Christianity and Gullibility Go Together

Michele Bachmann's attack on the HPV vaccine was probably politically motivated but there's an outside chance she may really mean what she says.  After all, she married an idiot who believes homosexuality is a mental illness that can be 'cured.'

OTOH she may be stupid like a fox.  The Tea Partiers would have been satisfied with a libertarian attack on Perry's order to have all 12-year-old girls vaccinated against the cancer-causing virus, but Bachmann's rhetoric in an interview after the debate took things to a whole 'nother level of dishonesty:

Yes, of course it violates liberty, when you have innocent little 12-year-old girls that are being forced to have a government injection into their body. This is a liberty interest that violates the most deepest personal part of a little child. And it violates the parental rights, because what we understand is, again, this was an executive order that mandated that every little 12-year- old girl had to have this vaccination. And then you'd have to opt out.

...The problem is, again, a little girl doesn't get a do over. Once they have that vaccination in their body, once it causes its damage, that little girl doesn't have a chance to go back. So you can't just say you're sorry.

Sounds a lot like rape doesn't it?  She makes it sound like the vaccine is intra-vaginal and breaks the hymen.   It's government rape of virgin girls!!!!!!

What a dishonest whore, and I have not seen any outcry about this. As a woman I'm offended that she feels that the STD nature of the virus has given her the right to couch her statements in these terms.  Does she think that all the little boys and girls who got the measles vaccine were also violated in "the most deepest personal part" of a child? The injections are given to the same part of the body.

There's lots of attention to a claim that the HPV vaccine caused mental retardation... a claim made by a stranger and never backed up.  Her claim has about as much merit as any other anecdotal claim, and any parent who makes a post hoc claim should be presumed to be in error until proved otherwise.  This is the same post hoc error made when parents linked vaccination to autism diagnosis.  Besides the original "study" being discredited, autism diagnosis can be made earlier than the scheduled vaccination that had been blamed.  So I guess now we blame other conditions on it.

I can see why a parent might opt out from a vaccine that's a private health risk rather than a public risk.  And of course all parents believe their children will be virgins until marriage.  (Those are the kids most likely to get pregnant at 15 of course)

The pundits are attacking her insane claim that mental retardation could result rather than her sly sexualization of a sound preventative health measure.  She probably has her feet up on a coffee table somewhere, and she's laughing her ass off because she knows that the response of smart people who paid attention is completely irrelevant.  Her target audience is too stupid to know whether she's being attacked fairly or unfairly.  They live a life of willing gullibility when it comes to claims without evidence and an instinctive mistrust of smart people.   Her audience isn't watching pundit shows, except maybe Bill O'Reilly.  No, they'll be tuned in to NASCAR news or perhaps they'll check in on "Teen Mom" to see if anyone they know is on it.

Bible verses make bad songs good... uhhh sure

"Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning" by Alan Jackson was sung on American Idol tonight. I'd never heard it before, and I'd never heard of him before, and I'm very very glad of that. What a stupid stupid song.

Stupid stupid stupid

The lyrics of the verses are tear-jerking remembrances of what "you" might have been doing (assuming you were a man) when you heard about the Twin Towers. So far so good. Everyday life grinds to a halt when something unthinkable happens. So far so good. Get out the hanky and prepare for a sappy chorus.

But wait.. what is this? The chorus is an uplifting Biblical non-sequitur. WTF?

I'm just a singer of simple songs
I'm not a real political man
I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you
The difference in Iraq and Iran
But I know Jesus and I talk to God
And I remember this from when I was young
Faith hope and love are some good things he gave us
And the greatest is love

So this song is really a celebration of religion-induced ignorance?  As long as you remember a few words from the Bible it doesn't matter if you're ignorant of foreign affairs?  And what did that have to do with September 11?

The song was premiered in November of 2001, so I guess it can be forgiven for being stupid in the heat of the mass stupidity gripping the nation at the time.  I found a lot of the "patriotism" post -9/11 really shallow and cheap and bordering on jingoism. Just wave a flag and put a pin on your collar and you're a good Amurkin. The same people who hated Washington & New York suddenly said "we" had been attacked. I was living in Texas at the time and it was sickening. This song reminds me of that, but there's something really sinister about throwing a bible verse into a song about a national tragedy without connecting the dots.

I was living in Fundyville, TX in 2001.  Until then, I got the impression that Texas was a whole 'nother country and they had no use at all for New Yorkers and anything in DC.  Then on 9/11 everyone's a New Yorker. I was devastated because I'd lived in both cities, and I was homesick for my friends.  Not to mention, I used to see the WTC from my bedroom window, so it was the first and last thing I saw every day as I opened and shut the blinds.  And I knew people who worked in the Pentagon. 

So I can definitely relate to the other parts of the song -- I remember where I was when I heard about the attacks.  But I don't get how you can say it follows from being shocked and sad that being ignorant and knowing a minimal amount of Biblical theology.

It's one thing for someone to be ignorant about foreign affairs and to have only a slim acquaintanceship with their own religion, but actually bragging about it in song is beyond me.  Bragging about it in the context of a national tragedy is downright insulting to the victims and to the rest of us who were equally touched despite not being ignorant Christian hicks.


p.s. it was a clever move on the part of the singer on American Idol, though.  Nobody's going to criticize his "song choice"

presenting christ to terminally ill atheist

"presenting christ to terminally ill atheist" was one of the search strings used to arrive at this blog recently. I tried that search, and it retrieves my post about prayer not being effective. So not really satisfying the searcher, and probably wasn't read....  but now I'm curious.  Why would someone want to do this?"

How many atheists in Europe or the Americas haven't heard of Christianity?

