Do the Jesus Jive

I replied to another blog about music & religiosity and it reminded me of some videos I've seen in the past.  This one is typical of voudun spirit possession.  (It starts at about 3:35)



Too white and male to get dressed up and let the spirit enter you through dance?  Then try it the Pentecostal way:



Too hot for running around? Maybe the spirit will go easy on you and let you wander around in a haze:




If you want to do your badass Jesus Jive, just be sure some people with full control of their faculties are around to catch you when you fall, and wear your emergency alert bracelet because after Gawd knocks you on your ass, nobody will call 911 until the Jesus Jive is over:

Religiosity isn't Rational

It's been proven through functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748718/?tool=pubmed

Their findings:

A comparison of both stimulus categories suggests that religious thinking is more associated with brain regions that govern emotion, self-representation, and cognitive conflict, while thinking about ordinary facts is more reliant upon memory retrieval networks

This is why you can't talk believers out of their belief with reasoning.  They have their emotional lives and self-image involved.  You can only chip away at it.  Their leaders are so resistant to anything contrary to their "facts" being taught to their children because they know that faith can't be overturned, it can only be undone in pieces.  If children learn the truth about the real world, they'll have a self-image based on the real world, not on their fantasy world.  They will grow up, and religion doesn't want grown-ups.  Grown-ups won't get out of bed on Sunday morning and put hard-earned money into the collection plate.

They also perceive themselves in a different way than non-believers do.  They use a different part of their brain when judging themselves and others.  They also use different parts of their brain when imagining God's positive or negative emotions.  There are two parts of the brain involved for the task of self-judgment vs. putting oneself into another's mind. 

Later in life, the hippocampus shrinks more in born-agains than other believers or in non-believers.   This can lead to Alzheimers.  Why am I not surprised?

Is Ghandi in Hell?

Despite what the Bible says about "salvation," apparently American Christians are more willing to forgive people for not accepting Christ than God is:

The most striking divergence from orthodoxy, however, was first revealed in the 2007 US Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. That comprehensive survey of 35,000 Americans found a majority of Christians saying that people of other religions can find salvation and eternal life.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2009/0114/p02s02-usgn.html

So they've figured out what atheists already knew: sending good people to Hell is bad!  But if you don't have to believe in Christ to get out of going to Hell, they why do you have to believe in Christ at all?  It's not just everyday Christians anonymously admitting their disbelief, there's a controversial pastor preaching this message too:  https://www.robbell.com/lovewins/.  (I love his quote that Christian theology teaches that Jesus rescues his followers from God!)  He wants to believe that Ghandi made it to Heaven.  He also acknowledges how messed up Christianity is, and then he love-bombs.

I think the love-bombing and social network of Christianity outweighs all other considerations for a lot of Christians.  I overheard a coworker say that he gets really anxious when he travels unless he knows there's a church nearby.  That's crazy.  If he's one of God's children and God is everywhere, what difference does it make if there's a church around the corner?  The difference is that Christianity is a salve for his anxiety disorder, not a pathway to Heaven.  After all, if Heaven is so great, why not just off himself and hurry upstairs before he thinks some heretical thought and ruins his chances?

Evangelicals may be their own undoing.  There are so many splinter "denominations" and start-up churches founded by one person (like Rob Bell's) that people can pick and choose whichever one they like, or make up their own theology and appoint themselves the head of a new church.  Any storefront will do.  I've seen a jillion of these.  The megachurches are the opposite end of the spectrum.  They're not under the thumb of a central authority, either.  Even the Southern Baptist conference is losing its grip.  Mean-spirited bigotry may finally be driving believers away, but they can't let go completely, so they hook up with nicer churches.  And these new churches provide what people who no longer need to feel "chosen" need for psychological fulfillment:  a social network, a feeling of being loved, and some guidance on what constitutes right and wrong.

I admire the trend.  These people will be easier to live with than the monsters who are trying to undermine the First Amendment, turn the military into a Christian crusader army, and set science back by hundreds of years.  Now if only they will take on their nastyass cousins in court and get them to STFU about the "Christian Nation," maybe we can move on as a culture.

Richard Dawkins vs William Lane Craig: Not Happening (YAY)

Richard Dawkins has decided not to debate William Lane Faith-is-properly-basic Craig, and good for him.  Of course, Christians are taking this as a sign of weakness:

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/9901617876.html

Craig, one of the nation's leading Christian apologists, has debated many atheists on the rationality of faith and the existence of God including Sam Harris, Bart Ehrman and Richard Taylor. His upcoming United Kingdom tour has evidently intimidated Richard Dawkins as he has continually refused to debate Craig when he visits his home turf this October.

Recently, Polly Toynbee, president of the British Humanist Association, also pulled out of a scheduled debate with Craig on the existence of God. A war of words has broken out between Dawkins and his critics, who see his refusal to take on the American academic as a sign that he may be losing his nerve.

Famous atheist Sam Harris once described Craig as "the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists."

Dawkins has already shot WLC down:





I agree completely not just about WLC, but about the average believer: it's an emotional cause for them, not rational at all and therefore, not subject to debate or rational discourse of any kind.  They appeal to emotion at every turn.  In essence they believe because it fulfills an emotional need for them, and they don't want people saying their fairy tales are false.

