The need for atheist spirituality...

Vjack has a great post over at Atheist Revolution about the application of "spirituality" to atheist thought. As I mentioned in the comments section, Sam Harris makes no bones about the spirituality he has experienced, and the fact the he continues to seek those experiences through contemplative processes like meditation. Presumably, a portion of his motivation in the area is his work as a neuroscientist and a desire to understand the neurological or neurochemical basis for these types of transcendent experiences.

To me, I find it interesting that religious folk often tend to use these types of experiences as "proof" that their mode of belief is correct. And, it's an easy misinterpretation to make, especially when caught up in the euphoria that may come along with these experiences. But, the fact that many cultures throughout history have produced these experiences, with or without a religious component ought to serve as proof of the opposite: our brains are wired to accept these types of input and translate them as awe-inspiring, transcendent, and special.

Conversely, many atheists appear to place little value in this type of experience. We can get so caught up in promoting rationality above all else that we may forget the sense of wonder and mysticism that is inherent (at least to me) in nature. It seems to me that these peak experiences are a wonderful part of the human condition. Different people will seek out these experiences to different degrees, but I think we ought to be open to this type of wonder, so long as we don't read too much into them. That is, they are not proof for god's existence, let alone proof that your specific god cares for you personally & individually.

Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted): Top Fifty Atheist T-Shirt and Bumper Sticker Aphorisms

Thanks to Dangerous Intersection for the tip-off on this:

Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted): Top Fifty Atheist T-Shirt and Bumper Sticker Aphorisms

Top Fifty Atheist T-Shirt and Bumper Sticker Aphorisms

1. Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers


2. Honk If Your Religious Beliefs Make You An Asshole


3. Intelligent Design Makes My Monkey Cry


4. Too Stupid to Understand Science? Try Religion.


5. There's A REASON Why Atheists Don't Fly Planes Into Buildings


6. "Worship Me or I Will Torture You Forever. Have a Nice Day."­ God.


7. God Doesn't Kill People. People Who Believe in God Kill People.


8. If There is No God, Then What Makes the Next Kleenex Pop Up?


9. He's Dead.
   It's Been 2,000 years.
   He's Not Coming Back.
   Get OVER It Already!


10. All religion is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry. Edgar Allen Poe.


11. Viva La Evolución!


12. Actually, If You Look It Up, The Winter Solstice Is The Reason For The Season


13. I Wouldn't Trust Your God Even If He Did Exist


14. Cheeses Is Lard. Argue With THAT If You Can.


15. People Who Don't Want Their Beliefs Laughed at Shouldn't Have Such Funny Beliefs


16. Jesus is Coming? Don't Swallow That.


17. Threatening Children With Hell Is FUN!


18. GOD - APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD!


19. Jesus Told Me Republicans SUCK


20. God + Whacky Tobacky = Platypus


21. God Doesn't Exist. So, I Guess That Means No One Loves You.


22. When the Rapture Comes, We'll Get Our Country Back!


23. Q. How Do We Know the Holy Ghost Was Catholic?
    A. He Used the Rhythm Method Instead of a Condom.


24. You Say "Heretic" Like It Was a BAD Thing


25. I Love Christians. They Taste Like Chicken.


26. Science: It Works, Bitches.


27. "Intelligent Design" Helping Stupid People Feel Smart Since 1987


28. I Found God Between The Sheets


29. I Gave Up Superstitious Mumbo Jumbo For Lent


30. My Flying Monkey Can Beat Up Your Guardian Angel


31. Every Time You Play With Yourself, God Kills a Kitten


32. If God Wanted People to Believe in Him, Then Why Did He Invent Logic?


33. Praying Is Politically Correct Schizophrenia


34. ALL Americans Are African Americans


35. I Forget - Which Day Did God Make All The Fossils?


36. I Was An Atheist Until The Hindus Convinced Me That I Was God


37. The Spanish Inquisition: The Original Faith-based Initiative


38. If we were made in his image, when why aren't humans invisible too?


39. JESUS SAVES....You From Thinking For Yourself


40. How Can You Disbelieve in Evolution If You Can't Even Define It?


41. Q. How Can You Tell That Your God is Man-made?
    A. If He Hates All the Same People You Do.


42. Every Time You See a Rainbow, God is Having Gay Sex


43. I Went to Public School in Kansas and All I Got Was This Lousy T-shirt and a Poor Understanding of the Scientific Method.


44. WWJD = We Won. Jesus Died.


45. The Family That Prays Together is Brainwashing the Children


46. Oh, Look, Honey Another Pro-lifer For War


47. Another Godless Atheist for Peace and World Harmony


48. God is Unavailable Right Now. Can I Help You?


49. When Lip Service to Some Mysterious Deity Permits Bestiality on
    Wednesday and Absolution on Sundays, Cash Me Out. Frank Sinatra.


50. No Gods. No Mullets.

The Raw Story | Huckabee: Amend Constitution to be in 'God's standards'

I'm sure you've seen this or heard about this by now, but in case you haven't:

The Raw Story | Huckabee: Amend Constitution to be in 'God's standards'

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Contrast this with the constitution (from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1)

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Hear that, Huckleberry!?!?!?!?! That's my constitution that you are threatening! And what parts of God's law do you want to amend the constitution to include? All excerpts below from Evil Bible.