My mother was hospitalized in a religious hospital some time ago.  It's the only hospital around, and the one that her Medicare will allow her to go to.  (Is that Constitutional?)   They didn't push religion at all, until the resident social worker came by to talk about where mom would go after being released.  She offered to lead us in prayer.  My brother, mother, and I got very squeamish.   Even if we believed anymore, we wouldn't have appreciated an un-ordained random lay stranger making shit up for God's ears in our name.  We grew up Episcopalian.  It was a very awkward moment, and she took the hint. 

My town in Texas had only one hospital, a Seventh-Day Adventist one.  (They stayed open on Saturdays, though)  I went to the E.R. a couple of times and had to have an X-Ray once, so I was subjected to some bland Christian-themed posters.  I would never have denied myself health care because of where it was located, but it still pissed me off.  Hindus and Muslims are a real presence in our medical schools.  Atheists too, though not obviously so of course.  How many of these hospitals are losing out on the top talent because of their religious affiliation?  If I were a Hindu I wouldn't want to go to work every day in an institution that promoted Christianity.

Christians are proud of their history of having hospitals.  Should it really be a point of pride?  If they use them for conversion it's the lowest form of deception.  (a BIG complaint against Mother Teresa) And it's not like other religions haven't done the same.

This letter-to-the-editor brought this up for me. The title is "Christians build hospitals; why don't atheists?" but the writer is objecting to a lawsuit involving a church and the local school system.  In typical Christian fascism, oops fashion, the writer deflects from the legitimate issue of whether their local government was un-constitutionally promoting a single religion to whethr her religion had done good things.  Who could complain about forcing such a noble religion on children?  This ignorant writer probably has no idea what the Constitution says or how it's been applied over the past 200+ years.

She probably also doesn't consider the long history of Jewish hospitals or those of other religions, either. 

Of course, healing people is a good thing, so arguing against religious hospitals is a losing proposition.  "It might help, and couldn't hurt" is the default position on prayer.  Suggesting that prayer and religion could be harmful is politically incorrect.  Of course, by claiming innocuous motives and results, they defeat their own position.  If it's so innocuous isn't that the same was worthless?

Then there's the issue of quality control...   Just like pedophile priests, a religious organization controls decisions about incompetent or misbehaving believers.  They can address the problem, ignore it, hide it, and those are the same choices as non-religious organizations, of course.  The one choice they have and seem to use when it's convenient is that they can rationalize cruelty if conversion is the outcome.  Did Mother Teresa abuse her patients?    Who cares?  She's on her way to sainthood.

http://www.atheists.org/The_Question_of_Atheists_Hospitals

Questions for Christians

Christians ask themselves questions that conveniently have answers in Christianity.  Here are some questions that I'd like to see Christians ask themselves.

How many other religions have you studied?

Of all the world's possible religions, why do you think the stories of the Bible are more valid than the stories of the other religions?

If you were a Martian and landed on Earth having never heard of a concept of God, how would you decide which, if any, of the world's religions had merit?

If someday there would be definitive proof of the non-existence of God, would you still be a Christian?

Why do you believe what you believe?  (Favorite question on The Atheist Experience)

If you knew with 100% certainty that you would be going to Hell, would you still be a Christian?

Of all the denominations there are, why do you belong to the one you belong to? 

Have you read any of the scholarly theological literature of your denomination?

Have you read every word of The Bible?

How do you reconcile the inconsistencies of the Bible?  (There are many.  Refer to this list at the Secular Web if you have not realized the Bible is loaded with them)

How do you know which parts of the Old Testament can be disregarded by Christians?  If you don't know, then why not?

David Barton vs. Jon Stewart

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-may-4-2011-david-barton

That "Wallbuilders" creep who is rewriting history textbooks tried to convince Stewart that he's not really just promoting a revisionist history that supports his theocracy agenda.   uhhh yeah...  He brings up the old chestnut of States' Rights.... that State Constitutions were allowed to be religious at the start of the country, as if the Fourteenth Century never straightened this problem out. 

He claims to have thousands of documents to prove all this, yet somehow the National Archives isn't pounding down his door to get to them. 

Conspiracy, I guess.

I'd like to see these "documents" he has that supposedly disprove the Constitution, the amendments, and the case law that defined them.  I'd like to see where the 14th amendment doesn't guarantee that all people have the same rights in whatever state they live in.

I wish those theocrats would just go ahead and take over Mississippi and be done with ... oh wait... they're all lazy asses who wouldn't be able to tolerate cotton picking in the hot sun.  I wonder how they would solve that...

An Atheist Catechism: Part One, The Questions Christians Ask

Christians who object to atheism usually demand that atheists answer the questions that they think their religion answers for them.  I imagine believers in other traditions do the same but I haven't had much experience with them.  Catholicism set the trend with the Catechism - questions and answers for young Catholics to learn. 

There are two problems with the dialogue between Christians and atheists.  The first is that Christians define the  terms and control the territory.  They have well-worn traditions behind them, but little experience asking the questions they should answer.  They only "answer" the questions they have been taught to ask.  There's also some psychological projection going on, in my opinion.  They have so little idea of how others think that they can't conceive of their preconceptions not being shared, only that the conclusions differ.  They seem very concerned about atheists' souls, as if they can conceive of not believing in a god but they can't imagine not believing in a soul.

They want us to have a list of answers that would be parallel to their Catechism (Even if they're not Catholic, they have one of sorts).  So I've decided to give them one.

I've come up with some answers to their (often stupid) questions.    Most of these are questions I've been asked, but I've also seen a lot of the same questions over and over on the interwebs. I think we've all been faced with most of these if we've been at all open about our atheism. My favorite online source for Christian stupidity is the archive of the Atheist Experience call-in cable access show.   (Check out the Atheist Experience blog too!) They get some loop-dee-loos, and they have great answers for the loonies that call in.  I bet there are plenty other zingers out there.  Feel free to add to my list in the comments section.   Part Two will be the questions I'd like to see Christians answer.

