet. It is sad that her religious leaders made her feel obligated to go and knock on doors. I think 99 times out of a hundred, she probably had gotten the door slammed in her face. It had just so happened that I was the hundredth person and actually wanted to talk to her about her beliefs.

This brings me to what happened this weekend, when two young Jehovah’s Witnesses knocked on my door. But I will save that story for tomorrow. The question of the day is, do you or would you slam the door in the face of a Jehovah’s Witness or would you engage them in conversation?

Filed under: conversation, Jehovah's Witness, Preaching, Religion | 13 Comments »

Yesterday was the holiest of holy days for most Christians. The funny part is that the story they celebrated, the Easter story, really celebrates the ridiculousness of the religion.

We live in a Christian dominated world, so it is safe to say that we all know the basic story. Let me just give a brief recap just so we are all on the same page. Christians expect people to believe that their all-powerful god created an entire universe just for human beings but that he was so stupid as to create human beings knowing full well that they would “sin” and that sin is the one thing, the only thing that God can’t be in the presence of. That is sort of like Superman allowing John Corbin to get into a car accident knowing full well that Corbin would be transformed into Metallo (for the less geeky, Metallo is a super-villain powered by kryptonite).

So God carefully created the entire Universe just for us and then created us knowing we would do get curious and eat from the Tree of Knowledge. This created sin, which is the one thing God can’t tolerate and can’t be in the presence of. It is in essence his kryptonite. That’s just the setup for the Easter story.

So man lives separated from God in sin for at least 4000 years or more. Then God suddenly figures out an elaborate scheme to get rid of sin so that he can hang out with his children for all eternity. God’s timeless so you would think he would have just made this scheme of his instantly. But know it takes at least 33 years.

Enter Jesus. God takes part of himself and impregnates a virgin girl his divine “seed.” Nine months later out pops Jesus. The woman swears she was a virgin and her husband believes her. He thinks that it makes much more sense that his virgin wife got pregnant from God than that maybe she was fooling around with some other dude. All I’m saying is if my wife said that I would be filing divorce papers.

Enter the very ridiculous Easter story. Jesus was devoutly Jewish and yet broke bread (not Matzah) on Passover. He then got the shit kicked out of him despite having more super powers than Superman. Jesus gets himself killed but only for three days and calls that a sacrifice. What exactly is he sacrificing and how is it a sacrifice?

Jesus isn’t dead, dead. He is just temporarily dead and he knows it. So it just amounts to a few hours of pain and suffering. Does this allow all humanity to escape some evil villain? No, it is pointless suffering. Apparently Mr. All-powerful God figured out that the only thing that will destroy his kryptonite is his own blood… but only if you believe this ridiculous story.

This story makes absolutely no sense. Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen had less plot-holes and makes much more sense than the Easter story. Plus Megan Fox is way hotter than Mary Magdalene I’m sure.

If God is all powerful, then he would have no kryptonite and there wouldn’t be an issue at all. If sin is his kryptonite and God isn’t all powerful, then he should have stopped the sin before it came into the world. Even if God fucked up and sin came into the world this whole elaborate scheme to get rid of sin through the temporary death of Jesus seems too convoluted and silly. Calling it a sacrifice just reinforces the silliness. I can go on all day, but this blog is long enough.

Filed under: blood sacrifice, Easter, god, Good Friday, Religion, sin | 28 Comments »

Today is the Christian holiday they call Good Friday. Today Christians celebrate the alleged murder of Jesus. Christians think that Jesus was the greatest person/god ever. But if they love Jesus so much why do they call the day commemorating his alleged murder, “good?”

Most Christians will tell you that the most important aspect of their religion is the death of Jesus on the cross. They believe that the death of Jesus some how paid for the sins/wrong doing of everyone who ever lived. This they believe is the “good” which the holiday is named for.

While there are a number of problems with this, the one I want to focus on today is the hypocritical way Christians in general seem to react to the alleged death of Jesus. Many Christians blame the Romans for the murder of Jesus. Pontius Pilate in particular is a figure who many Christians despise and vilify. Some Christians (like Mel Gibson) blame the Jews for the murder of Jesus. This view continues to play a large role in the anti-Semitism both in Europe and America. Finally, some Christians also vilify Judas Iscariot for allegedly betraying Jesus to those alleged to have murdered him. But how can these people be evil if the murder of Jesus was a good thing?

