DangerousTalk

Fundamentalist Christians love to talk about how homosexual behavior is an “abomination.” They are always talking about how God loves everyone, but hates that gay people engage in gayness. It is the whole “love the sinner, hate the sin” thing which just seems to look a lot like hating the sinner in most of these cases.

Well, I decided the other day to take a closer look at some of these passages in the Bible in which God talks about the “abomination” of gayness. Guess what I found? I found a loophole. But before I get to that, let’s look at the passages.

The first passage I am going to look at is one of the most quoted by anti-gay Christians. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.” – Leviticus 18:22. That is pretty straight forward right? Clearly the Bible says it is an abomination and abominations are not good things. But what exactly is the abomination here and what does this passage not say.

Let’s first look at what this passage doesn’t say. It doesn’t say that womankind shalt not lie with womankind. So from this passage, it seems that lesbianism is okay with God (or at least God doesn’t say anything about it here).

Now for the loophole; what exactly does this passage claim “we shalt not do?” I think the key word here is “lie.” In other words, gay men can have gay sex as long as they aren’t lying down. So sex standing up wouldn’t be an abomination. Backdoor Doggie style should be okay with God too.

But let’s look at a little further at the Bible and see if God talks more about homosexuality. Well, we don’t have to go too far, because in Leviticus 20:13 the Bible says, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.” Wow, not only does this passage also focus on the lying down of the men with each other, it also says that those who do lie down with other men should be put to death. Those are some mighty strong words coming from the Creator of the Universe, Lord of mankind. It kind of makes me wonder why I don’t see Jews and Christians do what many Muslims do and go out killing gay people (or at least the gay men who lie down with their partners). This verse is pretty clear that those who commit this abomination “shall be put to death.” I don’t think lobbying against Gay Marriage really is fulfilling the full letter of God’s Law, do you?

But just to show the ridiculousness of this passage, all we really have to do in go a little bit further back and see that God prescribes death for other things too. In Leviticus 20:9, God has this to say, “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood [shall be] upon him.” So how many Christians would put to death a child who curses his or her parents? Why not? It is in the Bible. If you have the slightest tiny bit of moral sense, you would not kill a child who curses his or her parents as God has commanded. Some Christians have told me that that passage is part of the “Old Covenant” and so it isn’t valid any more. Yet those same Christians still think homosexuality is an abomination despite the fact that the main passage against it is only a few lines further away.

This is where fundamentalist believers pull out the New Testament. In Romans 1: 26-27, the Apostle Paul writes, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” But let us be clear about this. This is Paul’s opinion and not the words of the Creator of the Universe. For those of you who didn’t know, the Apostle Paul was terribly sexually frustrated. He really has a bug up his ass (no pun intended) about all sexual behavior. This is what he said in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”

Paul seems to be a virgin and he seems to be of the opinion that everyone ought to be a virgin too. But if you don’t have the will power to resist your urges for sex as he does, than he thinks that you should marry so that you can satisfy your urges without the risk of eternal torture in Hell. You know what? That might even be a strong Biblical argument in favor of gay marriage.

Filed under: Gay Issues, Religion, sex, the bible | 15 Comments »

A surprising number of people (some of whom are even educators by profession) don’t seem to understand the difference between education and indoctrination. While at times indoctrination may be used to educate, the fact is that they are two very different things.

Education is a process of teaching people things. Indoctrination is something which may or may not be used as part of that process. Indoctrination is a particular type of education… usually a pretty poor form of education. The simple way of saying this is that education is the process of educating people about how to think while indoctrination is the technique used to tell people what to think. When schools tell children to memorize facts, they are using a sort of form of indoctrination in the process of education. But then students are usually encouraged to ask questions about those facts and perhaps even question the facts themselves. This is where indoctrination ends and thinking begins.

I bring up this topic, because religion is notorious for using indoctrination and in criticizing education or at the very least thinking that their indoctrination is education. When people go to a religious house of worship, they are told to repeat the words from the holy book, or to recite from something that someone else has prepared. There are no questions asked about the material, because religion has no answers.

Fundamental religious believers are also notorious for home-schooling their children. This isn’t to say that all fundamentalists home-school, but I am saying that if you home-school, you are probably a religious fundamentalist. There are of course some exceptions. The thing about home-schooling is that it is very easy to get into indoctrination mode. This is especially true with religious home-schoolers.

Science doesn’t have all the answers, but science is also aware of what answers they have and what answers they don’t have. Also, all of science is open to questions and re-evaluations. In short, science encourages education and critical thinking which religion does not. Religion claims to know the answers, but can’t justify those answers with any evidence at all. Religion discourages questioning one’s faith and when people do question religious faith they are called “bigots” or “intolerant.”

When religion tries to answer questions about their faith, they usually do so dogmatically with arguments which had been refuted centuries past. When religion is called out on this and exposed, religion always falls back to blind faith which is a way of shutting down questions and critical thinking. It is a way of maintaining the indoctrination.

There is a big difference between religion and reality and that is the difference is how we know things. Religion uses indoctrination while science and other reality based disciplines encourage critical thinking and questioning as part of the education process.

Filed under: anti-intellectualism, education, Religion | 5 Comments »

The greatest piece of evidence against the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect God is and always will be the imperfect world around us. This is why theists have to create elaborate schemes to explain this obvious evidence away.

All of their schemes inevitably put the blame for the imperfection of this world onto us humans. But this too is problematic. If God is all-powerful, than we humans would not have the power to disrupt God’s perfect plan. Therefore, the world should still be perfect and it is not. This leaves us to wonder if God’s plan is perfect in the first place. Perhaps God’s plan is not perfect and everything is going according to his non-perfect plan. But that doesn’t really make sense when you think about it. Why would a perfect being create a non-perfect plan?

Ultimately, it is God’s perfection and all-powerfulness which refutes the entire concept of a deity. No matter how Christians, Muslims, and Jews try to dress it up, the imperfection of the world still cannot be reconciled with the existence of an all-powerful, perfect deity.

Filed under: god, Religion | 5 Comments »

There is an off shoot of the Argument by Design that a surprisingly large number of Christians still use. The claim is that the Earth is perfectly placed by God to support life. Those who espouse this argument state that if the Earth was just one degree closer to or further away from the Sun, all life as we know it would not exist. This is true. If the Earth was just one degree closer to or further away from the Sun than all life as we know it would not exxist. Does this fact prove that the Christian God put the Earth in exactly the right place for life? No.

I find this argument particularly interesting because it was refuted rather well and rather publicly two hundred and fifty years ago and yet Christians today are still using it. This argument doesn’t just show an ignorance of science and an ignorance of logic, but also shows an ignorance of literature.

In 1759, French satirist Voltaire published his masterpiece, Candide. This book is considered by most to be a classic. It is even on many High School reading lists. In the book, the master teacher of metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology, Pangloss, explains that:

“It is demonstrable,” said he, “that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle.”

Now obviously the nose was not formed for spectacles. Obviously people made spectacles to fit the nose, just as it is obvious that life on Earth arose because of our placement in the solar system and not the other way around. So while it is true that if the Earth was one degree closer to or further away from the Sun, all life as we know it wouldn’t exist, that isn’t to say that some other form of life (as we may not know it) couldn’t exist nor does it say that life must exist at all. If the Earth was in a different position, perhaps no life would exist on Earth just as no life exists on so many other planets. Voltaire understood this and joked about it with his over the top teacher who claimed that God made stones so that we can build castles. It seems rather obvious that if there were no stones, than we would have built a structure out of something else that was there. This claim that the Earth was put into the perfect position for life is just backwards thinking.

Filed under: Argument by Design, Religion | 15 Comments »

Yesterday I attended the 2nd annual Philadelphia Coalition of Reason (PhillyCoR) Picnic. PhillyCoR is an umbrella organization which unites several freethought, Humanist, atheist, and secular organizations together. The picnic was a great way to mix all of our respective groups together and to engage in intellectual dialog, brainstorming, and just some pleasant conversation.