Q:  Where do you go when you die?
A:  When you're dead you cease to exist, so you don't go anywhere.

Q:  Aren't you worried that you might be wrong and you might go to hell?
A:  Everyone could be wrong, including Christians.  I don't find the Christian stories convincing, so no, I'm not worried about Hell.

Q:  How can you be moral without God?
A:  The same way that everyone else who isn't a Christian can be moral, and Christians too, for that matter.  Society dictates morals, not holy books, or else Christians would be stoning children that have been raped and giving all their money to the poor.

Q:  You're really just angry with God.
A:  You can't be angry at something you don't believe exists.  That's like being angry at the Easter Bunny.

Q:  You're really just angry at the abuses of the Church
A:  The church's behavior has sometimes been atrocious (so much for belief instilling morality) but whether the church is naughty or nice has no bearing on whether a supernatural deity actually exists.

Q:  The church has been responsible for great works of art.

A:  So has Greek mythology.  So have other religions.  So has opium.  Artists will be inspired by whatever stories they find in the culture around them.

Q:  How do you know the Bible isn't true?
A:  There's very little evidence to validate it, and what little there is merely validates a few names and places, not the presence of a supernatural deity.

Q:  Isn't it arrogant to presume you're right and all those Christians are wrong?
A:  Not any more arrogant than Christians believing they are right and all the people in the other 2/3 of the world are wrong.  And anyway, which is more arrogant?  Not believing in something unverified, or believing oneself capable of sorting out the truth from the non-truth of thousands of untestable claims?

Q:  You think you know everything, don't you?  (also: You think you have all the answers!)
A:  Atheism is defined as not believing in stories of deities.  It's not defined by what is known.  Some atheists are quite knowledgeable, which probably isn't a coincidence.  Many of us know the Bible better than Christians, and we know more about science than evolution deniers.  (Granted, that's not difficult to do)

Q:  Science can't answer everything.  What about love?
A:  Actually, neurosciences have established quite a bit of knowledge about love.  Like other emotions, love exists within the brain.

Q:  How do you explain the human need to believe in God?  God made humans different from the animals.

A:  While I agree that humans are different from other animals (humans are animals), the belie in god doesn't qualify as a sound reason for believing in the supernatural.  Evolution explains a lot of strange behaviors.  In the case of religion, there are several theories, mainly about social control and cohesion.  Check out this reading list or the books of Michael Shermer.

Q: What about the miracles of the Bible?

A: What about the miracles of all the other holy books of the world? They are myths, propaganda, lies, and even trickery. They are stories without confirming evidence.  Christians blithely dismiss the claims of other religions but are gullible regarding their own.

Q:  [insert seemingly miraculous prayer story here]  How do you explain that?

A:  Prayer has been proven not to work in medical settings, yet people continue to believe prayer can heal and protect.  Anecdotes about a person's prayers being answered are the result of the human tendency toward confirmation bias.  You will remember the "hits" and forget the "misses."  (or rationalize them away)  Not to mention, the people who were in life-threatening situations, prayed, and then died are not around to tell anyone that prayer didn't work for them, which creates a sampling bias.

Q:  Christianity has been around for 2,000 years.  How could it survive if it were false?

A:  The same way that Judaism can survive for 3,000 years and Hinduism can survive for 4,000 years.  It's a social system, with a lot of purposes besides telling the "truth."  Children are indoctrinated from a young age and the society is so steeped in the traditions of the religion that few people question the premises.

Q:  There are millions of Christians.  They can't all be wrong.

A:  Yes, they can.

Q:  Nothing can exist without a creator, so the fact that things exist proves there's a God.

A:  This is the "First Cause" argument.  Things come into being in nature without an intelligent being pulling the strings every day, so the premise is false.  Even if the premise were true, that would mean that there couldn't be a God because God would have to have had a creator.  And if God could exist without a creator, then so could the universe.

Q:  You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

A:  Of course you can't!  You can't prove a negative about anything.  So therefore, the burden of proof is on the theist to prove that there is a God.  What theists offer as "proof" is not very compelling:  heavily edited "holy" books, unverifiable personal experiences, and admiration for nature.  Atheists can feel confident that the odds of Christian claims being false are high enough to be virtual proof.

Q:  If you're an atheist doesn't that mean that you don't believe in anything?

A:  Not necessarily. First, do you mean "anything supernatural?"  It's possible to be an atheist and yet believe in a soul, or ESP, or some other supernatural idea.  Atheism is merely not believing in a god... any god.  Most atheists also happen to be non-believers about all claims of the superntural because those claims are as weak as religious claims, so you are partly right.  There are many natural things to believe in:  love, beauty, society, family, honesty, altruism, etc.  There's nothing supernatural about any of those.

Q:  If you don't believe in God, that means you want to be God.

A:  I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, and yet I don't want to be the Easter Bunny (at least not without collecting a fee from whoever wants me to wear a costume at the Mall).  You don't believe in Thor, and I bet you don't want to be Thor.  This is shorthand for the argument that you can't be moral without God the Big Brother eavesdropping on your thoughts and looking over your shoulder 24/7.  It's just plain false.

Q:  You just left the Church because you want to sin

A:  If I really believed in the concept of "sin" the last thing I would do is leave the Church!  Unless you're hinting that you can game the system and run around sinning until the very last moment then accept Christ as your Lord and Savior and have it all erased.  What has been considered a "sin" has changed so much over the history of the Church that almost anything a person does over the course of the day could have been considered a "sin" at some point in history by some religious group.

Q:  So then your life has no meaning

A:  Sure, it has meaning.  It has more meaning than yours, in fact, because the time I spend on Earth is all there is, so I want to make the most of it.  I value the people around me because we're all in this together.  I empathize with their suffering and I celebrate their accomplishments.  Those things have value in themselves without any kind of supernatural meaning attached to them.