Christians have to make up their minds about this. Are these people who are alleged to have killed Jesus bad for killing Jesus? If so, then why is this holiday called Good Friday? I would think that if someone helped to save everyone who ever lived and will live they would be heroes. In the religious context, they should even be saints.

On a related note this whole Good Friday/Easter story of Christianity doesn’t really make any sense, so I guess this is just one more nonsensical aspect of this holiday and the entire Christian religion.

Filed under: blood sacrifice, Easter, Good Friday, Religion | 8 Comments »

Due to the recent string of scandals plaguing the Catholic Church, Vatican Biblical scholars have been studying the Bible carefully to find out God’s opinion on rape. They can’t seem to find any passage which states or infers that child rape is a sin. Earlier this morning, the Pope met in a closed door session with the Creator of the Universe and God informed him that child rape is not immoral.

This is of course and April Fools story, but as a point of fact there is no passage in the Bible in which rape (child or otherwise) is considered a sin or immoral. A large number of Christians believe that morality is grounded in the arbitrary whims of God. With that in mind, if God were to state that rape (even child rape) was now moral it would simply be the case.

This is of course ridiculous. Everyone knows that rape (especially child rape) is immoral and wrong. No Biblical discovery or revelation from God would change that fact. Clearly morality is not grounded in God’s arbitrary whims, but grounded instead in the empathy and compassion of sentient creatures toward sentient creatures.

We all have an intuitive sense through our empathy and compassion that forcing sex on someone else especially a child is wrong. That intuition is a product of the brain which allows us to put ourselves in the place of the victim and to metaphorically, “feel their pain.” Interestingly enough, a recent study which appeared in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that magnetic forces aimed in a certain spot of the brain can actually affect someone’s moral decisions. I guess we really do have a moral compass.

Filed under: atheism, morality, People of Reason, Religion, science, sin | 9 Comments »

Over the last few weeks, more and more of the mainstream media have been talking about the “crisis in the Vatican” or “Pope-gate.” More and more of the general public including Catholics are becoming outraged. The systematic cover-up and protection of child rapists and sexual assault on children is not easy to defend against. But they are trying.

Some Pope defenders have been quick to point out there roughly 100,000 reported cases of sexual assault and child rape over 60 years really isn’t that high when you think about it. There are over one billion Catholics in the world after all. “Couches and guidance councilors molest children too!” This is their brilliant defense. “The world is picking on the Catholics.”

I think that the Vatican has forgotten one really important fact with this defense. There are roughly 100,000 reported cases in which Catholic Priests have raped and/or sexually assaulted children and the Vatican and probably the Pope systematically tried to cover it up and protect those accused from prosecution. If a couch or a guidance councilor molests a child, they should be arrested. If the school attempts to systematically cover it up allowing the individual to continue to molest children, then those involved in the cover up ought to be arrested too.

Another great defense is that the Pope is the head of state and therefore above the law. Some moral authority he is. As soon as accusations are made and the court wants to know what the Pope knows and when the Pope knew it, he cries diplomatic immunity.

Do you know who else had diplomatic immunity? Saddam Hussein was also the head of a state and when Bush thought that he may have broken the law by building weapons, we went in there are arrested him. Right or wrong, we got him and the same could happen with the Pope if enough of the world thinks he really is personally involved.

The more that the Vatican and its defenders try to protect the Pope with these lame-ass defenses, the more people are going to get pissed off at the situation. This would increase the likelihood of a military operation to bring the Pope to justice. Personally, I don’t think that is a good way to go for the Pope. I think it would be better for him to turn himself in and defend himself and the Vatican in an international court of law.

The Pope would have the best lawyers money and blind faith can provide. They would be even better than OJ’s lawyers. If he and the Vatican are found not guilty in an international court of law, then this scandal is over and the Catholic Church can go on hustling money at the collection plate. In fact, they can get even more money from their one billion followers by whining about this whole ordeal and how they were found innocent after all and Satan must have been behind the whole plot or something. I’m sure they’ll have a good angle to raise money some how.