I first heard of WLC at the blog of Randall Rauser, who has an advanced degree in bullshit apologetics, and seemed to think that his vapid responses to his atheist responders actually had merit.  Failing to convince us that love of poetry, love of love, and nice feelings in general are sufficient to justify faith in his deity, he would cite William Lane Craig and another loser by the name of Alvin Plantinga.

Their main argument seems to be, it's nice to believe in something nice, so it is therefore true.  Of course, I got that second-hand because if their fanboy, Randy, couldn't sell them to me I didn't think it was worth reading their stuff.  I did watch some of WLC's speeches and debates on youtube and I just came away shaking my head.  He really sounds like a boxer on the ropes, defending religion on the basis of intuition, and yet people say he's a great debater.

About debates... apparently you can win or lose debates based on parrying and thrusts of a verbal sort, kind of.  So if you throw out a bunch of thrusts and your opponent only handles a few of them and sidesteps the rest in the interest of time, that is apparently a "victory."  Waving your sword in air and never actually nicking or stabbing your opponent somehow makes points. 

I think the wins and losses of debates should depend on the number of onlookers whose minds have been changed.  You could do before and after surveys of the audience, and any nudge in the average score would determine the victor.  What seems to be going on in the theist-atheist debate scoring is that people who belonged to debate clubs in high school extrapolate their useless exercises into the adult world of deciding what to believe. This goes for partisans on both sides, most of whom coincidentally give the "win" to their side but who sometimes give it to the other side.  If you are an atheist, and you watch a debate between an atheist & a theist and you are still an atheist at the end of it, the theist loses!  It doesn't matter if someone lost 'points.'

Dawkins going to an evangelical college to debate during an evangelical convention against their biggest idol would indeed be a waste of time due to cognitive dissonance.  The audience would be packed with people who have made it their life's work to bullshit themselves into believing that believing is good (forget whether it's true).  Cognitive dissonance goes like this:  I invested a helluva lot into this Christianity thing, so it has to be true, or else I've wasted my life. 

I squish them to
give them a
second chance

Atheists, even activist atheists, have much less investment.  For one, we haven't had to lie to ourselves.  For another, we haven't traded a boring life in the here-and-now for an even more boring life in the hereafter.  If we're wrong, the odds of which are seriously low, there's no particular guarantee that there's an afterlife or that the Christian version is correct.  WE haven't thrown in our lot with one fairy tale over all others.  Most of us are familiar with several fairy tales.  Losing out on the Christian one is a one-in-several shot, versus the Christian wager which is all-or-nothing.  I've led a relatively good life, so if Buddhism is true, I might come back as a richer, whiter, beautiful woman with a kickin body. 



Christians, on the other hand, have been arrogant in believing their selfish theology is correct, so they might come back as cockroaches or tsetse flies.

Back to the "properly basic" idea.  WLC says that belief in a god is "properly basic," which in philosophical terms basically means it gets a pass.  These beliefs don't need evidence, but they do.  And they're valid unless they're not.  Grab some dramamine and check out his podcast on "properly basic" crap:

   

Gideon Bibles in the Doctor's Office Waiting Room

Yes.  There were Gideon Bibles on the waiting room side tables at my doctor's office.  My doctor is leaving this practice and I am following him to his new practice, but I've been sick for a few days and I really needed to see him today.

But since I didn't plan to stay with the practice I didn't mind being seen to open the Bibles and write in them. But since I didn't have to wait very long I only had time to write under the Gideon imprint:

"Purveyors of Bullshit"

When I find them in hotel rooms I have more fun with them, but I had to settle for this.

But seriously, WTF?  Why would they allow this?  It's a general practice, not an emergency room!

Oh yeah, because this is fucking Indiana.  Fucking insane.

farts you can't trust them

"farts you can't trust them"

This came up as a search that brought someone to this blog.  I don't know what this person was looking for, but I can say this:  if you live with dogs, you will often think you have a doggy pile to clean up, then upon investigation you realize it was just a fart.

The Selfishness of Christianity

One of the defenses we often hear about Christianity is how many good works have been done in Christ's name.  Of course, they dismiss the evil done in Christ's name because the perpetrators were not "true" Christians, or because it was so long ago it doesn't matter anymore.  Still, the generosity and good works of Christianity have indeed enriched the world.

I'll grant that hospitals, programs for the poor, and other social services are good deeds... as long as prosletyzing isn't the price the recipients have to pay and the good works really are good (More about Mother Teresa in another post)

At the root of these good works, though, is selfishness.  The motive isn't true empathy for suffering but a guarantee of a place in Heaven.  A secondary though possibly more powerful motive is to be seen to be doing good works.  If you're doing good things you must be a good person, right?  And if you do it in a group and happen to have an enjoyable time with your friends-in-Christ well that's just icing on the cake.  You'd work on a Habitat for Humanity house in a crappy neighborhood on your own, wouldn't you?  You don't need a church bus to take you there.  And then there is the whole doing-what-Jesus-says line.  Jesus said feed the poor, so obedient Christians will do it because he says to do it.  That's hardly an unselfish reason.  Getting in good with your savior, whose blessing will keep you out of hell.  Very nice.

The worst example of selfishness, I think, is prayer for some earthly benefit for oneself or one's loved ones.  A friend from Houston recently posted to Facebook thanking friends for their prayers.  They finally had rain.  Hallelujah! 