Another local idiot speaks out

http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20110402/OPINION03/104020313/Bible-says-s-wrong

On the front page of The Star Press on Tuesday, March 22 was an article, "Straight Allies Stand Up for Gay Rights."

The featured speaker was Claire Buffie, an advocate for gay rights.

In the Bible, the inspired word of God (that never changes) states that in the beginning, God created in his image both male and female. He blessed them and told them to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. (Genesis 1:27-28).

Leviticus states that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. By no means is this to say that God hates homosexuals, but does mean that he hates and is disgusted by the sin of homosexuality. He states very plainly that homosexuals (among others) will not inherit the Kingdom of God (I Corinthians 6:9-10).

Can homosexuals be fruitful and multiply to fill the earth?

I'm proud to report that commentors have ripped this shit to shreds.  Someone pointed out that the Bible has changed many times.  Someone else pointed out that other people who can't reproduce have the right to be married.  Another person listed all the rules in Leviticus that Christians are happy to ignore.  And finally the first amendment got a backhanded nod.

The article appeared on April 1.  It should have been a Poe, but apparently this idiot is the real thing.  They seem to get published every time the paper reports on something they don't like.  They don't like a lot of things.  They need to grow up.

Ray Comfort on The Atheist Experience

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13612645

Ray Comfort is a leading (?) Christian bullshitter.  He agreed to do a phone interview on The Atheist Experience, much to the LOLz of the chatters online at the time.  I have to admit, I was shaking my head a lot.  Can someone really be that stupid and be willing to let other people see their stupidity first hand?

He probably thinks he "won" but his sputtering indicates otherwise.

Godspam, and the Goddamngodspammers who Spam it

I think we've all (atheists and theists alike) received insipid life lesson godspam in our e-mail at one time or another. Some of my friends are so god-soaked (hat-tip to Human Ape for the adjective) that they hardly realize that the feel-good stories they send are religious. After all, a pithy religious note at the end of a long series of cute puppy photos doesn't make an e-mail religious, does it? *facepalm*

Recently, one of my atheist friends at work (yes, I found another one here in Indiana!!!) received the NASA spam claiming to validate two Biblical miracles. It claims that astrophysicists have proved a "lost day" during which the Sun "stood still" in the sky (Joshua 10:12-13) for 23 hours and 40 minutes, and another fable about Hezekiah demanding the Sun go backwards as proof that Isaiah was visiting him as a ghost, filling in the remaining 20 minutes.  *groan*  This is such utter nonsense it ought to make baby Jebus cry.

How can you tell it's nonsense if you're not an astronomer (which I'm not)? Here are some tips:

It's an e-mail that purports there is scientific proof supporting a Biblical miracle. Miracles by definition defy science so this would be big news indeed. And yet the only people who know are the lucky few who happen to be in the spammer's contacts list. Wouldn't this be common knowledge if it were really true?  Here are some clues:

The person sending it is a Christian. There. I said it. Christians are gullible. They are so eager to be right that they will believe anything, from Creationism to the Virgin Mary appearing in an office building window.

NASA scientists are supposedly wasting the taxpayers' money proving a religious myth. That would be unconstitutional, besides also being a waste of time. And anyway, why would NASA worry about something like that when they have bigger problems to solve?

The noble Christian character, who figures out The Truth thanks to his prior indoctrination as a Christian, is a classic trope.  He's the Christian Mulder. Doesn't every conspiracy theory have one? Crackpot loners always have the right answer against common sense and the scientific method. *rolls eyes*  Their colleagues suppress The Truth (tm) and he can only get the message out through spam.

Complete lack of detail, such as dates, references to written articles, etc. That's pretty much a trait of all urban legend type spam too.

...and then as I was getting ready to finish this post and publish it, I find this piece of shit in my e-mail account (sent as an e-mail).  WTF?  How did they get my e-mail address?  That's the most pathetic spam I've ever seen!  Although I have to admit, I am intrigued by the thought that the book teaches the fools how to spot logical fallacies!

Angie the Anti-Theist Reads "Purpose-Driven Life"

She reads Rick Warren so you don't have to! Way to take one for the team!

God Hates Uppity Teenagers

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/16/teen-creator-of-note-to-god-app-in-coma/

This is very very sad for his family but it seems to prove the pointlessness of believing in a god.  His idiot relatives believe it's a "miracle" that someone found him on a road after being hit by a car... but he was supposed to be meeting someone on that road so it was virtually certain someone would find him either by accident or by searching for him.  A real miracle would be having a car hit him, kill him, and then he gets up like nothing happened.  Or maybe the car goes right through him.  It would be even better if the car were a police cruiser with a dashboard camera to catch the whole thing.  That would convince me of the supernatural (not of God, though).

Check out the demo of the app he created.  The examples of the notes people send to god are just so pathetic, but I feel sympathy for them, even if they are deluded.  Rape victims, worried girlfriends waiting for MRI results, grieving parents, they all feel some kind of psychological pain that they don't have any method of coping with except this app on their iphone.  *sniff*  Actually using the phone as a phone and calling a friend to talk it over doesn't occur to people anymore apparently. 

Pray for Japan... even though they're atheists

...in the sense that they don't believe in a supreme being, anyway.  Shintoism and Buddhism are prevalent "religions" but belief in a supreme single deity is not required.

I keep seeing and hearing of people saying they're "praying for" Japan but not saying what they're praying for exactly.  It's really a kind of meaningless expression of concern.  Deep down they know their prayers won't affect the outcome other than to make them feel a bit better about being helpless. This is the kind of insipid vague crapola that bugs me when it's directed toward me.  If you actually question the good-hearted souls who offer to pray for others they will quickly become embarrassed at how shallow and useless their gesture is.