But if they are found guilty, that would be a very destructive blow to the Catholic Church; one which the Church might not be able to recover from. The Catholic Church, the Vatican, and the Pope are all on the run and they know it. The more they run the more guilty they look in the eyes of the general public.

Filed under: Catholics, Current Events, Religion | 8 Comments »

There have been hundreds of thousands of reported cases of child sexual assault and child rape committed by leaders in the Catholic Church. In America, most towns and cities have ordinances which forbid “adult” themed stories and businesses from being within a certain distance from schools. Maybe there ought to be an ordinance restricting churches from being within a certain distance from schools.

A few years ago, an adult store marketed toward women opened up in West Chester, PA where I used to live and work. The local Catholic Church went nuts. They circulated petitions, staged protests, and lobbied town officials to shut down this place of business. They claimed that it was too close to their church and too close to their school.

What would it matter if there was a female oriented adult store in close proximity to a church or a school? This store poses no danger to children in any way. The Catholic Church on the other hand does pose a potential danger to children. I don’t think it is safe for children to be in close proximity to Catholic priests (or other Catholic leaders) given the high number of incidents of sexual crimes in relation to the Catholic leadership.

While it is doubtful that such an ordinance would ever get passed in America, I think it is worth pursuing. Perhaps if we could organize a petition and letter writing campaign of our own, we could show that there is a public concern and a concern for our children that we need to address. What do you think?

Filed under: Catholics, culture war, Evils of Christianity, family values, Law, Political Activism, Religion, sex | 5 Comments »

For a long time now, the people of the world have known that many Catholic priests have been sexually assaulting children. This happens so often that it has become a frequent punch line to jokes. Sadly, sexually assaulting children is no laughing matter. It is a crime. In fact, as far as crimes go, it is probably the worst crime someone can commit.

For a long time it has been known that the Catholic Church has been obstructing justice. They have moved criminal priests from city to city, country to country so that they could avoid prosecution for their crimes.

Recently, this criminal ring of child rapists has be exposed in multiple nations around the world and there has been one person who has been chiefly responsible for covering it up. This man is now he leader of the largest criminal organization the world has ever known and it is time to call for his arrest. It is time to arrest of one Joseph Alois Ratzinger, AKA Pope Benedict XVI.

Dangerous Talk is here by calling for immediate action by world authorities to bring this man to justice and to disband his criminal ring. Millions of children have been sexually assaulted and raped by the Catholic Church and they need justice.

Please help in this fight by joining the Facebook Group “Time to Arrest the Pope” and help to spread the word about it. Let the media know that the people of the world are demanding that Ratzinger be brought to Justice. Covering up and facilitating the continued mass rape of children is no small crime that can be overlooked.

This campaign needs to go internet viral, so I am really asking for your help on this one. There are all kinds of groups on Facebook asking for a million fans, but this is probably the most important and so I am asking for a billion fans. If we can get an extremely large number of supporters from all over the world, we can force authorities to take action.

We need to send a very clear message that the Catholic Church is not above the law and that they cannot rape children and continue to get away with it. If any business, corporation, or even emissaries from another foreign nation had done what the Catholic Church has done and continues to do, this would not even be an issue.

If the leader of some other country was personally responsible for the cover-up and continued facilitation of mass child rape incidents which number well in to the hundreds of thousands, the United Nations would put immediate sanctions on that nation and the United States would lead a strong coalition of nations to forcibly remove that leader from power and try him or her for crimes against humanity. How can the leader of the Vatican get away with such a heinous crime? It is time to arrest the Pope.

Filed under: Catholics, Current Events, Evils of Christianity, facebook, Law, Religion | 1 Comment »

I love it when movies about exorcism and demons come out because those films really show just how fictional these things really are. We live in the 21st century and yet the Catholic Church is still running around chasing demons and satanic monsters.

Today I posted a story on my Examiner page about how some Bishop in Australia believes that Harry Potter and Twilight can lead people to the occult. This Bishop also brags about being an exorcist. You know, like the one from the movie The Exorcist.