Can we own slaves? Leviticus 25:45 “Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy … and they shall be your possession… they shall be your bondmen forever.” Genesis 9:25 “And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” Exodus 21:2 & 7 “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing… And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.” Joel 3:8 “And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it.” Luke 12:47-48 [Jesus speaking] “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.” Colossians 3:22

“Servants, obey in all things your masters.” So obviously the Biblical God thinks slavery is right, right? Just look at these: Isaiah 58:6 “Undo the heavy burdens... let the oppressed go free, ... break every yoke.” Matthew 23:10 “Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.” (Also see Exodus 22:21 & 21:16) Let it be known here that pro-slavery Bible verses were cited by many churches in the South during the Civil War, and were used by some theologians in the Dutch Reformed Church to justify apartheid in South Africa. There are more pro-slavery verses than cited here. I simply do not have the room to post all of them.

Should we pray in public? 1 Kings 2:22, 54 & 9:3 shows the Lord is joyed by public prayer and listens intently. Matthew 6:5-6 condemn public prayer and command people keep it a secret.

Should we circumcise males? Genesis 17:10 “This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee: Every man and child among you shall be circumcised. Clearly this demands circumcision, yet Galatians 5:2 says “Behold, I Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”

Do women have rights? Genesis 3:16 “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” 1 Timothy 2:12 says a woman must not teach, remain silent and must be subjugated to her man. 1 Corinthians 14:34 & 1 Peter 3:6 both say that women have limited rights and are under control of their men. Judges 4:4, 14-15, 5:7, Acts 2:18 & 21:9 all tell of powerful women who were not subjugated by men and were not punished for their authority of men.

So, Mr. Huckleberry Hound, which of these bat-shit insane, stupid, ass-backwards, neanderthal ideals should we amend our constitution to include?!?! Or is it just going to be the typical Christian Coalition stuff: banning abortion, eliminating stem cell research, stripping homosexual of any rights, getting rid of that pesky "evolution" in biology classes and so on?

THIS IS WHY ATHEISTS ARE SO FUCKING ANGRY!

Conservatipedia

Hat Tip to Stardust at God is for Suckers for the heads-up.
As if I ever need reminding why I'm an atheist:

Conservatipedia

Sometimes, on a cold winter day, my thoughts turn to dumbasses, and then I'm happy again. There, but for the grace of *reason* (sanity?) go I.

Let's talk about the age of consent. The law should be universal in every state, you must be 18 years of age to have sex. End of story. Liberals are constantly fighting on the side of pedophiles to lower it down. A lot of states have the age of consent at a disgusting 16 years old. Take a look at gay Canada, children as young as 14 can have sex with 40 year old men legally. What is the world coming to?

Hey, believe me, I hate Canada as much as the next guy, but seriously?

And, as a public service, here's a quick list of shows to avoid to keep your 8 year old from turning gay

There is a number of queer shows on television that not only promote the sinful "Gay Culture", but are probably filled with other subliminal messages to promote the homosexual agenda. Here are a list of shows to avoid:

• Queer Eye for the Straight Guy
• Boy Meets Boy
• Queer Eye
• Big Brother
• Survivor
• Family Guy
• The Sarah Silverman Program
• The War at Home
• The Simpsons
• Drawn Together
• Heroes
  
• The Ellen Show
• Dr. Phil
• Oprah
• Will & Grace
• Friends
• Seinfeld

There are many more, but these are the main ones to avoid. Just keep your head up and possibly buy a digital cable box or satellite dish, so you can control the content. Last thing you need is your 8 year old son asking you if his pants look "fabulous".

Family guy AND The Simpsons?!?! *Gasp* But, but... but... I've been watching those for years, and I'm still happily married. I'm not sure how you've been watching all of those shows without a digital cable box or satellite dish, but good to know!

Please, just read this whole post "Atheists Are Out To Get Your Children"


I can only hope it's satire, but I don't hold out a lot of hope.

Sermon Alive

I'm not really sure if this is true or a VERY clever parody. I guess I have to lean towards true. Apparently, the idea is to post a daily devotional or sermon.

Some choice tidbits from Sermon Alive:

Nevermind, I can't pick a few. I'm thinking about skewering the daily devotion on an ongoing basis, but let's just start with today's, OK?

FAITHFULNESS

A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished. - Proverbs 28:20

In the Promised Land, we learn that obedience is the only thing that matters. We are called to execute, and leave outcome to God. Sometimes that outcome is very positive, yielding a return. In other cases, we may not yield a corresponding return. We may even get a negative outcome. The difference is that we know that we have been faithful to what God has called us to and we yield results to God. God often blesses obedience beyond what we deserve. If God brings wealth to your life, it should come as a by-product of obedience, not an end in itself.

God may call each of us to be obedient to situations that may not yield immediate, positive results. It is in these times that our faith must be obedience-based versus outcome-based. What if Jesus had considered the immediate ramifications of whether he would go to the cross? Based on the immediate outcome, the decision would have been an easy one. Who wants to die on a cross? However, for Him there was a higher purpose in that obedience. We are called to this same kind of obedience. This means putting our own flesh on the line daily, dying to our own self-will.

This is what it means to be a faithful man. Pray that God will make you a faithful man today.

Question yourself:

• Am I willing to be obedience in any circumstances?
• Why have faith in God’s promises resulting in total obedience irregardless of any circumstances?

So what I'm learning from this is if we work hard at obeying god's will, then sometimes we get stuff and sometimes we don't. However, if we are very lucky we might actually have to put "our own flesh on the line daily". And I just can't get enough of the questions to ask yourself:
"Am I willing to be obedience in any circumstances?"
"Why have faith in God's promises resulting in total obedience irregardless of any circumstances?"