One of the most important aspects of this picnic however, was to help form a greater community of reason. That is what PhillyCoR is about and what the new UnitedCoR is seeking to do in cities around the nation. The Coalitions of Reason are a great first step in creating and strengthening the community. But it isn’t enough in and of itself.

For starters, let me ask a rhetorical question to my atheist readers. Are you a member of your local freethought group? Most atheists are not and yet if we are to form a community, a support system for dealing with the theistic pressures of society, and a voting block capable of countering the Religious Right, we need to take the first step by joining our local freethought groups. Usually people can become members of their local groups for less than $50. Usually the membership costs are about $35. What about national atheist groups? Most atheists are not members of any of the larger organizations either.

Toward the end of the picnic, I was talking with a few fellow freethinkers about one of the other problems that I see within the community of reason. Atheists don’t support each other nearly as much as we should. The truth is that I am just as guilty of this as most other atheists, but I am going to try to change that and you should too.

A few of my friends have written atheist books which they have self-published (despite my objections to self-publishing) and I have yet to support them by buying their books. So, today I plan on buying “Of Men and Muses” by Tom Verenna and “Malevolent Design” by Matt Edwards. One thing that I think my fellow atheists can and should do is to support the efforts of other atheists.

There are also many atheist podcasts and shows out there. Shows like the Infidel Guy and The Atheist Experience which depend on listener support. Atheist blogs (including this one) often have donate or contribute buttons which are rarely actually used. But times are tough right now and like most people atheists don’t have a lot of extra money flowing around that they can just throw around. But I think almost everyone has a few dollars to spare here and there. So I think that if you enjoy a particular podcast or blog, you should donate at least $5 every once in awhile. That’s not enough to break anyone’s piggy bank, but it is enough to let people know that you appreciate what they are doing.

The sad fact is that it is really embarrassing. Christians generally are having the same tough times that we are and yet they donate their last dollar to churches and Christian ministries. Now I don’t think anyone should donate their last dollar, so if you really can’t put food on the table, then please don’t feel bad about not supporting your fellow freethinkers, but the fact is that very few people are really in that bad of a financial state. We can all certainly afford to support the each other’s efforts a little bit every now and then. I don’t think atheists will ever really donate to atheistic endeavors in the same way Christians donate to Christian ministries, nor do I think we need to compete in that way. We don’t generally use fear and guilt to get people to “sacrifice” until it really hurts (like Jesus). That type of soliciting donations I think is dishonest and cruel. But I do think that the atheist community needs to do better than we currently are doing.

Not all contributions necessarily need to be monetary either (although monetary contributes certainly help a lot). There are things we can do to support each other which are free. We can help promote our fellow atheists blogs, podcasts, youtube videos, etc. We can post links to various social networking sites, use word of mouth to help promote other people’s projects, and simply contribute ideas.

The message for today is that atheists need to start supporting each other and forming stronger communities with each other. People of reason need to start organizing. When I first de-converted from theism, I felt alone as an atheist. It was before the internet was widely used. Now we can find like minded people all over the country. The fact is that there are atheists all over the country in every state. We don’t have to be alone any more.

Filed under: atheism, People of Reason, Religion | 28 Comments »

While yesterday’s blog asked about whether God has the same kind of body parts we humans have since we were made in his image, today’s blog deals with the part of god which actually does look like us, Jesus. Jesus was a man. Men have penises. Therefore, Jesus had a penis. So here is the question, Was Jesus circumcised?

This is a serious question. After all, the point of circumcision is to create a covenant with God. So if Jesus was God, why would he need to make a covenant with himself? That seems a little strange to me. On the other hand, Jesus was also supposed to be the example of how men should be here on Earth. In that case, of course he should have his pee pee snipped.

Than we should ask what Jesus knew while on Earth and when did he know it. I am assuming that he didn’t pop out of Mary’s virginal womb with all the knowledge of the Universe and beyond. Maybe he did know everything at the time of birth. I don’t know. But can you imagine Jesus talking to God in Heaven before he was born. “What dad? You want me to get my penis cut? Why didn’t you just make people born that way in the first place?”

And if Jesus was circumcised, why is it that Paul said that Christians didn’t have to be circumcised? Was Paul just afraid of getting his pee pee snipped? Perhaps Paul was afraid he would lose potential followers if he asked them to take a slice of their dicks off. I guess it is all in the marketing.

Filed under: circumcision, image of god, Religion | 7 Comments »

I never really understood the whole “image of God” thing Christians always talk about. I look in the mirror every day and I have to tell you that I really don’t think I look a thing like God. For starters, I can actually see myself.

That aside, does God have two legs, two arms, two eyes, a nose and a mouth too? Most Christians tell me no. But if I have all those things why doesn’t God. Speaking of body parts, one thing is clear. God definitely has a penis (nod to Sam Singleton). The Bible after all refers to God as a male and since the main distinguishing characteristic of males is in the genitalia, God must have a penis. That makes sense when you think about it, because he certainly must have a large set of balls to set up a system in which most people are tortured for all eternity and then to turn around and claim that he loves everyone. Shit like that takes balls.

That brings me to another question, if I shit and I was made in God’s image, does God shit too? Again, no Christian no matter how irrational he or she might be would claim that God shits. That very idea is probably blasphemous to most Christians. So what exactly does it mean to be made in the image of God?

Maybe it is not the physical characteristics of God that we are talking about, but rather the mental characteristics. Maybe God is like a role model or something. WWGD, “What Would God Do?” Well, I don’t really think that is it. After all, could you imagine a society in which everyone acted like God? As role models go, he isn’t exactly the best one. I mean God is such a jealous god, and angry too. He’s always going around and smiting people. He is after all the god of Wrath. So I don’t think we are made in his mental image. But I do still think it would be fun to go around with the WWGD attitude. But alas, I have morals and stuff.

Finally, we are left with the obvious answer. We are made in God’s spiritual image. What the fuck does that mean? I seriously would like to know. The word “spiritual” is so vague and meaningless. It basically is the term used by people who want to seem deeply religious without having to actually believe any of the nonsense.

Now I am sure some Christians are going to claim that it has to do with the soul and the eternal lifespan that it is alleged to have. But the reality is that it is really all about that second part. You know the eternal lifespan part. People are afraid to die and so they have created a being that is the “alpha and the omega” which is eternal and then declared that we were created by that being with that same eternal lifespan. So after all is said and argued, being created in God’s image really just means that people are afraid to die.

Filed under: god, image of god, Religion | 21 Comments »

America has a real prison problem and I have the perfect solution. You might even say that it was divinely inspired… because I got the idea from the Bible. I think we should let everyone in the prisons go and I’ll take their place. I will serve a trillion year sentence so that everyone else can go free. I will sacrifice my freedom so that all who believe in me should be set free.

Let all the murderers, rapists, pedophiles, serial killers, terrorists, thieves, etc. all go free. I as an innocent person will take their place behind bars. Sounds like a great plan, right? It should sound like a great plan. It was after all God’s plan.

Now some people might think that if we let all these criminals go, they will just go back to a life of crime, but that will be their choice. They have free will after all. Besides, all they have to do is ask me to serve their sentence again with a sincere heart and all will be forgiven. It is my gift, my sacrifice for America.

Now of course this is a really stupid idea. But it is after all right out of the Bible. In fact, most Christians claim that it is the central message of the Bible. All humans according to the Bible are evil sinners who deserve eternal torture in Hell, but because God loves us so much, he sent his son to take our place on the cross so that we could avoid eternal torture in Hell. Jesus doesn’t even have to take our place in Hell, just on the cross. So maybe I shouldn’t have to spend my life in prison after all. I should just take these criminals place on sentencing day. Maybe spend three days in prison (Jesus after all was alleged to have only spent three days in Hell, right?). This deal is getting better and better all the time.