Here are some questions to ask in case you run into this inanity:

1. Why would a Christian god care about non-Christians?
2. Why didn't God prevent the earthquake and tsunami?
3. What are you asking God to do, exactly?
4. Why didn't you pray for Japan (or Haiti, or Thailand) before this happened?
5. What about all the other people in the world who need help?  Why not pray for them?
6. Why are you only praying for the living?  Why not ask god to forgive the deceased for being Shintoists and Buddhists?
7. Why aren't you praying for God to halt the aftershocks?  (they likely aren't)
8. Why should God listen to you?
9. If you pray for the Japanese and another earthquake kills more people there, does that mean God doesn't answer prayers?
10. Why doesn't God perform a miracle and bring all the victims back to life?

Why Atheists are Angry: Ten Things that Believers are Doing that are Ruining the World

We're not angry at God.  You can't be angry at a fairy tale.  So if you are a Christian and this is what you've been told, erase it from your brain NOW!  But we do have a few gripes. 

Believers have been working hard at ruining the world of late.  We live here too and we don't like the way Christians have been doing things.  Other religionists are often just as bad.  So if you sense anger from some of us, it's because you've been behaving badly.  If you don't want us to be angry, try not being dicks.  You can start with these ten things:

These are 10 things that piss us off:

1.  Killing people.  Jihadists, abortion doctor murderers, presidents who believe they're on a mission from God... they all suck and they're all evil, and they all believe they're going to be rewarded for the horrible things they're doing.  So right off:  STOP KILLING PEOPLE.  Sure, some atheists kill people too but not for atheism.  For other reasons (which also suck).  But you won't see atheists flying planes into buildings or shooting people at church, and you won't see groups of atheists celebrating some horrible misdeed by a fellow atheist.  We want some of you to fuck off and die, but we're not running around offing you ourselves.

2.  Trying to make everyone else believe in fairy tales.  Stop sending out missionaries.  You believe in your fairy tales because some ruler eons ago decided those were the ones to believe and your peasant ancestors had to go along with it.  You may believe in some split-off version of it but that's basically it.  Scientologists, you too, even though you have different tactics.  And Falun gung - stop xeroxing pamphlets and handing them out on the streets of DC.  Secretaries and janitors can't help your cause and making them late for their coffee break at Starbucks just ticks them off.  Muslims: get out of the prisons.  Jehovah's witnesses: get off my front porch.  Mormons: stop dressing like 1950s ice cream parlor nerds and riding around on bicycles.  Get real jobs and make a contribution to society.  Sure, the First Amendment guarantees you have the right to do this, but you can't complain that we get pissed off at it.  We have our rights, too.  If you don't stop, we'll start knocking on your doors!

3.  Semi-universalist "tolerance."  Incredibly, people who believe in a god will respect people who believe in a different god more than they'll respect someone who rejects them all.  WTF?  That makes no sense at all.   Those other people disbelieve 99% of gods, just as you do, but one they accept is one that you reject and vice versa.  You disagree with them more than you disagree with atheists!  At least we agree with you about those other peoples' gods.

4.  Creationism/Intelligent Design.  If you really believe that evolution is "just a theory" and should be ignored, then please put your money where your mouth is and stop believing in the germ theory of disease transmission.  Stop getting vaccinated, taking antibiotics, washing your hands, and drinking treated water.   Let's see how soon you change your mind about what "theory" means!

5.  Claiming the rights to "family values."  Your families are no better than anybody else's and you know it.  You get mental illnesses and addictions at the same rate.  You divorce at a higher rate.  If you're predisposed to a hot temper you believe in "spare the rod, spoil the child" and if you're a softie you don't believe in hitting your kids.  It has nothing to do with religion!   You pick and choose what "family values" are in your religion based on the ones that you happen to like.  And too often your idea of "love" includes telling your children that an invisible magic despot is reading their minds and wants to send them to hell for having the wrong thoughts.  Then you perform a ritual that symbolizes (or actually is, depending on your theology) cannibalism.  Giving them Christmas presents makes up for this abuse for awhile but wouldn't it be better if you didn't make them afraid eternal punishment before they can even tell time?

6.  Bigotry.  The KKK and other hate groups claim that God is on their side.  'nuff said.

7.  Claiming your religion is valid because of the beautiful art it inspired. Hey, everyone's religion inspired beautiful art.  That proves nothing.  Bach composed non-religious music.  Michelangelo created Hellenistic artwork.  The art of Hindus is truly gorgeous.  None of that art validates religion as a whole or any particular religion.  So stop trying to claim all the world's greatest artists as your own.  If they got paid more to create art for their religion it's because their religion was a rapacious money-grubbing greedy abusive power within that particular culture.  Artists may have claimed to be sincere about their art, but wouldn't it be foolish of them to express an iota of cynicism toward their sugar daddies?  And even if they were sincere, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have been great artists if they'd been atheists.  They would have been just as talented and taken on different subjects.

8.  Telling atheists what we believe.  We've read your books, but have you read ours?  Here's some news: we don't have a catechism.  We don't have a list of questions we have to answer to be atheists and we don't have to answer your questions, either.  If you insist on asking me where I'll go when I die then I'll have no recourse but to ask you why the Gospels trace Jesus' genealogy through Joseph when he was supposed to have been conceived by God, or why it was okay for Lot to have sex with his daughters but not okay for his wife to look over her shoulder at her former home as it burned.  Religion only answers the questions it poses, and the questions beg the answers.  Not believing in a god doesn't mean we believe in "nothing."  Not believing in the Ten Commandments doesn't mean we have no morality. 