I don't know how to "be obedience." Can someone please diagram the last sentence for me? I know "irregardless" is not a word, but I'm not sure what the subject of the sentence is? I'm going to take a stab at translating the question into one you might be able to read: "Come up with some reasons why you should have blind faith in god and blindly obey his various edicts, even when they contradict each other, despite any and all evidence to the contrary".

Other things that you can learn if you sign up for the daily devotional:

• how to sort out which of the many voices in your head is god's
• "You need more battles that will give you the opportunity to learn the art of spiritual warfare. Do not fear these battles that are before you. God has already given you the victory if you choose complete dependence and obedience to Him. Then you will become one of God’s greatest warriors, skilled in spiritual warfare."

I hear it now.... "ninjas for Christ"

Evolution and the race for President

Reason Magazine has a wonderful new article up by Ronald Bailey about why we should care what the various presidential candidates believe about evolution. He covers what most of the candidates have said about evolution so you can get an idea of who thinks what. He ends the article with this summation for why you should care what the candidates think:

A larger question is whether a candidate's belief about the validity of evolutionary biology has anything to say about his or her ability to evaluate evidence. A January 4, 2008, editorial by Science editor Donald Kennedy correctly argues, "The candidates should be asked hard questions about science policy, including questions about how those positions reflect belief. What is your view about stem cell research, and does it relate to a view of the time at which human life begins? Have you examined the scientific evidence regarding the age of Earth? Can the process of organic evolution lead to the production of new species, and how? Are you able to look at data on past climates in search of inferences about the future of climate change?" Kennedy concludes, "I don't need them to describe their faith; that's their business and not mine. But I do care about their scientific knowledge and how it will inform their leadership."

Since science and technology policy issues are only going to become more important as the 21st century unfolds, we should all care how scientific knowledge informs a president's leadership.

How do you fit this in with your prioritization of which candidate to support? As I argued here, once I find out you are a religious literalist, I can't take you seriously anymore.

Sadly, we do have a need to know as much as we can about the candidate's particular religious beliefs. If you believe that a 2000 year-old Jewish zombie is someday coming back, I want to know that about a candidate before I vote for them. If you believe that 72 virgins await martyrs in some idyllic paradise (although presumably not so idyllic for the virgins), then I have a right to question your basic sanity. All hyperbole aside, I need to know if your particular supernatural beliefs are going to influence your policies.

I was telling my wife the other night that I'm not so concerned about all the minutiae involved in the debate, but it's getting to the point that if you are religious I think that, in many ways, is mutually exclusive with being a reasonable, logical person. If you believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, we don't have that much more to talk about. We're obviously not going to agree on environmental policy if you think the whole earth was created in 7 days. I can't listen to your position on taxes, or health care, or education, much less your ideas about more religiously charged topics like abortion, gay rights, stem cells, or even foreign policy. We're pretty much done at that point, and I can't take you seriously anymore. Can you see where I'm coming from? The inmates are out of the asylum and are running for president, unfortunately they all have a god-complex.

How do you determine which candidate to support?

In writing this post I started discussing the process of deciding which candidate to support. I posed the question: "How do you decide which candidate merits your support?" I really don't mean it as a trite question, I've put a great deal of thought into it personally.

It used to be an easy decision for me. I used to be a religious Republican, which meant that I made by decision by listening in church for cues as to who everyone else was supporting. Occasionally, this would come from the pulpit, but more often casual discussions with other church members would lead to a kind of informal consensus as to who the 'best' candidate would be.

Now that I'm neither religious nor Republican, I'm not sure how people decide to support any given candidate, especially when parts of their ideology may conflict. For example: if you love candidate A's positions on domestic policy, but hate their foreign policy, do they still get your vote? Or substitute any set of issues you want, the question remains: in the absence of a perfect candidate for you, how do you go about prioritizing the issues so you come up with an acceptable candidate (or not) to vote for?

To me, I'm really struggling with this issue. I've spent the last 10 or so years throwing out or otherwise evaluating the old heuristics I'd use. Heuristics are especially useful or especially misleading when it comes to elections. For example- Mike Huckabee is touting his Christianity. For many people, this provides a useful way to shortcut all of his position issues and just give them a "yes" or "no" for supporting him. Heuristics are mental shortcuts based on past experience. So, if you are a Christian, this label attached to Huckabee is a shortcut way of expressing that he probably shares your values on issues such as abortion, evolution, science policy, stem cells, gay rights, etc.... You don't (mentally) need to take the time to actually evaluate his positions on each of these issues. It works the same way for me when I go to evaluate Mike Huckabee, except those shortcuts all lead to a "no" answer when I question whether our values are similar. For other Christians, Mitt Romney's Mormonism might be another heuristic for "no", even though they would probably agree on all of the issues. This is why I say they can be especially misleading.

These heuristics are great once the nominating stage of the race is over with and the parties have chosen their candidates. Most people just use their "party" heuristic at this point and vote for the person that the party as selected to represent them. However, at the nominating stage, one has to look a little bit deeper to find one's cues.

So here's where I stand: I'm 29 years old, white, middle-class, atheist, and a libertarian. I don't know much about how our foreign policy ought to look, I just know it's not working now. I'm not sure if non-intervention (a la Ron Paul) would be salvation or disaster. All of this means that there's no obvious candidate that I should support. Fiscally, I probably should side with a Republican candidate. Socially, probably a Democrat. Foreign policy gets a big "?". So how do I prioritize these? I think all of these issues are important-- if not for me personally, then for the country as a whole. Should I vote strictly my interests? Should I vote for the best interest of the country? How do I weigh these if they diverge? I was leaning towards Ron Paul lately, until I read this blog post at Daylight Atheism. So I think where I'm left is looking for Giuliani. We probably agree on economic policy, he's pretty liberal on social issues (gay rights, etc...) and I don't think he's looking to push his religion down anyone's throats. I don't plan on traveling out of the country any time soon, I don't know anyone that lives out of the country, and I don't know anyone in the military, so do I completely ignore foreign policy? That doesn't seem right, but what am I to do?