Rather than forward her selfish post to my friend from nearby Bastrop, who continues to be traumatized by the huge fire there, I sent a PM with a general skeptical view of prayer.  I also pointed out that if God was so good, why not send the recent hurricane that was a near miss all the way over to Bastrop to put out or prevent that fire?  Not to mention, why did God allow Texas to endure such a dreadful drought in the first place?  And why did he ignore Perry's prayers and that big prayer hoopla thing in Houston, but answer the prayers of my friend's friends around the country?  Why did God wait so long?  And speaking of timing, July & August are usually the dryest months in Texas, and coincidentally, God answered her friends' prayers in September, when it's much more likely for Texas to receive rain.

Well, I did make some of those points in our exchange but what I bit my tongue about was the utter selfishness of believing that God will answer prayers for better weather just for her.  Apparently none of the people who lost everything in the Bastrop fire had any friends who prayed for them, or else their homes would have been spared.

Chrisitans are also selfish in their entire theology of redemption.  In theory, you just have to be a believer to be spared the punishment of Hell.  This in itself is supremely selfish.  Character doesn't really matter if being "born again" or "saved" or baptized is all it takes.  Too often they write off the other Christians who don't live up to charitable or even moral standards as not true Christians, but then if pressed they have to admit that the standards for who can be called a Christian are very low.

John 3:16 makes it pretty clear:  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

How nice for them.  That's all they have to do, just believe.  Fuck everyone else, and fuck the people who didn't get rain this month.  They didn't deserve it anyway.

Evangelicals have a bit of a claim in wanting everyone to be saved, but salvation is still a selfish concept.  What about "Do some charitable things and you'll be repaid with thanks from the people you help?"  If that's all there is to missionary work, some might do it anyway.  That's because unselfishness is as much a part of human nature as selfishness is.  This is why they fear evolution -- it might show that living in a community requires a quotient of unselfishness from every member, or at least a big enough plurality to keep the community going.  And if humans are capable of being generous, kind, and helpful without a God to tell them to do it, what do they need God for?  And if rain happens whether you pray or not, why pray?

The answer is: selfishness.  They may even know their prayers are worthless, but they do it to remind themselves how special they are compared to everyone else.  It's sickening.

My Kindle Book List

I just got a Kindle for my birthday.  Wheee!  I'm saving my pennies though so instead of buying books I'm looking for good free reads.  I will consider all suggestions (except those from trolls of course)

I've already downloaded three books by Darwin, Bertrand Russell's Why I am not a Christian, Payne's Age of Reason, and some fiction.  I'm also storing up some non-Christian religious texts, like the Bhagadvita and the Tao Te Ching, and a book on Roman & Greek mythology.  (why their beliefs are 'myths' and everyone else's count as "religious texts" doesn't make sense to me)

For future reference I'd consider suggestions for books I'd have to pay for, but I won't buy them for awhile.

Well? Suggestions anyone?

"Charity" loses USDA food for refusing to stop prayers

http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/7638940-452/kadner-state-cuts-off-food-to-crestwood-pantry-over-prayers.html

The State of Illinois insisted on compliance with the Constitution and they didn't back down.  Good for them!  If this religious organization wants to continue forcing hungry people to be subjected to prayer in exchange for food distribution that's their right, but the government doesn't have to pay for it.

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.

Leave it to Dusty!

A point of view CNN will never air:

Teh 9/11 Stoopid

Another stupid Facebook post:

As 9/11 approaches....I would like to share this prayer
Now I lay me down to sleep...one less terrorist this world does keep...with all my heart I give my thanks...to those in uniform regardless of ranks...you serve our country and serve it well...with humble hearts your stories tell...so as I rest my weary eyes...while freedom rings our flag still flies...you give your all, do what you must...with God we live and God we trust....Amen!

If they trust God, why send military overseas?  Shouldn't God just smite all the enemy with pestilence and locusts and earthquakes and hurricanes and uhhhhh high unemployment rates.... uhhhh nevermind

At least they didn't insist on friends doing a c&p of this drivel, but I just wanted to!

So ... ahem ...  In the past ten years, we have experienced murder, mayhem, droughts, earthquakes, hurricanes, and a few terroristic attacks by Muslims.  And a few by Christians.  And a few that we still haven't figured out the motives for.

And yet we still waste our lives on Facebook and Blogger and youtube as if we're not all individually living under the Sword of Damocles.

Which is nice, because we're not.  We have always had a precarious existence.  There have always been plots against "good guys" by "bad guys."  The story of human history is filled with this kind of stuff, and coincidentally, so is the Bible, which is 100% human.

We don't live our lives looking over our shoulders because you just can't live that way.  That's why we sometimes get caught with our pants down, as we did on 9/11 and at Pearl Harbor and as I did a couple of months ago when a deer ran in front of my car.  Paranoia is not healthy.  We have an innate sense of not worrying about events with low odds other than taking ordinary precautions.  I wear a seat belt despite a 20+ year driving history without an accident.  It wasn't paranoid to wear the seat belt, and then when I hit that deer... well I didn't actually need the seat belt because the deer got the worst of it, but I'm glad things could have been worse but not worser.

If we were tasty little rodents surrounded by owls and felines and all manner of predator, we would be justified being on edge all the time.  Likewise, if we were less fertile and less plentiful.