Personally, I think the real reason that this Catholic Bishop doesn’t like those movies is because it is competition to his brand of fiction. Let’s face facts exorcisms are not as entertaining as they used to be. Sure, occasionally Hollywood will come up with an entertaining film dealing with the subject, but these days less people take exorcisms seriously and that means that they are less scary and less entertaining.

The thing is that the whole demon possession thing is boring and it doesn’t even have a coherent back story. Why don’t demons possess everyone? Why is it that only Catholics or people who were brought up Catholic are targeted by the demons? How come the demons only respond to Latin when being exorcised when they speak English when they possess people?

Sure exorcisms were entertaining back in the day, but this is the 21st century and we have more imagination now… although Hollywood is remaking just about every 70s and 80s television show into movies lately. Still that is more entertaining that demons.

Filed under: Catholics, Exorcism, Religion, satan | 1 Comment »

I know I am known for being a vocal atheist, but the other night I realized the proof for God that I just can’t deny. Now I know that God really does exist. So today I will show you this proof and see if anyone can disprove it.

I was able to touch God, see him, and when I tipped him over, I could hear his contents spilling out. God was very physical and looked a lot like a teapot. In fact God was a teapot. You see, I simply redefined the term God to mean teapot and then it became very clear that God was real.

Would anyone really claim that teapots are imaginary? Of course not, we can see them, touch them, hear them, pour from them, etc. But we can’t just redefine the term God and then prove our personal concept to be true, right?

This is exactly what so many Christians and other believers do. They aren’t talking about the Biblical God at all. Instead, they redefine the Biblical God to mean whatever they think they can worship with a good conscience and call that God. This is what Deepak Chopra did during the Nightline Debate and Sam Harris called him out on it. But this really goes deeper that Deepak.

I submit to you that there is not a Christian today who believes in the God described in the Bible. Not a one. Instead, modern Christians have redefined God to be something that is more palatable to their sensibilities. Just like I redefined God to be a teapot, modern Christians redefine God to fit their own sensibilities and then call that the God of the Bible.

In this way they can attempt to “prove” that God exists. But what are they really attempting to prove? The fact is that the God of the Bible is fiction and no amount of redefining is going to change that.

Filed under: Disproving God, god, image of god, Ontological Argument, Religion, Vague Higher Power | 6 Comments »

Yesterday, I watched the ABC Nightline debate between Sam Harris and Deepak Chopra featuring Michael Shermer and some crazy lady. The subject of the debate was whether or not God has a future. In reality, the real debate was whether or not Deepak Chopra is trying to be the next L. Ron Hubbard.

Many times during the debate, Chopra made statements of fact which were not actually facts. When called out on these assertions, he usually took the opportunity to spout off made up terminology presumably from his books. He was pretty quick with it too. At one point Sam Harris asked him how he defines God and before Harris could even finish, Chopra was rattling off his three word phrase which spelled the an acronym G.O.D.

During another part of the debate, Harris talked about how most scientists are quick to hedge their statements because “they are desperate to avoid public embarrassment” if presented with opposing information. Chopra at this point made an interesting comment: “If I was worried about being embarrassed I wouldn’t be influencing the people that I am influencing.”

Like I said, this is a very interesting statement. Chopra is trying to say that he puts his opinions out there without regard because he is somehow brave or something. But what he seems to be saying to me is that his goal is to influence people and the way to do that is to make bold statements without worrying about being wrong. The way I see it, Chopra is trying to be the leader of a new religion complete with its own terminology.

Unlike other cult leaders, Deepak Chopra doesn’t seem to have a coherent system of belief. Instead, he takes a little bit of science, a little bit of old school religion, a little bit of new age mysticism and throws it out there and sees what sticks.

“The spirit energy of the protons powers our souls to bring us closer to the Universe.” I just made that up and yet to some people that statement is profoundly informative. In reality it is a meaningless string of words thrown together by my Deepak Chopra phrase generator.

To help support my opinion of Deepak Chopra incoherent system of science, religion, and mysticism I give you these Nightline debates. Not long ago, Chopra was on the side of reason (sort of) against wacko fundamentalists in the debate: Does Satan Exist? There too, he was able to use his patented phrase generator to rattle off more meaningless dibble.