If you have any input, feel free to leave it in the comments. How are you deciding? What factors are the biggest for you?

It's a "Brave New World", Mr. Bush

Think Progress » Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ Convinced Bush To Ban Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Isn't that neat? You can read the whole story above, but it's neatly encapsulated in the hyperlink.
The dystopian novel "Brave New World" had Bush freaking out over the possibilities that humans would one day be bred in hatcheries if the government supported stem-cell research. In a stunning stroke of political mastery, Bush angered both sides of the debate by refusing government funding for new stem cell lines while not banning stem cell research entirely. Feel free to read the whole article by Jay Lefkowitz (a presidential advisor), it really is an interesting scoop on how this president came to his decision.

As a first step, Bush asked me to prepare a set of background reading materials on the scientific aspects of stem-cell research. He also asked for a summary of the relevant laws of other countries, and a description of what the world’s leading religions had to say on the issue. Once I began turning in my memos, a day rarely passed when he did not call with a follow-up request or a question about something he had read. It was clear that in addition to the material I submitted, he was also finding other things to read and was talking about stem cells with friends and intimates.

One morning at 6:30, my wife summoned me from the shower to answer a call from the White House; the President had been speaking about the issue the night before with a friend and had a barrage of questions he wanted me to answer or look into immediately. At a ceremony in the Rose Garden, Bush saw a physician he knew and invited him back to the Oval Office where they spent fifteen minutes discussing stem cells. During a birthday party for a member of the White House medical unit, the President asked each of the doctors present to set forth his own position. At a gathering with medical groups and doctors to discuss the pending Patients’ Bill of Rights, he queried each physician about the scientific potential of stem-cell research, the ethical quandaries involved, and what the best public policy would be.

Bush also discussed the issue on many occasions with individual members of Congress, and spoke about it to nearly all the members of his Cabinet. (After one Cabinet meeting, Secretary of State Colin Powell followed him into the Oval Office to make sure Bush was aware of his views.) Nor did he confine himself to the precincts of the White House or of Washington. In May, traveling to Notre Dame to give the commencement speech, he spoke with the university’s president, Father Edward Malloy, and a number of scientists on the faculty. The next day, at Yale, he sat down with Harold Varmus, who had served under Clinton as director of the NIH and was the president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Hmmmm, so I guess if you were anywhere within 300 miles of George W. Bush during this time, you probably had to fill out a survey on what you thought he should do. Great. Let's just have the Gallup organization serve a term as leader of the free world.
Mr. Lefkowitz makes it clear where he stands looking back on the issue:

In the coming decades, scientific advances will compel Presidents and politicians to confront vexing choices on subjects that were once solely the province of dystopian science fiction: human cloning, fetal farming, human-animal hybrid embryos, and situations as yet unimagined and unimaginable. If we are to benefit from the great promise of the age of biotechnology while preventing grave ethical abuses, we can only hope that future Presidents will be guided by the same seriousness with which George W. Bush pursued the question of stem-cell research, as well as by his stout refusal to be seduced by the siren song of political expediency. [emphasis mine]

I will be the first to agree that because science can do something, does not mean that it should do something. However, I think the point of view advocated above is so hysterical, so over the top, that it is almost humorous. Or it would be if it weren't the point of view shared by so many stem-cell research opponents. It's going to be a while before GoatBoy becomes palatable. Hopefully never. However, if you are opposed to these sorts of things, then you have already missed the boat. Sundry animals and their parts have been used for years to prolong human life, and you can't stuff that genie back in the bottle. From new heart valves to pig insulin, the easiest way to save human life is to rig up our own solutions until science produces something better. There sure doesn't appear to have been any intelligent design from the start.
It's also worth remembering that the stem cell debate is not the same as the cloning debate and neither is the same as the xenotransplantation debate. There are well-reasoned arguments on both sides, but I don't believe 1930's fiction should serve as the deciding factor when it comes to national science policy.

Survey: Most Americans Believe in Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ | Christianpost.com

Survey: Most Americans Believe in Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ | Christianpost.com

I'm pretty sure that sampling 1,005 adults by a "christian polling organization" is going to return these kinds of results, but here goes. Highlights:

• Respondents were apparently asked whether they believed that the following stories were "factually accurate" or "meant to teach principles"
• Virgin-birth of Christ
• Christ turning water into wine
• Christ feeding the multitudes with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish
• Noah's ark & the flood
• Serpent (devil) tempting Eve to eat the forbidden fruit
• Samson's strength being derived from his hair & loss of strength after Delilah cut it.

Once again, I am nearly speechless. As I was explaining here, if you are a biblical literalist, we don't really have anything to discuss. It takes such a willful disregard for facts, biology, even the laws of physics as we know them, that a discussion between us is bound to be unproductive. I think I could almost grant you that biblical stories are meant to be allegorical and a way to teach morality if it weren't for all the incest, genocide, torture, slavery, murder, etc... in the "good book".
However, if there is truly 75% of the American population that literally believes that Jeebus was born from a virgin I might really have to abandon this country. I'm moving to Norway. Luckily, I'm quite certain that the Christian anti-science bias and ignorance of scientific method extends to the area of statistical analysis and polling science.