The world has too many people and we're getting in each other's way and on each other's nerves.  99% of us could be wiped out and the species would probably continue with the genetic material of that 1% left, assuming they could find each other.  "God" wiped out humanity before.  Why pray to him now, when we've gone forth and multiplied a little too much?

Instead of praying, we should take reasonable precautions and watch out for ourselves and others.  We should think a little more about how others are feeling and thinking.  We should be aware of how many ways we're vulnerable without being ridiculous about it.  We should be humble about our shortcomings and the ways we affect other people without being doormats.

This article is both chilling and thought-provoking:  http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/science_next_911-82474

The author makes the point that what made the 9/11 terrorists so dangerous was their arrogance, a "sin" that isn't unique to Muslims.  Chirstian terrorists are just as arrogant and just as dangerous, and they may be lurking around the corner or brewing some overblown resentment against people they consider the "enemy."

I was as disturbed as anyone on 9/11, perhaps more because of having lived in both New York and DC.  But what disturbed me more was the arrogance of the Christians around me who seemed so sure that God was on our side, and that all muslims were evil.  I was in Texas at the time, but it's not a Texas thang to be a black-or-white thinker.  The effect of 9/11 on the psyche really disturbed me, and the reminders of the event kind of make me sick to my stomach.  I feel for the people who were there and who were hurt directly, but the people who went a little nuts around the country kind of scare me.

Speciation

Thanks to NWA's ignorant post, I felt compelled to find something that NWA could understand regarding speciation. I think this excellent video should do the trick:



For a fuller discussion of macro-evolution, Talk Origins has a series on predictions based on evolutionary theory and the results that confirm the theory.

Note: A theory is not the same as "hypothesis," which is a preliminary guess. A "theory" in science is a concept that explains observed phenomena, and which can be further tested with more observations. So far, observations by trained biologists have confirmed and refined the theory of evolution in many ways. Observations by Christian pseudo-scientists have been debunked by responsible actual scientists. Note: these scientists are not "Darwinists." They are scientists - they trust the scientific method to add to human understanding, and do not revere Darwin at all except in the same way they revere any scientist who has proposed a new theory that has stood the test of time. They are not "Darwinists" any more than they are "Newtonists" or "Einstinists."

Examples of Evolution

Of course the only reason I would post this on a blog about atheism is that some Christians cling to the idea that Christianity (or more accurately, Judaism) explains scientific "mysteries."   These "mysteries" were only mysterious to the bronze age mythology writers, not to modern scientists, but science is hard to read and fairy tales are easy to read.  That's the real reason they cling to their mythology: it's easier to imagine a sky fairy with a magic wand whipping up the universe, planets, and all the species of earth than it is to take the time to learn a little about what people have been deducing from evidence for a few hundred years.

Some of this might be a bit hard to read, but persevere.  It's easier in the end than trying to rationalize that science proves "intelligent design" or throwing out rationality altogether.  After all, if you disagree with evolution through natural selection you have to throw out modern antibiotics and vaccines, and then you die.  We might miss you, though we won't miss your stupidity.


DNA proof of why there are still monkeys!



The Whale evolved from land-dwelling mammals, and there are "transitional" fossils to prove it.

The eye evolved through natural selection.  It is not irreducibly complex or magical.  (There's a video at that site so even the stupidest Christians can understand it)

Humans evolved from other bipedal species, which in turn evolved from other primates.   DNA evidence confirms this.  Yes, it does!  (This last one's harder to read but it's the source of the cool chart to the right)

If you really want to "teach (yourself) the controversy," check out the responses to creationist claims at Talkorigins.org.  My favorite stupid argument is the "argument from incredulity."  It's the argument that because you can't (or won't) believe something is true therefore it's not true.  Hey, I'd like to believe that I'm the Princess of the Universe and that I can smite anyone who zips into the parking place I have my eye on.  But I don't believe that because I'm not psychotic.  The same argument is put forward by UFOlogists and other believers of utter nonsense.  It's as sophisticated as putting your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la la I can't hear you!"

Lewis Black on Creationism

From The Daily Show. He dishes the dish on Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. If you can stomach clips of these two ignorant chimps this segment is priceless:

Seditious Conspiracy, some charming Christians

This is "old news" but I didn't know about this group:



This insane idea keeps coming up in crazy rants from individuals but I had never heard of a group entertaining fantasies like this:

In an indictment against the nine unsealed on Monday, the Justice Department said they were part of a group of apocalyptic Christian militants who were plotting to kill law enforcement officers in hopes of inciting an antigovernment uprising, the latest in a recent surge in right-wing militia activity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html

The "shot heard 'round the world" and the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand were catalysts but only because of seething tensions that were already brewing. Fantasies of kick-starting a war by blowing up a federal building, or flying planes into one, or shooting teenagers at a politically-oriented camp, or shooting cops.... they're just fantasies. The festering tensions they hope to ignite exist only in their own minds. They did not succeed in inspiring others, and only made people hate them. And yet, there are probably still more waiting in the wings hoping to gain credibility and followers via some outrageous violent act.

It's a common thread, and there seems to be a religious undercurrent there too. These people seem to know how to use the interwebs, so why haven't they figured out that they can't inspire loyalty this way?

How do Atheists Prepare for a Hurricane?