There is no doubt that in this current debate, Deepak Chopra dominated the discourse. So much so that Sam Harris had to ask him to “dial it down a little” and told him that he has already talked for awhile. Harris even used his signature line, “You have put a lot on the table.” Even the moderator, Dan Harris, had to ask Deepak to shut up on a few occasions. Still Chopra interrupted everyone and used every opportunity to spout his nonsense.

Filed under: atheism, conversation, Decline of Religion, delusion, god, image of god, Religion, Vague Higher Power | 10 Comments »

In a recent discussion with a fundamentalist, the question was asked to me as to whether or not I wished that God existed or whether atheism was my desire. I thought this was an interesting question for a few reasons.

To start off with, the obvious fact that ones desire for something to be true has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that something actually is true. I want there to be a million dollars in buried in my backyard, but it is extremely doubtful that there actually is a million dollars buried in my backyard. I want to have superpowers and as a point of fact that is actually impossible. So I think this question takes the conversation in the wrong direction. But that aside, let’s proceed.

Do I wish there was a god? Which god are we talking about exactly? The Christian assumes that it is the Christian God, but even that god is not specific enough considering that many Christians have very different ideas of what the Christian God is like. There is of course the God described in the Bible which no modern day Christian really subscribes to. This God is the equivalent to a spoiled bratty kid with a tyrannical disposition. He is as the Bible describes him, a god of wrath, a jealous god, a spiteful god, etc. So if that is the god we are talking about then absolutely no, I don’t wish that god were real.

However, with a little imagination we can take old Anselm up on his definition. Do I wish there was a god that could be describe as that which nothing greater could be conceived? Sure that god sounds like great to me. That god would be perfect in every way: wise, compassionate, understanding, moral, etc. Of course, one look at the world around us proves that such a deity does not actually exist; because if there was a god that had all those traits there would be no suffering or evil in the world.

This brings us back to the old Problem of Evil. As I talked about many times in previous blogs and even an Examiner article or two, Christians will often try to blame suffering and evil on humans or the devil, but the fact is that I can conceive of a deity what could have foreseen all that and stopped it before it started. I can also conceive of a deity that could stop all the pain, suffering, and evil in the world instantly without the need for elaborate scheme of blood sacrifice that take thousands of years to play out.

Getting back to the issue at hand, I don’t think one can really say that atheism is a desire because atheism is not a concept or a thing that is capable of being desired. It is a lack of a thing. I guess I would say that it is my desire to not be shot in the head. In that sense atheism can be a desire, but it is an odd kind of desire when you think about it. Most desires are for something rather than lacking something.

The fact is that the world is a certain way and that science, reason, and logic help us to understand how that way is and how the world works. There are no greater tools at our disposal for accurately understanding the world around us. There are no greater tools that can make accurate predictions about the world around us. Anselm’s God would be able to instantly beam all the knowledge of the universe into everyone’s brain, but since that hasn’t happened, I have a more realistic desire for science.

Filed under: Atheism NOT Religion, blood sacrifice, conversation, delusion, image of god, Ontological Argument, Religion | No Comments »

Last night, the House of Representatives passed President Obama’s Health Reform Bill. Of course none of the Republican’ts voted for it. When it was passed, Obama triumphantly declared that, “this is what change looks like.” Oddly enough, it doesn’t seem to look much different.

I remember when Obama gave his big health care reform speech; he said that he wanted this to be the last time we as a nation had to address healthcare reform. Well, he hasn’t even signed this bill yet and there is already H.R. 4789 in the works. That is the Public Option bill which will actually deliver change. I should point out that Obama isn’t supporting that bill.

Some of my Democrat friends tell me that this bill is still okay since it prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to people with preconditions. Technically it does do that, but it really doesn’t. Sure people with preconditions can now buy insurance, but at what cost? Insurance companies can charge those people millions of dollars. If they can’t pay, no big deal their tax dollar will pay it through the government subsidies for those who can’t afford it. That’s two middle men.

Also, even if someone with a preexisting condition can afford the now higher insurance premiums, that doesn’t mean that the insurance companies can’t use the dozens or maybe even hundreds of loopholes which allow them to deny particular procedures, tests, and specialists. In other words, this bill mandates that everyone has to buy insurance but there is no mandate on the insurance companies to actually pay out insurance.