Pastors Urge Wal-Mart to Repent This Christmas | Christianpost.com

Pastors Urge Wal-Mart to Repent This Christmas | Christianpost.com

A national television ad campaign featuring two prominent Baptist ministers who call on Wal-Mart to give the gift of economic justice this Christmas was launched Monday.

"The Bible says, 'To whom much is given, much is required,'" says the Rev. Charles Foster Johnson, interim pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church of Nashville, in the television ad which is being aired in 35 markets across the country.

I am amazed. I cannot stand these looters that are more than happy to tell anyone and everyone ELSE how to spend the money that they earned. What was Wal-mart given, that much should be required of them? Isn't providing an enormous variety of low-cost goods in an extremely efficient manner while providing thousands (millions?) of jobs enough? Further:

The ad is part of the third annual "Hope for the Holidays" campaign by WakeUpWalMart.com, which spent over $1.5 million in radio and TV ads to draw attention to the retail giant’s unique responsibility toward the communities it represents.

The Rev. Markel Hutchins, a Baptist minister who heads Markel Hutchins Ministries, also joins Johnson in the ad to call on the multi-billion-dollar corporation to be a better “neighbor” to its communities this Christmas by paying fair wage, providing affordable healthcare, and ensuring the safety of the goods it sells.

So this is the THIRD ANNUAL "Hope for the Holidays" campaign, which has spent over $1.5 million in ads. Hmm, I'm surprised that a church group (Markel Hutchins Ministries- come on!) has that kind of dough to blow on criticizing Walmart. Wouldn't that money be better spent in fighting back in the "War on Christmas"? Or doing anything else????? Oh, maybe it's because the ad campaign is funded by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. Hmm, I wonder if they have a dog in this fight?

More prattle:

“Wal-Mart is not the epitome of all unfairness and injustice in the world but it’s just that they are the biggest,” said Johnson in an interview with The Christian Post. “We want these corporate neighbors to have more equitable policies for their employees.”

The church has the role to be “a voice for fairness and justice in an economic system that is increasingly creating disparities,” said Johnson, a visiting Instructor of Preaching at the McAfee School of Theology at Mercer University in Atlanta.

“Justice is figuring out what belongs to whom and giving it to them,” he added. “A decent wage is what belongs to the people of God who are workers.”

From a short-term perspective, one may think that Wal-Mart can accrue more profits by keeping its current employment policies, said Johnson. But he believes that through reform, the company can reap greater benefits in the long run.

“It’s not rocket science to see that that will cultivate a more dedicated, more loyal partner in your business,” asserted Johnson.

What a title: visiting Instructor of Preaching at the McAfee School of Theology at Mercer University. Not really sure what a visiting Instructor of Preaching understands about economic theory, but apparently he's a also rocket scientist! Who is the "more dedicated, more loyal partner" that Wal-mart will attract by cutting their own competitive throat?

This is pure greed and class warfare, masquerading as a search for equality and justice. Wal-mart has money, tons of money. This means that they do their job very well. However, that money does not belong to Wal-mart. It belongs to the shareholders, which have elected a board to decide how Wal-mart should allocate the resources so they continue to make money for the shareholders. Here's another thing I've never understood about the low-wage critics: why do people agree to work there? If the wages suck, go work somewhere else. Or go to school so you're qualified for a better job. Or if they are really that bad, don't work at all. If they don't pay health insurance benefits, get them on your own, or find a better job. Since when is working at Wal-mart supposed to be the highest position on the food-chain!?

Proceed with Caution! | God Hates Crustaceans

Proceed with Caution! | God Hates Crustaceans

Lobsters, crabs, crayfish, prawns … seafood lovers everywhere relish the mention of such culinary delights. But there’s much more to know about these shellfish than simply how tastily they can be served up on a plate. You need to be aware that that tasty morsel you'd love to eat will cause you to burn in hell for all eternity.
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Satan Lurks in Seafood Restaurants!

Satan, through his demonic ally Neptune, has placed these tempting abominations in nearly every body of water on this planet, including both fresh and salt waters.

In addition, as part of his evil plan to confuse and overcome the righteous, he has also placed in various locations around the planet what appear to be ancient fossils of Crustacean-like appearance. Some seem to be over 6,000 years old, according to so-called Scientists.

DO NOT BE FOOLED BY SATAN!

Certain cities have become associated with some of these forbidden foods.

In the USA, the city of New Orleans was smote with hurricane Katrina because of all the seafood restaurants that specialize in tempting the faithful with spicy, tasty, delicious shellfish. God has rendered judgement on creole cuisine.

If I lived in Maryland I'd be very careful about where I go to eat.

The entire state of Maine has been given over to the Red Lobster Conspiracy.

San Francisco may be completely a lost cause, as there are seafood restaurants in almost every neighborhood.

Many thought that the great tsunami of December 26, 2004 was a natural disaster. In fact it was God purging the shorelines of abominations such as lobster traps and clam infestations.

Help protect America from the wrath of God, take your whole family and your lawyers with you, and picket the funeral of a dead lobsterman today!

PRAISE HIM!

Teach the Bible in Schools...Please! : The Antipath

Teach the Bible in Schools...Please! : The Antipath

Hilarious!! Full text below:

Teach the Bible in Schools…Please!

Since this issue hasn’t gone away yet, I just wanted to register my opinion that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I’d love that. In fact, just to help facilitate this, I thought I’d do a favor to any local school board weighing the issue and come up with a course curriculum for them.