I will be the savior to millions of criminals and I only have to go to their brutal sentencing and spend three days in prison. Some how though I don’t think any judge in the country will go for this Biblical deal. It is after all completely ridiculous!

Filed under: blood sacrifice, Judge God, Religion, sin | 9 Comments »

Why did Jesus have to die? I can image a young kid asking this question in Sunday school. The answer most commonly given is that Jesus died for our sins. He gave his life so that we can all go to Heaven… for those who believe of course. But that doesn’t really answer the question.

Your typical kid in Sunday school might press the issue simply by asking, “Why?” aver and over again. A smart kid however will ask that same question more articulately. How does Jesus dying get me to Heaven? This is a question that stumps a lot of Christians. Some may be able to answer a step further by talking about God’s need for a blood sacrifice. You see, starting all the way back in the Old Testament, God demanded blood sacrifices for his favor. But not just any old blood would do. No, God wanted the purest blood. He wanted the blood of an innocent lamb. Personally, I don’t know the difference between an innocent lamb and a guilty lamb, but I am sure there must be one. Maybe the guilty lamb stole a blade of grass. I don’t know.

The point was allegedly to show how much one loves God that they are willing to part with the best of the best of their livestock. In the story of Kane and Able, Kane didn’t slaughter his best for God so he was not in God’s favor. Later in the Bible God asked Abraham to kill his own son to prove his devotion, but then told Abraham not to do it after all.

So the idea of blood sacrifice is a theme that runs throughout the Bible. Jesus of course is known as the “Lamb of God” and so represents the purest of innocent sacrifices. That is the reason he had to die on the cross for our sins according to Christianity. By why does God need a blood sacrifice of an innocent as a payment for sin? Step back from the dogma for a moment and think about this. If someone lies, do we ask them to murder their pet as punishment for the lie? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. But that is what Christianity is really preaching. If you commit a sin, you need a blood sacrifice for forgiveness of that sin. However, instead of doing the killing yourself, you can accept that the Jews did the killing for you in the murder of Jesus on the cross. By accepting the sacrifice of Jesus into your heart, you have symbolically sacrificed his blood for your sins. But the question still remains, by is blood sacrifice needed for payment of a sin? That still doesn’t make sense.

The hope of Christianity is that through the complex story of replacing Jesus as the lamb and going out of the way to talk about how innocent he was and how much he was tortured, people would simply forget that the sacrifice of Jesus was a blood sacrifice and that all of Christianity rests on the belief that blood sacrifice is the proper payment for sin.

Filed under: blood sacrifice, Religion, sin | 9 Comments »

In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman. The court ruled that public school money could not fund private religious school text books and salaries. But more importantly than that, this case created what has been called the “Lemon Test.”

The Lemon Test was supposed to have settled the issue of Church/State Separation once and for all. This of course did not happen. The way the Lemon Test functions is by setting up three criteria and if any of the proposed action violates any one of the three criteria, that action is to be considered unconstitutional.

The three criteria are as follows:
1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose.
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion.
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

This Lemon Test has now become established law in America and yet fundamentalist Christian legislatures and interest groups still don’t seem to understand how this test works. Continually, fundamentalist Christians are trying to put their God on everything including the US Capitol… literally. When Michael Newdow challenged the motto of “In God We Trust” on the dollar bill, he argued that it violated the Lemon Test and of course it does.

It certainly seems to me that the Lemon Test is too complicated for small fundamentalist Christian minds. So I have come up with a new test for Separation of Church/State issues. I’ll call it the “Staks Test” because that is how I roll. I know I wasn’t the first to say this, but I am the first to my knowledge to suggest it to be a legitimate legal test. My test has only one criteria because in Christianity God plus Jesus plus the Holy Ghost equals one (clearly Christians can’t count).

The one criteria is as follows:
1. The government’s action must be able to be substituted with another religious belief and still not offend the people proposing the action.

For example, if we were to replace “One Nation Under God” with “One Nation Under Allah” would those who support the motto still be in favor of it? Of course not, so the motto fails the Staks Test and must be ruled unconstitutional. If the government proposed to put a plaque in the US Capitol which said “In Satan We Trust,” would South Carolina’s Republican Senator Jim DeMint still think it was a good idea? Somehow I doubt it, so it too would fail the Staks Test.

Filed under: church/state, Current Events, Religion | 10 Comments »

Yesterday I talked about how the world is going to come to and end… soon. Well, religion isn’t the only source of superstition in this regard. For some reason many Americans are actually living in fear of the year 2012 (and not just because Sarah Palin might run from President).

Yes, Hollywood is coming out with a big budget action movie with lots of explosions and no story or plot called, you guessed it “2012.” And in their marketing of the film they instruct people to google “2012.” This of course yields every conspiracy website and crack-pot theory about how the Mayan Calendar ends in 2012 and how the Sun, the Earth, and the center of the galaxy will align themselves to create a gravitational pull which will surely flip the Earth on it’s axis. There is also the theory that the Sol System is a binary solar system and in the year 2012, the second sun will pop back into the solar system. Oh, and then there is the legendary planet between Mars and Jupiter which was knocked into another orbit and will be returning in 2012 to cause gravitational pull. The theories get crazier from there. Aliens from another planet will be coming, inter-dimensional beings are going to be coming, and who knows, the evil Lord Xenu himself might even stop by to say hello.

Of course, there will also always be some crafty entrepreneurs who will take advantage of the stupid people who believe any of this crap. Part of me wishes that I was one. Aside from this film which is obviously marketed to take advantage of some of these people’s stupid beliefs, there are websites selling 2012 survival guides, equipment, insurance, etc.

I think that the best way to debunk all this nonsense is to let Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson do my debunking for me. I’m feeling lazy today (must be the moon’s pull on my ass).

Filed under: End of Days, prophecies, Religion | 13 Comments »

I first became aware of this worlds impending doom from my friend Greg in college. It was through him that I learned that the world was going to end on September 23rd 1994. He heard it through preacher and radio mogul Harold Camping. Of course that day has now passed and we are all still here. Camping has a new book predicting some other date, but he is no longer fooling my friend Greg.

Greg has seen the error of his ways and now no longer believes that he world is coming to an end when Camping has predicted. Now Greg insists that no one can know the time or the date, but that the world is still going to come to an end… soon! In fact, if you talk to a large number of fundamentalist Christians, many will tell you that the End of Days is near. The signs are all around us. More earthquakes and hurricanes have been going on lately. The Middle East is at war just as the Bible predicted. Christians are being persecuted too. Jesus said that would happen right before the end. But the most obvious sign of all is the moral decay of society. America is the Sodom and Gomorrah of our time. All of these signs point to the obvious conclusion that the End of Days, the Armageddon, the Apocalypse, the Rapture, and any other name you want to call it is right around the corner.

Here is a little something that these Christians don’t seem to know. Back in the year 2500 BCE, people were also claiming that the end was near and Revelations hadn’t even been written yet. The reason there was a mass hysteria back then was because there was a series of violent weather, lots of wars and decease, Believers in some other man/god were being persecuted, and of course the moral decay of society.

Just 500 years later, a small cult of Jews was convinced that the end of the world was coming soon too. One of the leaders even claimed that everyone who was “saved” would be bodily brought up to a magic paradise forever. One anonymous author wrote “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (Matthew 24:34). Yes, the early Christians thought that the End of Days was going to happen soon! I’m not mathematician, but 2000 years seems like more than a single generation to me.

Since that time, large numbers Christians in every generation have claimed that the End of Days was near and that they were probably the last generation. Why would they believe that? There is almost always a series of violent weather, lots of wars and decease, claiming persecution despite being the majority religion, and of course the moral decay of society.