9.  Accusing us of being arrogant.  Okay, so many of us are smarter than you, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know bullshit when you smell it.  It's not arrogant to say "I see no evidence for religion so I don't believe in it."  It's not even arrogant to say that gods don't exist.  At least not more arrogant than saying that other peoples' gods don't exist.  In fact I think that believers are the arrogant ones.  Not only do you believe in something for which there is no validated proof, but you think that you're smart enough to have chosen the correct belief system, and the correct splinter group as well.  Okay, sure your ancestors picked it for you, soaked your culture in it, indoctrinated your parents, and they in turn perpetuated the indoctrination to the point where you have no sense of perspective whatever, but you picked the correct parents!  Well done!

10.  Going to Bob Evans after church.  I'm just waking up and I need a bottomless cup of coffee and a place to do some quiet reading.  Besides driving behemoth vehicles I can't park near, you take up all the good tables and the wait staff pay more attention to you.  Also, stop dressing up if you insist on doing this.  You make the rest of us look bad.  Sunday mornings should be mandatory casual dress day.  All my good stuff is in the laundry hamper on Sunday morning.  You don't want me stinking up your Bob Evans with my skanky weekday work clothes do you?  I'm getting paid to dress nice at work, and I sure as heck wouldn't dress nice for Bob Evans.  Their slogan is "down on the farm" get it?  Dress like a farmer!  (only cleaner).   And tell your brats to stop kicking my seat!

There are probably many many more things you do to tick us off but that's a quick list.

Note:  This post was inspired by The Human Ape at Darwin Killed God, though the anger is my own.

The Local Town Idiot Speaks

Thanks to The Human Ape at Darwin Killed God for bringing this local piece of Creationist inanity to my attention.  In case it disappears from radar before my loyal fans readers have a chance to click:

Defending God
Atheists are constantly demanding scientific proof that God exists. The claim is that belief in a Creator is no more than a fabrication from an age of weakmindedness before science, logic and enlightenment became our litmus test.


I would propose that, if science is what you need, look no further than your own DNA. While agreeing that random patterns occur naturally by chance, DNA consists of code, which requires a designer. In intelligent design, we find a specified complexity. There is no Shakespearean sonnet without Shakespeare. Our very existence proves the existence of a Creator God.

However, God does not need to be defended for God's sake, but for our sake. God is eternal, above and beyond all that is temporal, and will continue to exist regardless of what we do here in our world limited to time and space and science as we presently understand it.

In our increasingly agnostic and atheistic world, God has been judged and sentenced to irrelevance, mocked instead of revered. The decisions we each make about God will determine our eternal futures, but it is a personal path. Do not limit your study to the rantings of the secular. Do not waste your arguments on those who will not listen. Discuss and debate within yourself to find the answers to your existence. In the end, it is between you and God.

I'm heartened to see local atheists replying.  There are probably some auslanders replying too, but it's for a good cause.  In a city with a university that offers *gasp*  SCIENCE degrees it's embarrassing to see this kind of crap posted in letters to the newspaper.  It's not like Christians don't have enough outlets to spew their stupidity.

The Billboards are Coming! Oh Noes!!!

Coming to a big city near MEEEE!!!!! Indianapolis!!!!!

The press says they picked Indy because there are freethinkers here, but I think the truth is, Indiana is the most backward state north of the Mason-Dixon.  I don't really care why I'm just glad it's coming.  It's an in-your-face answer to all the ridiculous crap lining the highways of this backward state, including Rapture billboards.  Yes, we have rapture billboards.  I kid you not.

The message will get through despite ticking people off.  I love this message, in fact.  It's not anti-Christian, at least not as much as it could be!  And it shows lovely white people displaying family values - nuclear family, child loving and respecting his mother, doting daddy... what could be better?

I still crack up remembering the comment at work about a local atheist leader being "one of the happiest people I've met" as if it was the freakiest thing to find that atheists could be happy.  The conversation didn't get very far, though, because I said "I'm an atheist too, and I'm pretty happy."

One happy atheist =  freaky oddity.  Two happy atheists = what the fuck?  A whole community of happy atheists coming out of the closet = did my pastor lie to me?

Yes, Virginia, your pastor lied to you.  We don't go around raping, murdering, robbing, and doing drugs.  Well, not more than theists do.  Possibly less.

If you have empathy for your fellow human beings you are much much less likely to hurt them, and more likely to respect yourself.  A religion that is all about YOU and YOUR future deployment to Heaven or Hell doesn't create empathetic people.

Some of Jesus' supposed words seem to encourage empathy but plenty of other stuff in the Bible drowns that stuff out for the average believer.  Even the "missions" to "help people" are mostly about being good in Jesus' eyes, or bringing Christianity to heathens, or earning brownie points with fellow Christians.

If people are empathetic it is because it's an evolutionary advantage for the species for individuals to look out for each other.  We are the decendents of apes that helped each other out.   Not everyone needs to be a certain way for the species to carry on a beneficial gene (a fact theists just can't get sometimes), but enough of us will be empathetic for the species to survive.  It has to be nurtured but not necessarily by a church.  Loving parents are all you really need.  Loving teachers, neighbors, and extended family help a lot too.

I would even say we're the "real thing" when it comes to morality and empathy because when an atheist behaves ethically or compassionately it's other-centered and sincere.  We offer aid and comfort freely, with no strings attached.  We do it because we're happy and we want others to be happy. What better reason could there be?

Are Christians Different from Scientologists?

Awareness of cults such as Scientology was part of the deconversion process for me.  In them I saw the process that early Christianity may have undergone:  charismatic leader, incoherent yet appealing myth, and devoted followers convinced that to leave the cult would mean death.

This article from the New Yorker made me think of Scientology again.  ...and why learning about Scientology put a few more nails in the coffin on any credibility Christianity had for me.