The History of the Bible - Course Curriculum:

First quarter: Students will study the historic context of the old testament, including slavery, the inferiority of women, etc., and develop an understanding of how these social attitudes are mirrored by the main character, God, in his rules regarding exactly how slaves should be treated and how best to own your women. Exercises will include female students shutting up and baking pies for the male students, while male students create a deity and decide whether or not that deity approves of the pre-established pie-baking and shutting-up system.

Second quarter: Students will study the historic context of the new testament, including reviewing the history of the gospels; namely the men who wrote them and how they could have done so having never knew Jesus. Discussion will include an exercise known as the “telephone game”.

Third quarter: Students will study the creation of the modern-day bible by the Roman Empire. Topics will include the merging of Christian holidays with Pagan traditions and other marketing techniques employed in the selling of Christianity to the empire’s subjects, as well as a lesson on the books that the Romans omitted from the bible because they didn’t fit with the rest. Discussion will include students presenting ideas on how the Romans might have decided for God which books were His word and which were fiction, as well as ideas on what the Roman’s previous god Saturn might have thought about this process.

Fourth quarter: Students will study the various translations of the bible and learn to draw relationships between the results of translation and the goals of the translators. Discussion will include a review of substantial differences in various translations and students will compare key passages and how they appear in the Hebrew, King James, Good News, Esperanto and Klingon versions of the bible.

Goal: Students will come away from this class with the understanding that the Bible was never handed down from man from the ether, but rather a collection of books written by men, edited by other men, translated by more men and interpreted by even more men, with vastly divergent results. For their final exam they will be asked to write three page essay on why a flawless and perfect being might choose such a retarded method for communicating such important ideas when such direct methods as sky-writing and speaking through flaming shrubbery would be readily available.

Bring it on, baby!

BillOReilly.com: The O'Reilly Factor Flash

Ok, I'm really sorry that I couldn't find transcripts of this segment on the Bill O'Reilly show that aired (in my area) last night on my way home from work. I wanted to bang my head on the steering wheel. Below, I've got the link and the segment info from the O'Reilly website, but I couldn't believe the stupidity I heard. I know, I know, I should have known what I was in for. . .

BillOReilly.com: The O'Reilly Factor Flash: "Impact Segment Religion and the Republican race
In debates and interviews, Republicans are being asked more about religion and faith than terrorism or the economy. The Factor suggested that the emphasis on religion fits with the media's agenda. 'If the media can keep the argument on Jesus and not on terrorism, it's a big win for the Democrats. This is a joyful season for the left if they can keep Jesus in the Republican primary.' Former White House spokesman Tony Snow pointed out that most journalists are cut from the same cloth. 'The journalism establishment is filled with people who don't go to church, the vast majority are not observant. They tend to think of religious people as quacks, when in fact they form the backbone of the public. This reflects a mindset that's totally out of synch with the American people.'"

Ummm, wait, what? Now it's the left that is injecting religion into the debate????? Wow, I remember "doublethink/doublespeak" from 1984, but I have never heard a more concrete example of taking facts, changing them until they are the complete opposite, then passing that off as true.

I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president.
-- George W Bush, quoted from Aaron Latham, "How George W Found God," George Magazine, September, 2000

O'Reilly's first point is that the media is largely secular, and aligned with the left. Fine, I can buy that. From that, he gets that the liberal media keeps asking Republicans about the finer points of their religion because the more they talk about religion, the sillier they sound and therefore become less likely to be elected while making Democrats look good by contrast. I fully agree that the more they talk about religion, the sillier they sound. But rather than that being an indictment of the media, it is an indictment of religion. Secondly, Democrats are not the ones who started talking about religion in the political sphere. Faith-based initiatives? That wasn't us.

"The very first act of the new Bush administration was to have a Protestant Evangelist minister officially dedicate the inauguration to Jesus Christ, whom he declared to be 'our savior.' Invoking 'the Father, the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ' and 'the Holy Spirit,' Billy Graham's son, the man selected by President George W Bush to bless his presidency, excluded the tens of millions of Americans who are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, agnostics, and atheists from his blessing by his particularistic and parochial language.
"The plain message conveyed by the new administration is that George W Bush's America is a Christian nation and that non-Christians are welcome into the tent so long as they agree to accept their status as a tolerated minority rather than as fully equal citizens. In effect, Bush is saying: 'This is our home, and in our home we pray to Jesus as our savior. If you want to be a guest in our home, you must accept the way we pray.'"
-- Alan M Dershowitz, in "Bush Starts Off by Defying the the Constitution," Los Angeles Times, January 24, 2001

Does anyone seriously believe that the left is the group behind injecting religion into the presidential race?

O'Reilly goes on to argue that the best president in modern memory (Reagan) was secular and the worst (Carter) wore his religion on his sleeve. There may be something to this, but the thrust of his argument was that religion is best left out of the debate. If I were sitting in a chair, I would have fallen out of it.

I get it Bill. I do, I really understand what you've been doing. You're the "no-spin" guy, right? As far as I can tell, all that means is that you can say whatever wacky, inane thing you want and then when you don't make any sense, you can say, "Hey, that's the no-spin position. If you don't like it, you're obviously trying to spin the issue."

Sadly, we do have a need to know as much as we can about the candidate's particular religious beliefs. If you believe that a 2000 year-old Jewish zombie is someday coming back, I want to know that about a candidate before I vote for them. If you believe that 72 virgins await martyrs in some idyllic paradise (although presumably not so idyllic for the virgins), then I have a right to question your basic sanity. All hyperbole aside, I need to know if your particular supernatural beliefs are going to influence your policies.