Quick example, when my wife was pregnant, her doctor referred her to a specialist for something. Every doctor in specialist practice was “in network” except the one doctor randomly assigned to her. In other words, even though we had insurance the insurance company denied the claim on a technicality and we got screwed. We paid our premiums and still had to pay the doctors as if we didn’t have insurance at all. Will this bill change that? No, now we will most likely have to pay higher premiums and get even less service.

Without strong regulations and without a strong public option, this bill amounts to a book-door bailout for the insurance companies. It really isn’t anything to celebrate. Besides, the change that Obama is so proud of won’t even take affect for a few years. Most of the provisions don’t kick in until 2014. Some don’t even kick in until 2020. Between now and then, the Republican’ts might be in power and they might even reverse any positive aspects this bill might have long before those aspects take effect.

It really is sad that even when Democrats win, we still lose. So many people really thought Obama was going to bring change to the system. When he said that he wasn’t going to play the game, but rather change the game in Washington, people really believed him. I tried to tell them that Obama is not a progressive and that he is a middle of the road corporate Democrat, but Fox News was telling everyone that he was the “Most liberal Senator” and even progressives believed it.

Congratulations to the insurance companies who now can raise premiums as high as they like without fear of the free market. They now have the government forcing everyone to buy their crappy overpriced service.

Filed under: Capitalism, Current Events, healthcare, Obama, Politics | 9 Comments »

Christians are always telling me about how crucifixion was the worst way for someone to be killed and that this somehow makes Jesus such a great guy/god for knowingly walking into such a painful death. This, many Christians claim is “The Passion” of Christianity. I just have to laugh.

I know that the alleged crucifixion Jesus was so horrible and everything, what with the whipping, the spear in the side, and the crown of thorns, but that really isn’t the worst way for someone to be killed. Not by a long shot. The Romans did some fucked up torture and everything, but let’s face facts. The real torture experts and innovators were the Christians.

Let me tell you about someone who was tortured and murdered much worse than the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. In 415 CE (1361 BAE), a Christian mob incited by Saint Cyril (then Bishop) pulled Hypatia of Alexandria from her chariot, dragged her across the city, stripped her naked, stripped her flesh from her bones, scattered her body parts through the streets, and burned some remaining parts of her body in the great library of Alexandria where she worked. Crown of thorns, lol.

Why did this Christian mob do this? Well, in 1500 years, Christian mobs haven’t exactly improved much. Hypatia was a scientist, mathematician, and philosopher. In fact, she was the Einstein and Ben Franklin of her day. For starters, Hypatia was an educated and independent woman. She taught men at the Library of Alexandria which goes directly against the teachings of the Bible (1 Timothy 2:11-12). She was a scholar and wore scholarly robes (the clothing of men). Hypatia taught ideas about the world which contradicted the divine truths of the Church. She also publicly and vocally rejected Christianity and the Christian God. She was a “New Atheist.” To top it all off, Hypatia may have been bi-sexual.

Hypatia of Alexandria stood for everything that the Church was against and she was vocal about it. As a result, a Christian mob tortured her in a way which makes crucifixion seem like a light spanking.

Now here are the facts, unlike Jesus, we know that Hypatia was a real person and that these events actually happened. Unlike Jesus, many of her contemporary students have quoted her and her works, we also have the writings of contemporary people who disagreed with her and who were critical of her work.

Here is the subjective opinions and speculations of historians. Many historians consider the death of Hypatia to be the beginning of the Dark Ages. She was an extremely brilliant person and the loss of her works and that of the Library probably set human scientific progress back 500 years or more. Just think about that for a moment. What would the world be like scientifically and technologically 500 years from now? We could have had that already if it wasn’t for Christianity.

Hypatia was a messiah of science. Her death damned the world to darkness. Today, religion hasn’t changed. Still there are even increasing numbers of the Christian mob who attempt to suppress science and scientific education. Whether it is evolution, stem cell research, climate change research, etc. religion is still the same mob just with the weapons of mass media.

Update:

Filed under: blood sacrifice, death, Evils of Christianity, Hypatia of Alexandria, Religion | 7 Comments »