The president of American Atheists answers loaded questions and parries with idiotic believers.  It reminds me a lot of conversations I've had with theists.  Pretty funny:



We get candles, but not votive candles ;-)

I'm not sure I'd answer these theists the same way but I'd call "We wish you well with your candles and batt'ries" a mocking statement!  And anyway, why would Jesus care about flooding?  He would tell believers to walk on the water, or else they're not true believers!

  

And in other news...

The son of one of Michelle Bachmann's heroes says the Christian Right is anti-American:

Ray Comfort on What Atheists Believe

Wow, can you say "Straw Man?"  http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2011/08/what-atheists-believe.html

"Atheists believe that gravityAtheists believe that gravity thinks intelligently, makes plans, and then creates the concept it has in mind."

uhhhhhh WHAT?!?!?!




"Perhaps you object to my saying that gravity must be intelligent to come up with the concept of the water cycle and then actually create it. Perhaps you think that gravity is mindless, and created it without thinking."

ohhhh okaaaay... it was a rhetorical device.  He really knows that atheists don't think that....

"I don't think so. I am in awe of the water cycle and couldn't imagine the most intelligent of human beings coming up with it."

uh oh.... here we go.  Psychological projection.  Because he can't imagine rain falling due to gravity alone, then nobody else can, either.  *sigh*  What a ninny.

"But according to atheists, gravity didn't create alone. Its partner was heat. The two of them came up with the concept of water, vapor, clouds, rain, rivers, lakes, waterfalls, snow, evaporation, air, condensation, and then created them and caused them to work throughout the earth in perfect harmony."

Well at least he knows there are two forces at work on water.  But now we're polytheists, believing in a gravity god and a heat god?  It's too bad there's no IQ god.  He'd smite Ray Comfort and his followers.

Atheism brings new meaning to the word "absurd."
 No, Ray Comfort.  You did that.

"Also, the concept of the god you don't believe in doesn't exist. He is a figment of your fertile and faith-filled imagination. The Creator is not your water-boy. Don't believe the television preachers that tell you that He will come running when you click your sinful fingers. He withholds the blessing of live-giving rain when a nation gives itself to evil and at the same time professes itself to be good."

uhhh non-sequitur much? So the OT God is still about, punishing nations for things he doesn't like, and you must believe this because the absurd alternative is a mischievous pair of physical forces that have to be intelligent because it's absurd to believe otherwise?

Does this mean that Texas is enduring the worst drought in years because God is displeased with it?   Is that why he didn't answer Rick Perry's prayers for rain?  I suppose it also means that Christians shouldn't send money to food programs for Somalia.  They should just let those starving babies die because God hate them.

Yet another Facebook funny

This was out of the blue from an old college pal who was very much not a mormon during college:

I believe in Jesus Christ.
I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and grateful for it's teachings!
One Facebooker has challenged all believers to put this on their wall. The bible says, if you deny Me in front of your peers, I will deny you in front of My Father.
Re-post if you're a believer.

Note, they don't capitalize "bible" or give credit to the speaker.  Note also, "it's"  grrrrr  If you're going to demand that people repost your post, it should at least have correct grammar!

Apparently Facebook is now the place for shouting from the rooftops what a great Christian you are.  Does Jesus have a Facebook account?  Is he keeping track of whether people repost this drivel?  Really?  Does he have that kind of time?

Maybe that's why babies are still dying and tornadoes whip through Christian communities.  Jesus should get off of Facebook and start answering prayers.

The DM / Mabus Affair Explained

Check out this excellent summary of the take-down of infamous internet troll/spammer/nutjob/threat David Marcuse, also known as DM or Dave Mabus.

Case Study: How a Notorious Spammer Was Brought Down via Twitter

As a relative of a few mentally ill people, I feel for his family for what it must be like to live with him, but considering his obsessiveness, I do think he may be one of the rare internet nutters who could escalate to violence.  I hope he gets the psychiatric care he needs, and if not, at least he may have learned a lesson in the difference between protected speech (Canadian style) and illegal speech (death threats).

New Feminist/Atheist podcast "show"

http://godlessbitches.podbean.com/

I don't get into "feminism" in the academic sense but there are issues that affect women that don't affect men, or get their attention, so I'm glad to see this show, or hear it.  These "bitches" have been on The Atheist Experience call-in show and they're very eloquent and knowledgeable.

I like the term "egalitarian" for myself, which includes feminism, and being female I'll naturally see things from the female point of view.  We are all equal but we're not the same.

Another One Bites the Dust

Another gay-hating Republican law-maker turns out to be gay!  Is anyone keeping a count?  I can't keep up.

And this is one of the guys who co-wrote the bill to put "In God We Trust" on Indiana license plates!

Not only is he gay, but he's also stupid.  He answered a craigslist ad and then told the male prostitute that he was a lawmaker.  d'uh!

It's amazing the gay-hating agenda still has any steam considering how many of its leaders turn out to be self-loathing gays who are projecting their self-hatred onto others.  I wonder how many are also closet atheists.

More Facebook Funnies

One of the stupidest c&p status posts ever:

When you carry a Bible, the Devil gets a headache. When you open it, he collapses. When he see's you reading it, he faints. When he see's you living it, he flees. And, just when you're about to re-post this, he will try and discourage you. I just defeated him.