I was telling my wife the other night that I'm not so concerned about all the minutiae involved in the debate, but it's getting to the point that if you are religious I think that, in many ways, is mutually exclusive with being a reasonable, logical person. If you believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, we don't have that much more to talk about. We're obviously not going to agree on environmental policy if you think the whole earth was created in 7 days. I can't listen to your position on taxes, or health care, or education, much less your ideas about more religiously charged topics like abortion, gay rights, stem cells, or even foreign policy. We're pretty much done at that point, and I can't take you seriously anymore. Can you see where I'm coming from? The inmates are out of the asylum and are running for president, unfortunately they all have a god-complex. In a future post, I will talk more about the process of an atheist choosing who to vote for, but I want to know: how do you decide which candidate merits your vote?

This isn't a trite question to finish off this post, it's something that I've been thinking about for a while. There really isn't a candidate that I'm with 100%, so there necessarily has to be some kind of prioritization of issues, even if it's subconscious. In other words: if Candidate A agrees with your positions on domestic policy, but not foreign policy, do they still get your vote? What if they agree with everything you believe, but they are a Mormon-- does that one issue make-or-break their candidacy in your mind?

EDIT: I found this website today with many cartoons and quotations supporting my position. :)

TheMishMash.com: "We're on a Mission from God...[the Rest of You Will Burn in Hell]"

OK, just as soon as I post about why atheists are so angry and how we're not going to play nice, I find this on mishmash.com:

TheMishMash.com: "We're on a Mission from God...[the Rest of You Will Burn in Hell]"

Maybe it's not the atheists who are bitter and hard to get along with!

America’s atheists | Believe it or not | Economist.com

America’s atheists | Believe it or not | Economist.com

Believe it! According to The Economist article linked above, atheists in America would have a better chance at effecting change if we were to stop "picking the wrong fights." Of course, that's not our only problem, they also cite other reasons:

What accounts for the failure of atheists to organise and wield influence? One problem is that they are hardly a cohesive group. Another issue is simply branding. “Atheist” has an ugly ring in American ears and it merely defines what people are not. “Godless” is worse, its derogatory attachment to “communist” may never be broken. “Humanist” sounds too hippyish. A few have taken to calling themselves “Brights” for no good reason and to widespread mirth. And “secular” isn’t quite the word either; one can be a Christian secularist.

But none of that comes close to our biggest problem, which The Economist opines is our meanness. Sound familiar to anyone else??? We have been accused for years of being unpleasant anyway. I suppose that these criticisms are correct, at least to a certain extent. Many of us choose to speak out in favor of the separation of church and state wherever violations appear, rather than only when more groups are on our side. If that strikes some as petty, what can we do?
Also, the "new atheist" authors have brought this issue to the forefront with both the style and content of their writings. We have been criticized as "militant," "fundamentalist," "dogmatic" or just plain "rude". The root of the problem, again according to The Economist:

But another failing of the irreligious movement has been its tendency, frequently, to pick the wrong fights. Keeping the Ten Commandments out of an Alabama courthouse is one thing. But attacking a Christmas nativity scene on public property does more harm than good. Such secular crusades allow Christians—after all, the overwhelming majority of the country—to feel under attack, and even to declare that they are on the defensive in a “War on Christmas”. When a liberal federal court in California struck the words “under God” from the pledge of allegiance, religious conservatives rallied. Atheists might be tactically wise to accept the overwhelming majority’s comfort with such “ceremonial deism”.

OK, fair enough. We piss off a lot of people. And I'm all for strategy in the fight. But I will never understand why anyone feels that we should be satisfied with half-measures. But if these things piss off Christians, why wouldn't they be any more inclined to support our stand when it comes to "areas where American religiosity can do harm—over-aggressive proselytising in the armed forces, undermining science or AIDS programmes, alienating minorities at home and Muslims abroad". Can anyone say "stem cells?" How about other areas: gay rights? Abortion? Intelligent Design vs. Science in the classroom?
No, I'm afraid making nice with the religious will not make them any more likely to support a reasoned approach to any of the above. Therefore, what incentive do we have to abandon the quest for well-thought out policies at all levels of government? Or the constitutional right to separation of church and state?

The 9 most badass bible verses. . . (Cracked.com)

If you didn't know this stuff was in your bible, you might be Christian. LOL

My favorite illustration:

From http://cectic.com/

Violence in the Heartland

Well, my letter to the editor did get published, albeit in a slightly altered form. I suppose it's for the best as they did tone down the sarcasm. Anyway, the firestorm over "Happy Holidays" vs. "Merry Christmas" has really taken a backseat in the wake of the shooting that took place at one of Omaha's largest and best-known malls. At times like these, those kinds of disagreements over the proper structure for greeting someone during this time of year seem even more petty than usual. I must say it is a little surreal to go to work and hear the national news discussing it. It's a trite sentiment, possibly even a cliche at this point, but you never really expect it to happen here. I suppose it's also at times like these that many people search for the deeper meaning, search for solace in religion. As the years go by, I find this becoming more and more nonsensical to me. I mean, I realize that many people find comfort during trying times through religion. I am just not one of those people, and I don't really understand how they make the leap. To me, it's pretty cut-and-dried: we have a teenage kid who has undergone years of mental treatment on an in-patient basis, never really had a relationship with either of his parents, a high-school dropout, loses his job (at McDonald's) and his girlfriend all in the span of about 2 weeks right before the holidays and SNAPS- kills 8 people and then himself. The only thing that was surprising to me once details about the shooter started to emerge is that he went back and got his G.E.D. In any case, there's no need to search for a supernatural explanation for all of this, it's a pretty stark example of multiple failures in the field of child-rearing and mental illness combining in a horrific display of brutality. But I sometimes wonder what lessons would I take away from this if I were Christian- or religious at all for that matter? That God hates malls? He was upset with these particular holiday shoppers and used this young man as a tool to exact his vengeance (a la the Old Testament)? That God loves us and wants us to be happy? God has a plan for everyone? I guess I never understand how to get to solace from all these kinds of questions.