Filed under: death, End of Days, Preaching, prophecies, Religion | 15 Comments »

So yesterday, I was talking about the importance of actor Daniel Radcliffe coming out as an atheist on my Examiner blog. I mentioned that Radcliffe’s admission may have been a career risk in come out as an atheist. One comment that a Christian made on the story was that it was more of a career risk to come out as a Christian than an atheist in America.

I have heard similar claims from Christians about other professions including believe it or not, politicians. I always find it funny when Christians who make up roughly 75 to 80 percent of the population whine about how they are being persecuted by the roughly 15 percent of non-believers. While some Christians will claim that just because people go to church, they may not necessarily be Christian. This then turns into “Who are the Real Christians.” But that aside, multiple polls still show that at least 34 percent of Americans are fundamentalist Christians. So they would still outnumber atheists two to one.

There are certainly some professions which have more non-theists than other professions though. Scientists, college professors, journalists, comedians, etc. all have large numbers of atheists in their fields. Out of those groups atheists probably only outnumber theists in the fields of science and comedy. Despite the large number of atheist college professors and journalists, there are still more theists in those fields. Christians aren’t however discriminated against in the field of science, but as it happens the more we learn and question it seems the less people believe. But that is another blog for another day.

The point today is that Christians are not being persecuted in America. In fact, usually when religious persecution takes place in America, Christians are generally the ones doing the persecuting. The claim that Christians are being persecuted because they can’t turn schools into churches like they used to is just laughable. I always find it funny that when secular society puts an end to religious persecution that is seen by religious fanatics as persecution in and of itself.

In general though, I think many Christians enjoy being persecuted and so they cry persecution when ever they can whether or not there is actual persecution going on or not. According to the Bible, Jesus was persecuted and so by playing the persecution card, some Christians feel like they are more Christian. It seems to be a way of shoring up one’s faith.

Filed under: atheism, faith, Real Christians, Religion | 9 Comments »

Like the label of “Militant Atheist” the label of “New Atheist” has been equally thrown around. At first, the label was only reserved for the “Four Horsemen” of atheism, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. But the term was quickly transferred onto any atheist who speaks up about their lack of belief.

The thing is that the label of “New Atheist” implies that there are “Old Atheists.” The distraction between “New Atheists” and “Old Atheists” seems to be that those who step out of the closet and simply make it public that they are skeptical of the claims of theistic religions are now branded as “New Atheists.” While those atheists who continue to keep their disbelief to themselves and who even sometimes pretend to believe rather than “rock the boat” can be considered “Old Atheists.”

Could you imagine if this distinction were made in the Gay community today? If a person like Merv Griffin was considered to be an “Old Gay” because he remained in the closet until after his death and people like George Takei who is open about his marriage to his husband are labeled as “New Gay” extremists. That would effectively end the Gay Rights movement by forcing gay people back into the closet out of fear of being labeled extremists who are “Just as hateful” as those who believe that being gay is a sin and should be punished and/or beaten.

If simply stating that one doesn’t believe in superstitious myths and ancient stories is enough to marginalize someone as a “New Atheist” or some kind of atheist extremists than I have a real issue with that. It effectively shuts down conversation, debate, and any criticism of religious ideas. That however is the point. Religious people are afraid of dialog because at the end of the day there is no evidence for their ridiculous stories and beliefs.

Another analogy that I think works would be a label of a “New Mathematician” for anyone who continues to tell people that in fact one plus one does not equal five, but rather it equals two. While I would call that basic education, could you imagine what would happen if such a person was marginalized as an extremist? Why can’t people just let everyone do their own math and if someone wants to believe that one plus one equals five, well they are entitled to their opinion, right?

Filed under: atheism, Religion | 20 Comments »

There is an old saying that dates back to ancient Tibet, “If you repeat a lie long enough than maybe Richard Gere really does like to stick a gerbils up his ass.” It really does seem that many religious people think this saying is true. Over and over again, I get bombarded with the same old lies and poorly thought out arguments by a wide range of religious people.

It isn’t just the fundamentalist believers who repeat false information and poorly thought out arguments which have been refuted again and again and again. Often times, it is the mainstream believers who are just as guilty of just being ignorant of the facts and the arguments which they employ.

Here are some examples, I don’t know how many times I hear that there are no atheists in the fox holes or that some famous atheist had a deathbed conversion. Mark Twain, Charles Darwin, and philosopher David Hume are just a few of the names mentioned as deathbed converts. Then I hear that Hitler was an atheist over and over again despite the fact that he was known for being a devout Catholic and peppered many of his speeches with religious rhetoric.

Atheists also seem to have no morals, evolution is just random chance, and there is more evidence for Jesus than there is for George Washington. I can go on all day with example after example, but the point I think has been made. Repeating the First Cause Argument or the Argument by Design over and over again doesn’t make those arguments any more valid. Repetition doesn’t equal truth. Repetition doesn’t equal truth. Repetition doesn’t equal truth.

Oh, for the record, Richard Gere never stuck a gerbil up his ass. In fact, the idea of “gerbil-stuffing” as a sexual practice is also one hundred percent fictional.

Filed under: atheism, conversation, death, evolution, morality, Religion | 7 Comments »

The other day, I got an e-mail from a Christian claiming that I should believe in God even though I can’t see him. After all, I can’t see the wind either and yet I surely believe in the wind, right? As absurd as this argument is, it is not the first time I have heard it. Not by a long shot. It is almost embarrassing that I actually have to talk about this, but Christianity is an embarrassing belief system.

First, as a point of fact, human beings have five senses, not one sense. Sometimes, as a slang use of the term, people use “seeing” to represent all five of their senses. With that in mind, yes we can “see” the wind. We do have sensory experience of the wind. We don’t have any sensory experience of a god let alone a particular god.

Second, even if we had no sensory experience for something in the natural world, that doesn’t mean that we should automatically reject its existence. We also have a sixth sense (and no, I am not talking about psychic powers). We have our capacity to think. Using this “thinking” sense, scientists have developed tools which allow us to sense more than our senses allow.

Any one who has even a small degree of scientific knowledge should know that the human eye can only see a very small part of the light spectrum. The human ear can hear only a small part of the auditory spectrum. But through technology, we are able to see and hear far more than our eyes and ears normally allow. This has enabled us to know more about the universe than our five senses alone permit.

Even though we can experience more using this sixth sense of thought, we still have no sensory data which would even suggest the existence of a deity let alone the particular deity of the Old and New Testaments. This isn’t to say that such a deity can’t exist, but it does say that we have no valid reason to even suppose that it does exist. In fact, all the “effects” that were once attributed to gods and a god are now attributed to things in the natural world which science has allowed us to experience or “see.”

Science has pushed the effects of God into the gaps of understanding. In other words, what science has not yet explained has been deemed the work of God. Unfortunately for God, scientific understanding is growing at a pretty fast rate and that means that the work of God is shrinking at a faster and faster rate. This “God of the Gaps” as he is called is losing. The more and more science is able to explain and allow us to experience, the less and less God is needed to explain those things which humans can not experience. God quite simply is now defined as what can’t be experienced through our sixth senses (five senses plus thought).

The only sense that can seem to experience any type of deity is the “Faith Sense” which is to say that you should just not worry about your five senses and just not think too hard about it either. Just believe blindly on faith. That is the final gap that God is relegated. No sense points to god. No reason can reason god. Instead, theists (those who believe in a deity) claim that we should just believe for no reason. All they can say is that we need to have faith and not think about it. That’s pretty weak.

Filed under: anti-intellectualism, faith, god of the gaps, Religion, science | 19 Comments »

We have all heard that the holier than thou Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, announced that she will be resigning from the office of Governor in three weeks for apparently no reason. Her press conference was wildly unfocused, vague, and left more questions than answers. This of course has lead to tons of rumors and sparked a media searchlight onto the Governor to figure out exactly why she really is quitting.