How does he feel about having this drivel re-posted to an atheist blog for mocking?  Seriously, does the Devil read Facebook?  Wouldn't that be reason enough to stop using it?  Or does he read everyone's status updates because he OWNS Facebook?  Wouldn't he be pointing and laughing at the stupid post because that's just how mean he is?

And how the hell would the Devil get a headache?  He doesn't have a body, so he can't have blood veins in his head.   Wait.. he doesn't have head, either.  If he did, he'd probably get a headache from a facepalm.

 



OMG!!! Richard Dawkins Converted!!!

Enjoy!

Definition of "Marriage" vs. Definition of "Rights"

I think the argument from the Right that marriage can't be redefined because it's what it is by definition (a.k.a. "I believe marriage is between one man and one woman") is bogus.  Not only is it just plain stupid, but it doesn't take into account the question of whether marriage is a right.  Using your religious definition of something is pointless in defining civil law.  There's nothing that compels clergy or a religion to recognize a marriage if they don't want to.  My cousin had to convert to Catholicism to get married.  The Catholic Church (and his fiancee) did that, not the laws about marriage.

The Federal statutes http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes are very specific:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245

Federally Protected Activities
1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:

  a) A voter, or person qualifying to vote...;
  b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or
      activity administered by the United States;
  c) an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;
  d) a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and
  e) a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

You could possibly argue States' Rights, since this statute is about federal issues, but the Fourteenth Amendment would obviate that angle.

What they should be doing is making the case that marriage isn't a right but a privilege, like driving.  Civil unions take care of the issue of benefitting from government services, privileges etc.  Marriage would, too.  And officially calling two same-sex people "married" doesn't really change many other rights.  I'm all for same-sex marriage, but I don't think it should be that big of a deal.  If rights are clearly defined and marital status is one of the protected classes then what's the big deal?

TeH GayZ R dIsGuStiNg!!!!  Oh NOES!  It's about bigotry, plain and simple.  Straight people find sex with the same sex revolting which is what makes them straight people.  Then there are the people with homosexual urges who can't handle their own mental complexity.  Everything has to be black-or-white for these people.  If the law treats gays as equals then straights are less-than, because equality is impossible for some people.  If they're not dominant and oppressive, they're victims and oppressed.

The two religion clauses of the First Amendment pretty much guarantee that the idiotic Right will lose this battle in the Culture Wars.  The non-establishment clause guarantees that the government doesn't have to give a fuck what their sky-daddy thinks of teh gayz.  The free exercise clause guarantees that they can be bigoted if that really floats their boat, as long as they're not being bigots in subsidized programs.  That's the deal they make when they take money from the government.  They won't have to perform gay marriages.  They can deny marriages between man and man just as they deny marriage between Catholic and Protestant.  It's not like gays really want to belong to their narrow-minded churches, anyway.

They just have to grow up and accept that not everyone is a carbon copy of themselves and the world won't stop spinning (yes, it SPINS - the sun doesn't revolve around us, as it turns out) if gay people get married.

Original Sin and Original Christianity

From an old friend who is a former Catholic and now Eastern Orthodox.  I've known other Orthodox (the Original!) Christians but I never paid much attention to their theology, just their calendar.  She posted the following on Facebook, and I found it interesting but still just a fantasy.  Here's the original post and some of the (very short) thread:

For those of you who enjoy discussing Christian theology--are people born evil? Here's what I believe:

Original sin

In Eastern Orthodoxy, God created man perfect with free will and gave man a direction to follow. Man (Adam) and Woman (Eve) chose rather to disobey God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thus changing the "perfect" mode of existence of man to the "flawed" mode of existence of man. This flawed nature and all that has come from it is a result of that "original sin". All humanity shares in the sin of Adam because like him, they are human. The union of humanity with divinity in Jesus Christ restored, in the Person of Christ, the mode of existence of humanity, so that those who are incorporated in him may participate in this mode of existence, be saved from sin and death, and be united to God in deification. Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took form within her.

This view differs from the Roman Catholic (Augustinian) doctrine of Original Sin in that man is not seen as inherently guilty of the sin of Adam.[6] According to the Orthodox, humanity inherited the consequences of that sin, not the guilt. The difference stems from Augustine's interpretation of a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 to mean that through Adam all men sinned, whereas the Orthodox reading in Greek interpret it as meaning that all of humanity sins as part of the inheritance of flawed nature from Adam. The Orthodox Church does not teach that all are born deserving to go to hell, and Protestant doctrines such as Predeterminism that derive from the Augustinian understanding of original sin are not a part of Orthodox belief.

Me:  If God is all-powerful, why couldn't he just erase all that original sin? If he's a benevolent deity, why wouldn't he just forgive everyone outright without all the drama of the crucifixion? If he's omniscient, why didn't he know that Adam & Eve would make that wrong choice? (hat tip Epicurus)  and Question: if humans have the stain of original sin until baptism, then wouldn't abortion be the killing of a sinner, not an innocent?

Another poster: Sin is something you can't erase. . . . you just forgive. That's the key to understanding original sin. Sin separates. . . .the cross bridges the chasm between God and man. The effects are never gone until we get to heaven. That, in a nutshell, is your answer you are seeking.

Me:  If God is all-powerful why can't he erase sin?