Comix, witticisms, etc...

Every so often, as I'm stumbling around the web, something catches my eye. Google's Notebook is awesome for stuff like this. Stuff that I don't really need to bookmark, but would like to have later to refer to. It's ended up in practice being a place for me put witty little comics and pics from the internets that make me chuckle. I envision this being a semi-regular kind of posting that shows you what's made the cut for atheist stuff this week. Here goes :) BTW, I'm trying as best I can to give credit to where I found the item if I don't know where it originally came from.


From Sinfest:


Kiss Hank's Ass- a classic story with a modern interpretation, finely dusted with satire.

The Atheist Delusion on You Tube - again, satire rules! This is NOT the Kirk Cameron banana debate, although that is hilarious too!

I'm cracking up lately, with this "Raptor Jesus" phenomenon- just google it if you don't know! This one came from Smelly Bean


This comic from the Atheist Community of Austin I have found to be reliably funny in its satirical mission:


I'm not sure of the derivation of this, but it's poking fun at the lolcat phenomenon at the same time :) I found it at http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/460/lolcatbiblesmlou8.jpg




Again, I'm not sure about where this came from, but I thought it was hilarious! For what god has wrought, let no man break asunder . . . :) I found it at pown.us/images/74.php

This whole intelligent design debate reminds me of Candide from the French enlightenment philosopher Voltaire. It's brilliant, and if you haven't read it yet, you should. This one came from exchristian.net/art/albums/userpics/10001/norma...


This chart came from www.nullifidian.net If you don't know the meaning of nullifidian, take a moment and click here. It's a fun word to say : )


This is from De-Conversion, one of my favorite blogs. Or perhaps I should rephrase: I first saw this comic on De-Conversion, but it's really from a parody of a Chick Tract. If you are familiar with those, please enjoy the full version here.



This is just funny! I found it at http://www.evilmilk.com/pictures/Abstinence.jpg

Christmas vs. "holidays"

After reading the post from Radical Atheist on Thursday last week, I thought that there was no way we could be retreading this debate again this year. Apparently I was wrong. I opened my Omaha World Herald this morning to find the following letter to the editor:

True Spirit of Giving
It's time for America to wake up and realize that there is an ideology that is slowly eating away our traditions and beliefs. It's political correctness that began with Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin under the name partiinost meaning ideological purity.
Substituting "Happy Holidays" for "Merry Christmas" and eliminating any reference to the birth of Jesus are perfect examples of political correctness. Traditionally, we celebrate Christmas by giving gifts to others to commemorate the greatest gift of all, the birth of Jesus Christ.
But what if for just one Christmas, every Christian gave money to charitable organization instead of buying presents? As the economy slipped, I believe we would find every business scrambling to wish us all a very "Merry Christmas."
If it were done for more than one Christmas, maybe we would eventually see elected officials gladly dedicating Nativity scenes on public properties, judges beginning to rule against the American Civil Liberties Union and the nation once again recognizing its traditional Judeo-Christian heritage.
Val Black, Shenandoah, Iowa

I'm now taking responses to the following question: Have you ever heard mindless drivel like this before? I think that it must be concentrated in this part of the country, at least that's what I've got to believe if I'm going to keep going. Anyway, I penned my response to the editor, below.

Val Black's December 2nd plea for more Christianity this time of year strikes me as non-sensical. The derivation of the word "holiday" comes from the middle English term for "holy day". Therefore, it is religious to say either "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays". Although perhaps that is a little too "politically correct" for Val Black to wish happiness to anyone if you can't prove they are Christian.
As for gift-giving during this season, it might surprise Val to learn that this tradition (along with many, many, others) was adopted by the Germanic tribes of Europe in the middle ages to mimic or replace those of pagan holidays at the same time of year. Luckily, we live in the United States of America, where we don't have to worry about "elected officials gladly dedicating Nativity scenes on public properties" or "judges beginning to rule against the American Civil Liberties Union" without a hearing. Yes, how lucky we are to live in this country where we have a separation of church and state and all are free to worship (or not!) as they see fit. And wishing "Happy Holidays" to someone does not make you a communist on par with Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin.
One would think that there are far greater things to be concerned about than someone inadvertently offending you by wishing you happiness in a format you deem inappropriate!

I would dearly have liked to write more, but they try to keep the submissions to about 200 words. Really though, the arrogance involved in this mindset staggers me every year. And what a manufactured controversy! Does anyone besides Bill O'Reilly and his followers really care about this? To say to everyone else that "IT DOESN'T COUNT UNLESS YOU SAY 'CHRISTMAS'!" blows my mind! The train of thought has to go something like this:

1. I am a Christian, therefore
2. Everyone must believe exactly the things that I do, therefore
3. Christmas has to be celebrated a certain way, because it's traditional to me, therefore
4. Anyone who varies from the way I want things done is a COMMUNIST & therefore Evil
5. And I will solve this by writing to my local paper- they will help me enforce conformity to my will!