First, there's the whole issue of personality.  L. Ron Hubbard & Jesus both claimed to know the big Truths of Life and how to avoid pain and spiritual death. That's true of all cult leaders as far as I know.  They have to offer some insight that their victims adherents can't find elsewhere.

The point where Paul Haggis knew his religion's leaders were full of crap was when he saw one lie about whether they had a policy called "disconnection."  "Disconnection" is when the Scientologist has to sever ties to relatives who are anti-Scientology.  Sound familiar?  Perhaps it's because you are familiar with Christianity:  "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."  (Luke 14:26)

Reading through the article I find more parallels.  Scientology bragged on itself in its publications:  "participation in Scientology brings to many a broader social consciousness, manifested through meaningful contribution to charitable and social reform activities."  I hear this kind of thing from Christians.  They justify their belief system by its effects rather than proving their deity exists.  They have a lineage of creativity backing them up, too.  From Michelangelo to Bach our society has been enriched by their belief system.   ... as if Michelangelo and Bach were incapable of coming up with ideas for secular art.  The Brandenburg Concertos are probably Bach's most famous works, and they're not at all sacred.

Scientology got its foothold by cultivating celebrities:  "In 1955, a year after the church’s founding, an affiliated publication urged Scientologists to cultivate celebrities: “It is obvious what would happen to Scientology if prime communicators benefitting from it would mention it.”

Christianity benefitted from Constantine and later rulers adopting it as their official religion.  Back then, there were no movie stars, so they had to settle for kings and emperors. 

The following could easily be said of almost any believer in any faith:

“I had such a lack of curiosity when I was inside,” Haggis said. “It’s stunning to me, because I’m such a curious person.” He said that he had been “somewhere between uninterested in looking and afraid of looking.” His life was comfortable, he liked his circle of friends, and he didn’t want to upset the balance. It was also easy to dismiss people who quit the church. As he put it, “There’s always disgruntled folks who say all sorts of things.”

Once you've been sucked into (or born into) a religion, what keeps you there has nothing to do with theology, historicity, or any "proof" of the supernatural.  It's the comfort of belonging to a community, probably the most human need we have.  It's evolutionary: we are social creatures that depend on community for the survival of individuals, and our communities depend on the loyalty of the individuals for the survival of the community.

Yet Christians will point out how great their communities are as if other religions can't make the same claim.  (Americans will also brag on how great Americans are in a disaster, as if people in other countries won't rescue their neighbors during a natural disaster)

Some aspects of Scientology baffled him. He hadn’t been able to get through “Dianetics”: “I read about thirty pages. I thought it was impenetrable.” But much of the coursework gave him a feeling of accomplishment

Boy does this sound like the typical Christian.  Most have not read the Bible, or if they have they did it through coursework, being led to pay attention only to the convenient portions.  Bible study is one of those things I can respect because at least they're not just nodding their heads once a week on Sunday, but now that I'm an outsider, I realize there is no study of alternate viewpoints.  Of course any religion seems valid as long as you intentionally ignore all other viewpoints.

Haggis says: "I think I did, in some ways, become a better person. I did develop more empathy for others." 

This is also true of other religions.  The leaders and community can provide valid psychological insight and help adherents to develop empathy.  Again, no proof at all of the validity of claims of the supernatural.  Just a benefit of belonging to a community.  In the case of Scientology they suck you in with a promise of psychological help, and perhaps they really do help.  But do they help more than other types of therapy?  Or even confession? 

And how do they deal with doubt?  About the same way that Christians do:

Haggis expected that, as an O.T. VII, he would feel a sense of accomplishment, but he remained confused and unsatisfied. He thought that Hubbard was “brilliant in so many ways,” and that the failing must be his. At one point, he confided to a minister in the church that he didn’t think he should be a Scientologist. She told him, “There are all sorts of Scientologists,” just as there are all sorts of Jews and Christians, with varying levels of faith. The implication, Haggis said, was that he could “pick and choose” which tenets of Scientology to believe.

You might make the case that Scientology charges its victims adherents for religious instruction, but Christ told his victims followers to give all their money to their communal pot.  He also advocated a life of poverty, which rich people conveniently forgot.

No, the main difference is that the delusional ramblings of L. Ron Hubbard are of more recent vintage, so more easily dismissed.  Ancient beliefs seem to hold more sway.  If a text was written by long-dead writers who can argue with them?  Lao Tsu and Moses didn't leave paper trails, unlike Hubbard, whose military career and writings are available for investigation. 

But even though Scientology's claims have been proved false, its victims adherents cling to their false beliefs because belonging to a "religion" is more important than knowing whether its claims have any validty.  That's the main thing Scientology has in common with Christianity.

God lets down Christians.... again

God hates evangelists

The Adams' website chronicles their worldwide voyage, which included trips to New Zealand, China, Cambodia and Panama.


One aspect of their travels, according to the site, "is friendship evangelism -- that is, finding homes for thousands of Bibles, which have been donated through grants and gifts, as we travel from place to place." They also say their mission is to "allow the power of the Word to transform lives."

Despite their own prayers and the prayers of people that God really listens to (i.e. pastors, as in the video linked on the news page), these people were killed by the Somali pirates who overtook their boat. 

I don't experience any schadenfreude from this, but it does make me wonder what the people who went public with their prayers are going to say now.   If you were to make a statistical study of people in danger who were prayed for by others, compared to people in danger who were not prayed for (or maybe those prayed for by the wrong religionists!)... you would probably find that the outcome was no different.

You can't make a study of people who prayed for themselves because you would get the worst kind of confirmation bias: only people who survived a life-threatening event would answer your survey.

Do Christians ever think about why they only hear about people who prayed and were delivered from a life-threatening event or disease?  Don't they realize that the people who prayed and died anyway aren't talking to them?