The other day, I blogged about a statement Palin’s lawyer made which seemed to indicate that Palin was quitting because she couldn’t handle the jokes that David Letterman and others were making at her expense. Palin herself has talked about a large number of ethics charges which she is dealing with. She claims they are all baseless, but in light of her mavericky resignation, people in Alaska and around the nation are wondering if there might actually be something to one or more of those charges.

One rumored charge in particular dealt with the building of one of Sarah Palin’s homes as a possible payback for a much larger state contract to build a stadium. This has been one of the more popular rumors both in the Governor’s home state and around the nation. The FBI has claimed that no investigation was being conducted, but that has just fueled the rumors of an IRS investigation or perhaps some other agency investigation.

But all this is window dressing for the real issue today. It seems that Sarah Palin was watching television the day after her surprise resignation speech and saw that an Alaskan blogger and radio host was on the MSNBC talking about these rumors. The soon to be ex-Governor apparently flipped out.

On Independence Day weekend, Palin had her lawyer write up a four page letter threatening to sue that blogger for “defamation of character.” Now, I am not a lawyer and don’t know the details of the law, but it has been my understanding that in order to sue for defamation of character, slander, or libel, the claims made must be false and monetary damage must be proven to have taken place as a result. For example, Palin can’t successfully sue (anyone can unsuccessfully sue for anything) David Letterman for any of these things because his jokes didn’t cause her monetary harm. On the other hand, Letterman could sue Palin was slander since her insinuation that he was a pedophile may have caused sponsors to withdrew their sponsorship of his program causing him monetary damages.

This is not the first time Sarah Palin has had an issue with freedom of speech and attempted to push the censorship button. Back in 1996, then Mayor Sarah Palin asked the Wasilla Librarian if she would be okay with banning certain (unnamed) books from the Library. The Librarian said absolutely not. A few months later the Librarian was fired because she “didn’t fully support” Mayor Palin’s policies. Palin was forced to reinstate the Librarian due to pressures from Wasilla’s residents.

Personally, I hope that Sarah Palin sues me too. It would bring a lot more attention to my blog and since such a suit is obviously baseless, I could counter-sue. So what kind of baseless rumor can I make up that would get her attention? I know, I can use the same false charge that she leveled against Barack Obama and David Letterman. I heard a rumor that Sarah Palin pals around with terrorists. I also wouldn’t trust Sarah Palin with my four month old baby… I don’t know what kind of sexual deviant she might be.

Filed under: free speech, palin, Politics | 8 Comments »

Recently, someone made a comment about the book, “The Secret” on my friend’s facebook page. The claim was that “The Secret” really works, and that everyone should try it. When people make claims about reality, they really need to be able to back up those claims with some sort of evidence. As a point of fact, there is no evidence supporting the claim that “The Secret” works except for Oprah’s word. For the record, Oprah also claims that vaccines cause autism despite study after study disproving that myth.

Of course when I posted a comment stating that “The Secret” as a point of fact does not work, I got criticized for “putting down” other people’s religious beliefs. I’m sorry that people believe in things which have no basis in reality and even contradict reality. I am also sorry that these people consider it some sort of personal attack when someone of reason points that out how ridiculous those beliefs are.

I will admit that I was a little more satirical in my comment than perhaps I should have been. I think I talked about my prayers to milk jugs and how they are always answered either with a yes, no, or wait answer. I hate to be the one who always says this, but yes there is a reality out there and we can’t just claim to know what it is without any evidence to support those claims. Most religions claim to have “The Truth” without feeling the need justify that “Truth” with evidence.

The fact is that no one has the “all seeing eye” of Absolute Truth. We have the light of science to help us see in the dark of the unknown. What is in the dark we cannot know with certainty, but we can use the light of science and reason to give us a better idea. Over time, humanity has made brighter lights which have enabled us to see more of the world and to allow us to take some pretty well informed guesses on what we cannot see. Humans have observed certain things in the world which seem to always hold true to our knowledge and so we use that to help us understand the known and the unknown.

So while I cannot say with absolute certainty that “The Secret” is bullshit, I can say with reasonable certainty that “The Secret” is bullshit.

If someone were to make the claim that people can fly and then encouraged others to jump out a window and try it, I would call bullshit on that “deeply held” spiritual belief too.

Filed under: anti-intellectualism, prayer, Religion, The Secret | 5 Comments »

Over the Independence Day weekend, Governor Sarah Palin announced her early retirement from the Governor’s position with a year and a half still left in her term. There has been much speculation on why she would do this when she is also raising money for a possible race to the White House.

Palin’s announcement was unfocused and seemed rushed. This fueled the speculation about a looming scandal or even possible legal charges. The FBI has claimed that no legal investigation was going on from their end and so the Palin’s resignation remains a mystery.

Today, Palin’s lawyer, Thomas Van Flein claims, “No legal ‘bombshell’ or personal scandal lies behind Palin’s resignation, but off-color jokes by talk-show host David Letterman contributed to her decision to step down.” He also claimed that the governor needed a break after being “on duty now for two and a half years solid.” Considering that the job is a four-year term, I guess two and a half years “solid” is supposed to be considered a pretty good run. Palin continues to tell everyone that she is “not a quitter” even as she was announcing that she was quitting early.

The fact that Sarah Palin needed a break and that talk show host David Letterman helped to run her out of office are two very big strikes against a possible White House run. This is good news for secular Americans because Palin is considered by many to be even more of a religious fundamentalist than George W. Bush. When John McCain added Palin to his ticket, it energized the Religious Right who saw him as too secular, but it also alienated most Americans who saw her as way too religious and a heartbeat about the “Big Chair.”

For me, the interesting part of this story is that Letterman’s jokes weren’t even that mean. They were pretty obvious and easy jokes. Letterman also apologized for those jokes and stopped making Palin the punch line. Many other comedians have told far meaner jokes at the Governor’s expense and had the Governor called them out on those jokes, many would escalate the situation rather than back down so quickly. Just look at poor Governor Mark Stanford. He is getting joked about much more than Palin was and in a much shorter span of time. Is he quitting? Hell no, not even when Democrats and Republicans alike are actively pushing him to leave.

So I think Palin’s announcement should be a lesson to everyone, keep telling jokes about Republican politicians they talk a big game about being fighters and not quitters, but a lot of them are quitters and few of them are actual fighters. They just like to wear the fighter pilot suit and announce, “Mission Accomplished.”

Filed under: free speech, palin, Politics | 23 Comments »

For some reason, because I am a pretty outspoken atheist, religious people (even not so religious people) seem to go out of their way to start a religious conversation with me. That’s fine, I have no problem with that and always enjoy a good conversation about religion. The problem comes in sometimes when those people, particularly those who are not as religious but still believe in God, get offended.

What did they think was going to happen? I am an outspoken atheist who has studied the arguments for and against religion. They generally have barely even studied their own religion and certainly can’t defend it because they have read none of the arguments either way.

Then they get angry that I am “pushing atheism on them.” But I didn’t even start the conversation. In fact, aside from my blog, I rarely if ever start a conversation about religion. I certainly wouldn’t start such a conversation with mainstream religious people who don’t really center their lives around their religion, but simply believe once a week for an hour or two and/or on holidays.

Sometimes these mainstream believers even go a step further and claim that I am just as bad as the fundamentalist religious people as far as pushing my atheism. That of course is absurd too. I certainly don’t go door to door telling people about atheism. Nor do I even bring it up in conversation. While it is widely known that I lack belief in deities, I don’t really talk about it unless someone else brings it up first.

I always find it funny that casual believers feel that they have it all figured out when they really have spent so little time and effort thinking about the issues and reading up on the arguments for and against their position. They seem to start the conversation in a way in which they think they can convert me and then when I refute their ill thought out attempt, they jump down my throat with claims that I am trying to de-convert them. It is just so bizarre.

Some members of my family who are casual believers even warn me not to discuss religion in certain settings or around certain people. As if I have ever even done that. I don’t start religious conversations. But if someone else brings up the topic and religion… and people do love to brag about how religious they are and assume that everyone else is religious too, then I will jump into the conversation.