My friend:  It would be kind of like forcing someone to love you. God gives free will to the humans He created, and sometimes we choose anything but love. God doesn't want us to be slaves. Free will is a wonderful, horrible thing.  Beyond that, I'm not a good apologist for Christianity. I can't express myself the way others do....these beliefs are too deep in my heart and soul for words. All I know is God is good, and maybe the answers you want can come from someone other than me.

I sent her a link to my post, Feelings Aren't Facts and asked her if it was okay for me to post this "discussion."  I think she is a perfect example of my theory that believers will believe because it makes them feel good, not because of any thinking.  Even though she knows some of the theology of her branch of Christianity, she falls back on "beliefs are too deep in my heart and soul for words."  If reason and rationality played into belief, there would be words for it.  Instead, it's culture, indoctrination, and neurobiology that makes a believer a believer.

I could have gone on and on... like, if God doesn't want us to be slaves why does he "reward" us for our good behavior by forcing us to sing his praises in Heaven for eternity?   Sounds like slavery to me.  Remember, there's no money in Heaven.  No OSHA either. 


The "argument" above about original sin sounds lovely. Poetic, even.  Almost like... what are those called?  Those stories with a moral to them but no actual basis in fact?  It's on the tip of my tongue...

Oh yeah, FAIRY TALES!

.

Myers Briggs & Religion

Being "rational" is not considered a desirable trait by some people.  I know!  How could they think that way?  Or um... feel that way?

Different people are different, according to the Myers-Briggs typology.  I am an INTP or sometimes INTJ.    So are the majority of internet atheists, (2nd poll here, 3rd poll here)

The brief description of INTP seems like the total recipe for an atheistic skeptical online blogger:

Seek to develop logical explanations for everything that interests them. Theoretical and abstract, interested more in ideas than in social interaction. Quiet, contained, flexible, and adaptable. Have unusual ability to focus in depth to solve problems in their area of interest. Skeptical, sometimes critical, always analytical.

INTJ, the larger half of the INT- atheist world also has a skeptical mindset:

Have original minds and great drive for implementing their ideas and achieving their goals. Quickly see patterns in external events and develop long-range explanatory perspectives. When committed, organize a job and carry it through. Skeptical and independent, have high standards of competence and performance – for themselves and others.

My polar opposite, ESFJ, sounds like someone who would enjoy belonging to a church:

Warmhearted, conscientious, and cooperative. Want harmony in their environment, work with determination to establish it. Like to work with others to complete tasks accurately and on time. Loyal, follow through even in small matters. Notice what others need in their day-by-day lives and try to provide it. Want to be appreciated for who they are and for what they contribute.

According to the way I was trained in Myers-Briggs at work, people can learn to develop the opposite qualities in themselves.  I have scored almost 50-50 on all but "N" at various times since I first took the test ten years ago.  During one training session my coworkers were shocked that I came up as an "I" because I'm sociable, and I was a manager in a people-oriented job.  I learned to act "E" when I had to.

So... can Christians & other "irrational" believers learn to be more rational?   Would they want to?  Should we try to be more like them, or at least give some thought to how they think? ... oops, feel?

The Kiersey site describes the rational group (NT) as being a minority:  "Rationals are very scarce, comprising as little as 5 to 10 percent of the population. But because of their drive to unlock the secrets of nature, and to develop new technologies, they have done much to shape our world."  This low percentage is similar to the low percentage of non-believers in the world.  Perhaps this is why atheists are a minority: because other people have a totally different approach to life.  We need to take this into account when communicating with them.
 
Just look at how "irrational" they are.  They "have a personal relationship with God."  They know that God is real because they feel something and they value their feelings more than their thoughts.  They like belonging to a "faith community."  (Just calling it a "church" isn't good enough anymore)  The crazy extraverts will even go to megachurches to get all feely.  They think that "trust" and "faith" are values that should be placed about reason and reality.
 
Take a look at our opposites, the SF's :

SFs tend to approach life and work in a warm people-oriented manner, liking to focus on realities and hands-on careers. They are often found in human services and in careers that require a sympathetic approach to people. They tend to be less interested in careers that require an analytical and impersonal approach to information and ideas. SFs are often found in the clergy, teaching, health care, child care, sales and office work, and personal services.

Clergy!  Not a coincidence, I'm sure! 
Maybe we need to track down some ESFP or ESFJ atheists and make them our spokespeople, instead of people like Richard Dawkins or other scientists expressing the atheist viewpoint.  You don't have to rely on a rational approach to become an atheist.  Or maybe rational NTs need to express why rationalism is more realistic in more touchy-feeling terms.  Even if you think Myers-Briggs is bullshit, there's something to the dichotomy between rationalism and whatever isn't rationalism (if you call it "irrational" they'll be irrationally upset and post nasty rants to the comments here!  Remember, they don't think).

Lest we forget about Elevatorgate...

Here's a (male) lawyer's point of view, with some excellent observations:

http://wellslawoffice.com/tag/elevatorgate/

Religion Clause: Suit Claims Philosophy Course Was Unconstitutional Instruction In Christian Apologetics

Makes me wonder about the pre-theology students I've met in Indiana who are "Philosophy" majors at state universities...

Religion Clause: Suit Claims Philosophy Course Was Unconstitutional Instruction In Christian Apologetics

The Norway Tragedies: Book Review/Analysis

I had just finished reading Extreme Killing, a book on serial killing and mass murder, when the attacks in Norway happened.  At first, it was reported that Islamist terrorists set off a bomb, and then when the second phase of mass slaughter by firearm happened, the news went out that it was a right-wing Christian fundamentalist behind it, not an Islamic fundamentalist.  As atheists, we can point to more and more religiously-motivated atrocities but that's as fallacious as Christians citing Stalin.