If they do acknowledge that their prayers weren't answered (as opposed to conveniently forgetting that they prayed), they have a real problem on their hands, as their imaginary Sky Daddy was supposed to make everything all right.  Here are some website explanations for why prayer doesn't work:

You're not a good enough person.

Your prayers aren't good enough

You don't want the right things

You didn't tell God how great he is first

God did answer the prayer by doing what's best for you, not what you want


This last one is the default for a lot of the Christians I've met.  God knows what's best.  His ways are mysterious.  One door closes, another door opens...   blah blah blah 

All these excuses have one thing in common:  blaming the person doing the praying.  God is all-powerful but apparently you have the power to change his mind if you do everything just so.  If God doesn't answer a prayer it's because there's something wrong with you, not with the Somali pirates.

Someone at work the other day said she met the leader of a local atheist group and "she was one of the happiest people I've ever met."  I tried to explain how liberating atheism is, but I don't think her brain got past "you too?"

Liberating, yes.  Sure, being powerless in distressing or dangerous situations is frustrating, uncomfortable, and scary.  But we don't carry any shame for the situation or the outcome.  We don't allow ourselves to be belittled by fairy tale Sky Daddies and their spokespeople who will do everything to put the blame on the believer.  Those of us who were brought up to believe this nonsense are free to put the blame where it belongs: on the person committing the evil act, the cancer ravaging a body, or plate tectonics causing an earthquake.

It doesn't say anything about you that the pirates killed their captives, or that people died in the New Zealand earthquake, or that a four year old dies from cancer.  In the long run, we atheists are in a much better position to recover from horrible events than Christians because we don't hold false hopes of a fairy tale ending or blame ourselves when things don't come out the way we think they should.

We also don't have to spill a lot of ink wondering why things came out the way they did.

Here's a tip, Christians:  if it has taken theologians thousands of years to come up with an explanation, that's a sure sign that the underlying concept is bogus.  The answer to the question of why prayers aren't answered is that prayer is a mindgame and has no influence on the outcome of events.  If it makes you feel good, that's about all you're going to get from it.

Women's Ministry

I have a theory about church calendars: they suck in people with social events that have nothing at all to do with theology, so the people become so dependent on the church that they really can't leave even if they do crack open the Bible and see what an incoherent mess it is.

In my case, just having a great organist was enough to keep me coming for awhile. As a child I kept going because I enjoyed singing in the choir. That's the Episcopalian way. It's probably why the Episcopal church is losing members. And now that the "faithful" are mainly blue-haired old ladies, it's too late to start up a softball team.

As I drove through small towns in Indiana over the weekend I kept wondering what there was do to in these places besides work the farm and go to church. Some of these towns were so small they didn't even have bars!

Some of the people I know here are in churches that fill up their schedules with the kind of thing you'd have to live in a small town to find interesting. In a big city you'd have a million more interesting things to do on a Saturday night. In a small town you might have a choice between church bingo and a spaghetti dinner at a different church.  So I have a bit of sympathy for small-town Christians.  They don't know any better.

Then there are the big-city megachurches.  I wondered how hard they work at providing for their sheeple's every social need.  So I took a look at the website for Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church.  Amazingly, they have a Women's Ministry.  Perhaps they figured out that Osteen is damn creepy so they put a woman in charge of keeping the women in line.  I know I'd never want to be in a room with that used car salesman.

Their schedule is truly frightening.  They have a series of psychobabble "courses" and they promote it with this lovely line:  "We would love for you to join us for the entire series and join your faith with ours to see God’s abundance brought forth in the area of your finances in 2011!"  (Osteen is famous for "prosperity theology")

They also have a movie night.  What does watching "Secretariat" and eating popcorn have to do with being a Christian? 

Osteen has also brought his wife into a leadership role as "co-pastor."  This is something I think I've seen before, though it's not like I obsess about churches.  Still... the preacher's wife is supposed to be a kind of adjunct preacher in these fundy churches.  Osteen and his wife have a blog together.  I'd post the header photo but it's just too creepy.  Their most popular post has this gem:  "Today, you may feel like you're in the back of the line and nothing is going your way, but get ready because God is about to turn things around for you!"

Yep, self-centered theology at its best!  I haven't read all their blog posts but I have read enough to be thorougly disgusted.  There's nothing about charity, kindness, being part of a loving society, etc.  Meanwhile, "evil" evolution is starting to probe how these behaviors are adaptive and part of our instinctive behaviors.

So.... it's not really theology that's appealing, though being taken care of by a sky-daddy after your death is a comforting idea.  The real draw for country people is having something to do, and for city people it's almost the same.  If you were new in Houston and wanted to make new friends, the ladies' night out movie and popcorn event would be a safe way to meet people.

Fortunately, in the age of the internet we can find friendships online or through online searches for events we find interesting.  If I were to move to Houston, I'd look for atheist meet-ups, or a club that would involve my hobbies.  If I were to move to small-town Indiana I probably wouldn't get out much, but I do wonder how long it would take for me to feel lonesome enough to go to the local church's spaghetti dinner or bingo night.   And then once I did I'd play "spot the other atheist" in the room, looking for the other people who roll their eyes at the mention of God or praying.

Punching People for Jesus!

This is hilarious!



It's funny how often atheists receive anonymous threats like this. Unlike the rest of us, who use most of our brains, Christians use only the amygdala. Speaking rationally to Christian trolls is a waste of time, unless you need a good LOL at the moment.

BE NOISY! Because Christians are hard to get through to

ugh ugh ugh ugh:

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/01/11/are-some-atheists-more-%E2%80%98religious%E2%80%99-than-they-realize/

So... it's not okay to criticize outspoken religionists, but it's okay to criticize outspoken atheists.

If I don't post for awhile it's because I've injured myself pounding my head on my keyboard.

jdsklfladfskjljdsklfjdfkjfdsaj