Filed under: atheism, conversation, de-conversion, Preaching, Religion | 14 Comments »

Today’s Daily Blog is in recognition of Independence Day. One argument that I get from some particularly stupid fundamentalist Christians surprisingly a lot is that Christianity  must be true because we use Christ’s alleged birth as the basis for our dating system; BC meaning “Before Christ” and AD meaning “Anno Domini” (in the year or our lord).

Scholars have rejected that dating system is favor of another more politically correct dating system of BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era). However, for some strange and surely completely coincidental reason the Common Era happens to coincide perfectly with the Christian dating system based around the alleged birth of Jesus. What a copout. Personally, I don’t really like that, but for lack of another dating-system it is definitely preferable to the Christian one.

Next, I have noticed that most of the fundamentalists seem to think of themselves as super patriotic despite the fact that more often than not, they have zero clue about the Constitution, US History, and think that patriotism means wearing and waving the American Flag 24/7. Many of them are supporters of the failed attempt to rebellion against the United States known as the Confederacy. But I digress.

So, it is time for an experiment. Let’s make the fundamentalists choose. Are they more loyal to America or to Christianity? On this Independence Day weekend, I am announcing my extremely ambitious plan to remake the dating system yet again. The 12 month calendar can stay the same, but the new year zero will no longer be the alleged birth of Jesus. Instead, it will be the Signing of the American Declaration of Independence (Formerly 1776 AD or CE). That means that effective immediately today’s date will be Thursday, July 2rd 233 AE (American Era). For those not gifted in math, all you have to do is take the year you want to convert and subtract 1776 from that year on our calculating device.

Now I know that America isn’t the center of the world and the Earth is a big place. But let’s face facts the American Declaration of Independence did reshape the world first by putting the seeds in motion for the creation of our current super power status. Second, The Declaration re-popularized democracy and third by making governments accountable to their people and inspiring people of all nations to rebel against unjust rule. The American Revolution was the revolution for the entire world. Besides, this is after all an experiment to test the loyalties of fundamentalist Christians in America.

Call to Action: Please contact your Congressperson and both of your Senators and let them know that you support the American Dating System and that they should propose the bill. The year is 233 AE (American Era) and anything before that would be BAE (Before the American Era). Let’s see if the uber-patriotic fundamentalists will put their religion over their patriotic need to put America first.

Below, I have drafted a letter that I am sending out and am encouraging you to also send out to your Senators and congressperson. They usually respond to every letter they receive first with a form letter of acknowledgement and then a few weeks later with a more in depth letter. When you do get that in depth letter back, please come back to this blog and let us know what your elected official has said.

Dear [elected official],
As Independence Day is right around the corner I was thinking about our dating system. What I mean by this is the way Americans and people around the world denote years. Traditionally, we use the BC/AD system which is a blatant endorsement of the Christian religion. BC as you are no doubt aware, means “Before Christ” and AD means “Anno Domini,” Latin for “In the Year of Our Lord.” I am a non-Christian patriotic American who strongly believes in the principle of Church/State separation, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court’s legal precedent of Lemon v. Kurtzman.

While we could opt for the more scholarly dating system of BCE/CE, I still think this is an endorsement of the Christian religion since the “Common Era” is just a politically correct way of saying the Christian Era. America should not use the alleged birth of a particular religious figure as the basis for our dating system.

I have a proposal to make and it is somewhat controversial. I propose that you make a bill in favor of a new American dating system which uses the signing of the Declaration of Independence as the basis. The year 1776 would now be the year 0. We would currently be in the year 233 AE (American Era). Anything before the Declaration would be BAE (Before the American Era).

This is a serious proposal with obvious Constitutional support. But it is also a controversial proposal and so I can understand that if you don’t want your name all over the media you might not be the person to bring this proposal to life. But I ask you to consider it on this Independence Day weekend.
Thank you,

Filed under: AD/BC, Politics, Religion | 40 Comments »

Politicians should not make sex tapes. I think we need to add that to the Constitution or something. It appears that former presidential candidate John Edwards may have made a sex tape with his “videographer,” Rielle Hunter. I know she was supposed to video tape his every move and everything, but I think she might have taken the job description too literally.

I just am glad this guy didn’t become President and then have this tape come out. Normally, I couldn’t care less if a politician is having sex outside of marriage. He or she could video tape it and stick it up on one of the many porn equivalents to YouTube for all I care. I don’t really even care how kinky it might be. Aside from the “wow” factor, it doesn’t necessarily affect the politician’s job in my opinion.

However, like in the case of Republicans Vitter, Craig, Ensign, Sanford and Democrat Spitzer and now Edwards, if the politician goes around bragging about what a great family man he is and how everyone else should be as holy as he is, than that politician needs to go down. John Edwards now joins the crew of political hypocrites.

Personally, I can’t wait to watch the Edwards tape, not because I want to actually see the tape, but because I want to be able to say, “I saw the tape.” I bet Edwards is a bit of a diva in the bedroom too. He probably has a mirror nearby to make sure his hair doesn’t move out of place.

If Bill and Hillary Clinton came out with a sex tape, I wouldn’t be so hostile. We all know Bill is a lady’s man and while we might be shocked that the tape was with Hillary, neither of them have played the “holier than thou” card. And if a Clinton tape didn’t have Hillary, we wouldn’t be shocked at all. While Bill and Hillary claim to have a marriage, I don’t think they ever preach about how great their marriage is and how everyone else should be just like them.

For the most part, unless a politician goes out of their way to push some kind of family values agenda or preach about their holier than thou family, I don’t really care what they do behind closed doors. I don’t think there should be a sexual litmus test for public office. In fact, I think the dirtier and kinkier our politicians are the better they will probably be. Don’t get me wrong, cheating is a bad thing but as long as it doesn’t impact the job it shouldn’t be a deal breaker.

Just think of all the great Presidents we have had who have cheated. Thomas Jefferson and John F. Kennedy are just the two that come to mind the quickest. Ben Franklin wasn’t a President, but he certainly was a powerful politician who had a pretty strong kinky side (although he surprisingly probably didn’t cheat on his wife).

These days, when someone is interested in running for office, the first thing they have to think about is whether or not they ever had kinky sex which an ex-lover may bring to the public light. Have they ever cheated or even flirted with someone other than their spouse? I am against the sexual litmus test and the politicians who play the sexual purity game only to get caught with their pants down… sometimes even on video tape.

Filed under: Current Events, Politics, sex | 20 Comments »

Over the weekend, I wrote two articles for the Examiner on the Ark of the Covenant. The first dealt with the possibility that the Ark was found and the second dealt with it staying hidden. I don’t want to revisit those articles here, but I have linked to them if anyone wants to read them.

What I am fascinated about today is how religious people react to the possibility that a religious artifact may have been found. I have gotten a lot of comments on those two articles from people posting responses and from private e-mails.

Some Christians jump at it without any verification and say “See, the Bible is true.” Others say that the Bible is true and that God won’t allow the artifact to be revealed… unless he wants it to be. And others claim that this artifact is probably fake, but the real one is out there somewhere.

Few if any actually want to test whether such an artifact even came from the time it was alleged to be from. When asked about testing, some Christians have claimed that it can’t be tested. The tests can’t measure it because it is from God or that the tests are evil science. Some have even stated that God won’t allow it to be tested.

Most of these types of Biblical artifacts are alleged to be magical. The Ark of the Covenant is just one such magical artifact. The magic manna inside is another and a few years ago, people claimed to have found part of Noah’s Magic Ark (it had to be magical to carry at least two of every animal on Earth and enough food to feed them for 40 days and 40 nights). It seems that most Christians don’t like it when their artifacts are called “magical.” They prefer “miraculous.” Miraculous doesn’t sound as make-believe as magical. When people hear the term, “magical” they think of fairytales and childish stories. And even though the Bible is a fairytale and a childish story, Christians don’t like to see it in those terms.