The reasons, I think, are explained fairly well in this book.  It is not as deeply analytical as I was expecting considering the authors' credentials, but it made several good points that helped me place this attack into a rational framework right away.  The first half of the book is about serial killers, most of whom mainly seek power over individuals and many of whom include rape in their attacks.  The second half discusses mass-casualty attacks such as happened in Norway.  They analyze different types of attacks and different types of motivations.  For each point, they give a brief description of a specific case, detailing the perpetrator's background, recent events in his/her life,

motivation(s) and methods.

According to the book, the psychological basis for mass killings is externalization of blame.  The killer has not been successful at school, work, or family life, and rather than accept responsibility, he blames outside influences.  And yes, it's almost always a "he."  The women who have committed mass killings have a similar profile to the men who have done it, e.g., extreme psychological investment in a single aspect of their life, like their career.   A lot of them do attack the people with whom they've been in conflict, for example killing their spouse then going to work and then killing the boss and HR officials "responsible" for his job loss.

When they can't blame a specific person for a catastrophic failure, they may blame a group of people.  This could be an extension of specific people, such as the entire workplace when only a few "stood in the way" of success, or blame for an entire class of people, defined by race, religion, nationality, etc.  One killer attacked Asian children because of xenophobic hatred.  The Luby cafeteria massacre was motivated by hatred of all the residents of the town.  The person may also decide that society at large is to blame, which makes everyone a potential target for a seemingly "random" murder.

While a lot of people refuse to accept responsibility for their failures without turning to murder, a history of belligerance, gun ownership (especially enthusiasm for guns), and domestic violence add to the mix to create the toxic stew of a bitter, ineffectual loser with the ability and motivation to kill in a big way.

The book didn't include terrorist attacks other than McVeigh's bomb.  The next edition will probably pair McVeigh with this guy.  The motives and background are similar: military training, externalization of blame focusing on the government, right-wing leanings, and sympathy for a religious cause.  They both targeted government buildings and made a point of killing children.  The one somewhat unique ingredient in McVeigh's psyche was his belief that he was avenging the deaths of others.

One thing the book doesn't address is why people like this think their murderous rampages will somehow bring about changes they want to see.  Even bin Laden's externalization of blame to Westerners had a modicum of logic in his wish that the U.S. would expend its wealth fighting terrorism ... which he believed would reduce the impact of the U.S. in the Middle East.  He was wrong, but at least he had a "vision," however twisted.

These mass killers don't seem to think past exacting their revenge on whoever they believe has ruined their lives.  They're still irrational, even if they don't qualify for the insanity defense or if they have been able to make and carry out a methodical plan.  When has anyone ever decided on a political party or course of action based on the desires of terrorists?  I think the IRA may be able to take a little credit for a change in British policy, but only a little. 

I can't imagine people in Norway thinking "Wow, I've been so mistaken in voting for the Labour Party.  I'm switching to the right wing party right now!" or "Sheesh I've been worshipping Allah all this time when really I should have been a Christian!"

I think where religion enters into these things is that the stories of the Bible give the believers many role models to follow.   God didn't target individual homosexuals in Sodom & Gomorrah; he wiped out the entirety of the population to punish them for allowing homosexuals in their midst.  He wiped out the whole world with The Flood.  He kills the firstborn sons in Egypt.  He orders the death penalty for disobedience to one of his hundreds of commandments.  This "loving" God seems to really "love" killing.

Religion gives extremists and crazies a framework for their anger and sometimes even helps them define their targets, but the driving force is an inability to accept the difficulties of life.  Getting fired for threatening to kill your boss is not the fault of your boss, it's your fault.  Getting divorced because you beat up your wife isn't your wife's fault, it's your  fault.  Not being able to turn your military successes into a successful civilian career isn't probably anyone's fault, except possibly your bad education or your ADHD.

Sometimes shit just happens, or doesn't happen.  Some people just don't learn how to get along in society, so they blame society rather than their inability to learn how to behave, or lack of desire to.  Or maybe it's because you played video games for hours on end throughout your teen years rather than whip up a little courage to break the ice and meet some kids IRL to hang out with.

Serial killers sometimes have revenge motives too, attacking stand-ins for the girls who rejected them in high school or for their heartless mother.  Mass killers are also attacking stand-ins for the people who "wronged" them.  You can even include bin Laden and Hitler in this group because they didn't kill the actual perpetrators of whatever wrongs they thought they were avenging.

Where Christianity could actually do some good would be to stop celebrating their unearned forgiveness "through Christ's sacrifice" and teach their kids personal responsibility, accountability, and empathy for others.  If more people would be brought up to stop blaming others and look more at their own role in what happens to them in life, there would be fewer murders.  Even when unfortunate circumstances really are due to the actions of others, responsibility for coping with it rests with the individual.  Just saying "God has his reasons" is a poor substitute for a rational approach to dealing with one's problems.

The Norway attacker didn't die during his attack, so he will be one of the rare ones whose thoughts and feelings can be probed.  It will be interesting to see how closely he fits the profile that the peple who have gone before him have established.