The fact is that magic and miracles don’t exist. The Ark of the Covenant will not melt people’s faces off like in Raiders of the Lost Ark. The more Christians claim such nonsense the more ridiculous their religion seems to me and almost everyone else.

Many Christians don’t understand why I was so excited about the Ark of the Covenant. I really hope that the Ethiopians do let the public see it. When it doesn’t melt people’s faces off and is dated to be from the middle ages, I will be laughing my ass off. Besides, these artifacts always bring out the Christians making the wackiest claims and then they argue over competing wacky claims. One guy commented on one of the stories claiming that the Ark was from aliens. A few people stated that God didn’t make the Ark, but the head of the Ethiopian Church claimed that God did make the Ark. A few people warned about the dangers of seeing or touching the Ark, while others said it was just a box. Each of course had biblical verses to back up their claims.

I love it when a new magical Christian artifact is “discovered.” It is so much fun to watch how various Christians react. Just wait until someone finds Harry Potter’s Marauder’s Map.

Filed under: Current Events, Religion | 5 Comments »

Recently, my more religious sister criticized me for speaking out against theistic belief. Instead of discussing my criticisms of theistic belief, she simply stated that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have actually heard this claim made by a lot of people and not all of them were theists. A few silent atheists have also be critical of speaking out against ancient superstitions stating that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I problem here is that I don’t disagree that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and yet these people seem to be implying that I do. I never said people aren’t entitled to their own opinions. In fact, not only have I repeatedly talked about my support for the freedom of religion, I have actually gone to congress and personally lobbied in favor of free speech. The second some Congress-person, Senator, or even the President tries to push a law restricting people’s right to have their own opinion, I will be right there to fight for those rights. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

What they are not entitled to however, is for their opinions to be protected from criticism. The fact is that we all acknowledge this. We all not only criticize other people’s opinions on a daily basis, but no one in their right mind would claim that it was immoral to do so. No one has a problem criticizing what Hitler did to the Jews. Nor do people have an issue criticizing the KKK for their views. Tom Cruise is continually criticized for his religious beliefs and mainstream Christians and Jews are usually right there at my side criticizing the more fundamentalist believers in their own religions. But the moment anyone criticizes their beliefs, they attempt to over dramatize the criticism with claims of intolerance and/or hate. Insinuations are made that their free speech is being taken away. I don’t hate Christians. I have many Christian friends. I certainly don’t hate Jews. For starters, I am a Jew. Plus my family is Jewish and I love them very much… even my overly religious sister. But I do take issue with what these people believe and so while I will fight for their rights to have their own opinion on religious matter no matter how ridiculous and silly those opinions might be, I will also criticize those opinions if they are ridiculous, silly, and/or dangerous.

In my view, dangerous opinions lead to dangerous actions. And when they do, we need to stand up and strongly criticize those dangerous actions and be critical of the beliefs which lead to those actions. Now again, I am not talking about outlawing those dangerous opinions and beliefs, but I am talking about being critical of those opinions and beliefs. I supported the ACLU when they defended the KKK’s right to march peacefully. But if the KKK wanted to march peacefully in my town, I would be on the sidelines being very critical of their beliefs and arguing against those views.

I think it is pretty hypocritical of theists to claim some special protection from criticism for their beliefs when they seem so willing to criticize other people’s beliefs. Why is it that they think that criticizing political opinions is okay, but criticizing religious views should be forbidden? As I stated before it isn’t even all religious views that they seem to think should be protected; just their religious views and the religions which are closely related to their religious views. Judaism and Christianity should be protected and maybe Islam, but not necessarily. Other religions it seems like should definitely not be protected like Scientology, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Satanists, Wiccans, etc.

In my view however, no opinions should be above criticism. I believe in the market place of ideas and in that market place all ideas and beliefs are welcome and should be equally open to criticism. Let the best ideas and beliefs win. But it seems that the believers in the Abrahamic religions know that their beliefs are ridiculous, silly, and have no valid evidence supporting them. So they don’t want to compete in the market place of ideas because they know their ideas will lose. So instead they try to protect their failed ideas from any and all criticism. How sad.

Filed under: anti-intellectualism, free speech, Religion, scientology | 17 Comments »

Father’s Day was recently and so I thought about the alleged “Holy Father” himself, God. Aside from other roles for their deity of choice, Christians also claim that their imaginary god holds the role of father.

It seems that society has changed the way we view the responsibilities of a father. It wasn’t long ago that the role of the father was to be a bread-winner and a strict disciplinarian. Fathers were expected to be distant and to provide the “tough love.” In some households those are still the roles that a father is expected to take. But in most of modern society both parents are the bread-winners and strict discipline and tough love has been replaced with nurturing understanding. While discipline is still in the household, parents no longer beat their children or whip them at the slightest sign of disobedience.

The image of God the Father on the other hand hasn’t changed. The Biblical view of God is still as the strict disciplinarian who we are all expected to obey without question or else! Or else what? Or else God will send us to Hell where we will be tortured for all eternity.

Cognitive linguist George Lakoff talks about how this very issue influences our politics in his books, “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think” and “Don’t Think of an Elephant.”

In any case, while God is seen as the father, humans are seen as the children of God. In a strange way, I kind of like this metaphor because in the last 2000 years humans have grown up. We are no longer children and have become adults ourselves. When we were children, we looked at our parents with amazement and dogmatically believed that they were perfect. We saw our father as all powerful and capable of protecting us against any and all threats. But then as we grew up, we started to be able to protect ourselves and we started to think for ourselves. Sometime we would even disagree with our fathers. Sometimes we were wrong, but sometimes we were right.

As we grew up, it became clear to us that our father wasn’t all-powerful, nor was he all-knowing and he certainly wasn’t always right. So if we are to take the analogy of God the father to its logical conclusion, it becomes clear that the God of the Bible isn’t all those things either.

Besides, the idea that as a species we are growing up is a very liberating idea. It is an idea which we should really think about and consider. What kind of adult with humanity be? How can we as individuals shape our collective growth?

I think this metaphor of God the father is someway helps make the case against Christian belief and in favor of a more science oriented world-view. Even if we were to believe in the God of the Bible, it is clear from this metaphor that we can’t stay children forever and we must make our own way in the world. It is time to leave home and say good-bye to daddy.

Filed under: god the father, Religion | 13 Comments »

In the last few weeks, two prominent Republicans have been a tad hypocritical. Senator John Ensign from Nevada is part of the fundamentalist Christian group “Promise Keepers” which preaches the “family values” angle. Ensign was also one of the possible contenders for the Republican Party’s Presidential pick for 2012. Well, as you have no doubt heard, he recently admitted to no only cheating on his wife (breaking his promise), but doing so with a married women. Instead of coming clean about this affair, he hid it and continued to preach. Ensign, I should remind people, was one of the leading voices for the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton because he got a blow-job in the White House. Ensign also pushed to try to get fellow Republican Larry Craig to resign after Craig was caught in his own sex scandal/affair.

While Senator Ensign has stepped down from his leadership position in the Senate, I think he needs to step down as Senator. Senator Ensign should resign. I wouldn’t be so hard on Senator Ensign except that he has made his political career touting his strong family values, his Christian purity, and trying to push out all those he felt were not as pure as he was. The same is true for Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina who last week “disappeared.” His staff at first claimed that while they didn’t know where he was, that they were sure he was safe. They later lied to reporters and said that he was on the Appalachian Trail. As it turned out, he was in the Vagina Trail in Argentina.

Yesterday Governor Sanford admitted to having an affair. While he has stepped down as the head of the Republican Governors Association, I think he should also step down as the Governor of South Carolina. While as Governor he seems to have gone out of his way not to play the family values card to his mostly fundamentalist base, as a Congressman, he not only voted for the Clinton impeachment, he also pushed for it on the grounds that Clinton’s blow-job of an affair was a violation of the public’s trust. So why is it that Governor Sanford thinks that Clinton’s blow job was a violation of the public’s trust, but not his affair with an Argentinean woman? Both lied about what they did right up to when they got caught. I just think that it is funny that in the last few weeks two top GOP contenders for 2012 have had affairs which should destroy their careers.

But don’t think that I only pick on the poor Republicans. I was just as critical of Governor Elliot Spitzer for cracking down on prostitution rings and then being caught with a prostitute. And then there was former Senator and Presidential hopeful John Edwards who was on the campaign trail bragging about his Christian family values and strong marriage before he was caught cheating on his wife. Lesson to be learned is, don’t be a hypocrite. I don’t have a problem with politicians who cheat on their wives as long as they aren’t the politicians preaching the immorality of cheating. Former President Clinton is off the hook because he never touted his strong marriage to get elected or condemned other politicians for having affairs. The hypocrites on the other hand should be pushed to resign!

Filed under: Current Events, Politics | 8 Comments »

Guest Blog from The A-Team:
Also check out The A-Team at the Examiner:

One thing that always bugged me about Christians is their stance on death. Christians hold the viewpoint that death is a positive thing so long as you’re on Jesus’ saved list, since now you’re with God in paradise. But if this is the case, why do Christians respond to death and tragedy as if they’re a bad thing, the same way an atheist would? I morn the deaths of loved ones and view events like 9/11 as bad things because I believe that I’ll never see these loved ones again and these lives are lost forever.

Christians, on the other hand, believe they will see their fellow Christians again and that they’re going to a better place. So why don’t they react the same to death as they would if they were simply moving away and not going to see these people again for just a few years? Why do Christians even bother to go to the hospital when they’re sick if they believe death will take them to a better place? Why do they lock their doors at night?

Christians still haven’t satisfactorily answered this paradox. Hypothetically, why don’t Christians kill other Christians just so that they can get to heaven faster? If the only reason is it violates the 10 commandments, is that really the most moral reason? According to this supposed system of belief, it seems like you’d be doing people a favor. And if you’re a Catholic, then you no longer believe in limbo, which means souls are saved by default, and therefore have a sure thing in heaven unless they screw up during their life. So wouldn’t a moral Christian risk his own soul to kill babies so that they don’t have to run the risk of screwing up the salvation of their soul in life? Why do Christians oppose abortion and condemn what they perceive as the murder of babies if the babies are going to a better place? If life is just God’s waiting room and you view a fetus as a life, why not abort fetuses? If life is but a joke, why not spare already saved people from living it?

I asked a Christian in a text comment on YouTube why she’s so scared of dying and why she goes to such great lengths to avoid death if she is so convinced she’d go to better place? She couldn’t answer the question so employed a dodge by insisting that that’s “testing” God and only Satan tests God. Believers just believe and testing God shows they lack faith. I insisted that what I describe is not a test. If she’s so certain God exists and that she’s going to Heaven, then where’s the test? And leaving your door unlocked at night is hardly suicide. Choosing to rely on God wisdom rather than medical science is a show of faith, not doubt. So again. I told her to stop dodging and to just answer the question:

Why are you scared of death?

I still haven’t gotten an answer.

Filed under: death, Religion | 9 Comments »

During the Bush years, it became painfully obvious that our modern media had lost it’s collective balls. The days of Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Bob Woodward, and Carl Bernstein are long over.

Recently there has been some election fraud in Iran followed by massive protests and possibly a revolution (only time will tell). The current Iranian government has restricted western journalists from the country so the only news seems to be coming from Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace… and the BBC. Wait a minute, the BBC are western journalists, aren’t they? CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and all the other American news stations and shows reported that they weren’t allowed to report.

CNN’s Roland Martin and I even got into it on Twitter. He assured me that “journalists are not allowed to report on the protests,” and “we only know what’s going on there because of Twitter!”

Journalism isn’t what it once was. What if Nixon told Woodward and Bernstein that they couldn’t report on Watergate and they said, “Oh well,” and went home? The network did tell Murrow that he couldn’t keep challenging Senator McCarthy, but he didn’t care. He did his job because that is what a journalist does. Real journalists take the risks and find ways of getting the story told. They don’t sit at their computers waiting for Twitter to give them the news so they can regurgitate it to the public.

Americans can learn something from what is going on in Iran too. We have gotten lazy. In 2000 when there was massive voter fraud and the Supreme Court had to pick our President (adding that this case could not be used as legal precedent in the future), what did Americans do? Nothing! We sat at home and let Bush destroy our country for eight years.

Maybe we need to get some fire back in our bellies. Maybe we should have taken to the streets and the rooftops. Maybe America needs a good revolution or at least the threat of one. A good start in reasserting our control might be to get to know your congress person. Don’t just call or e-mail, or Tweet, but make an appointment and go down to their office and let them know what is on your mind. Get them to know you and build a voice in your community. Use Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube to help gain support in your local area so you can put some real pressure on our elected officials.

Filed under: Current Events, free speech, Politics | 9 Comments »

One of the reasons why I opposed Barack Obama in the primary was because he strongly believes in compromise. While I also believe in the spirit of compromise, I realize that there is a time to compromise and a time not to compromise. Obama is always trying to compromise and that doesn’t work too well when the other side is never willing to compromise.

One example of this is with the torture photos. Progresses like myself have been pushing to have transparency and for them to be released while the Republicans wanted to keep them hidden claiming that the photos put our soldiers in danger. Of course it was what the photos depicted which puts our soldiers in harms way, but that isn’t the point. The point is that Obama “compromised” and didn’t release the photos. Guess what the Republicans did? They criticized him anyway. So they got what hey wanted and were still not happy.

Last week, I talked about the Palin/Letterman feud and this week Letterman under pressure from his network no doubt caved in and apologized just as Palin wanted him to. He made a very sincere apology too. No joke. Guess what? The Republicans still protested his studio yesterday despite his Monday night apology. The fact is that it didn’t matter that David Letterman had to look like an idiot and apologize for something he shouldn’t have to apologize for in the first place. It didn’t make any difference. There is no compromise with these fanatics.

The fact is that the Republicans lost the last two elections in a big way. They lost because their economic ideas suck and their religious fanatics have made their party look ignorant and stupid. Republicans today don’t seem to have any good ideas on anything and that is why they concern themselves with trivial issues like Obama’s dinner date to New York and Letterman’s jokes. Maybe if they spend more time working out real compromises with the President and less time whining about Cheney’s hurt feelings over the CIA director’s comment that Cheney “almost wishes for another terrorist attack” they might actually win some elections again. For now though, I don’t think anyone should be trying to initiate a compromise with a Republicans on anything. We don’t need their votes on anything, so the time for compromise is over.

Filed under: Current Events, Politics | 17 Comments »

In my conversations with Christians, many times they will tell me about how I must obey their deity of choice. When I ask why I must obey, they often tell me that God created me. For the sake of argument, let us say that were true even though there is no valid evidence suggesting that it is anything more than ancient fiction. How does my being a creation of this particular god obligate me to obedience?

“Well…” they tell me, “he created you.”

“Okay, so what? Why should I obey this deity?” I again ask. It seems that most of the Christians I talk to don’t seem to understand what I am asking. They seem to think that creation some how demands obedience and quite frankly I don’t see that. If Hitler created a robot, would the robot be somehow obligated to obey Hitler even after it had developed a conscience? This is of course an impossible scenario, but it is just an example of how creation does not necessitate obedience.

While it is usually good for children to obey their parents, it is not always a good thing. And it is only a good thing to a point. It is only a good thing in so much as the parent is a good parent. Children aren’t slaves to their creators (i.e. parents) nor should humans be slaves to a god. While this is really a moot point since God is a character in a book and not real, the point is that even if God were real, creation alone does not necessitate obedience.

Filed under: Religion | 7 Comments »