Monthly Archive for August, 2008

The Only Proof That God Exists Is The Bible

Published
by
Baconeater
on August 31, 2008
.
Which one? All of them of course:) But seriously, that is all theists have, and if you don't believe me, ask Edward Current:



I know I post a lot of Current's videos, but that is because of his comic genius, not because I have a crush on him. I can't have a crush on him because I'm not gay.

Even if I was gay, I wouldn't have a crush on him because he doesn't have boobs and a vagina...oh wait, if I was gay he wouldn't need that stuff.

Barack on Science

Published
by
Tom
on August 31, 2008
.
Thoughtful responses to 14-top science questions.

What is a Scientist?

Published
by
Terence Meaden
on August 31, 2008
.
What is a scientist?

The question came up this week with some people trying to claim that science and religion can be compatible (see the link to Larry Moran, 29 August 2008). Some commentators got the matter entirely wrong.

Obviously to start with, a minimum requirement is that for a candidate to be a scientist he or she must certainly have had adequate scientific training OR scientific experience to a suitably high level maintained for a number of years. For some candidates, it can be enough to start with a good undergraduate degree in a science but this may not be enough. It all depends . . .

What is crucial is that if an otherwise qualified candidate is to be counted among true scientists, then he or she must necessarily respect all the cherished interdisciplinary, self-supporting, cross-authenticating, experimental and theoretical work done by the rest of the world’s scientists in the last century and more.

Among these are the biologists, physicists, chemists, cosmologists, astronomers, high-energy physicists, and others who have contributed to the discoveries of evolution and the origins of the universe. Anyone who might otherwise claim to deny the strength of what amounts to millions of experiments by millions of scientists, and instead tries to place the influence of some god into it, can never be called a genuine scientist because his or her mind is afflicted by the inadmissible holding of some kind of faith or belief.

A true scientist is one who seeks the truth and follows the evidence wherever it leads and accepts the resulting facts. Nothing is faked, nothing is forced. Therefore rationality ultimately reigns. Unlike god-believers, rationalists never twist facts, whereas god-supporters attempt to smuggle in their crazy notions about divinities.

In short, gods exist only insofar as they are constructs of the human mind, and they languish nowhere else but as neuron-based ephemera or illusions in the heads of deluded believers. If somebody claiming to be a scientist does not accept that, then he or she is definitely not a true scientist.

Life expectancy may not be what you expect

Published
by
Efrique
on August 31, 2008
.
Odd Nectar makes some good points against ID.

Along the way, he says the following (LE is "life expectancy"):
"If we look back at the Greco-Roman days, LE was about 25 years. Now that's design at its best, don't you think? I suppose if I were an illiterate desert farmer circa 100 b.c.e. having a staring contest with death at 20 years of age..."

The implication being that if your life expectancy is 25 (actually, 25 is could even be a little high), and you're 20, you expect to live only a few more years ("a staring contest with death"). In fact, most people would assume you expect to live five more years.

Here's a simple two part experiment that may help with the ideas. (You can actually do this experiment if you like, but it will take a while. Or you can simulate it on a computer if you know how). Or, if you're in a hurry, I'll just tell you the answers (for a fair die) in a little while.


I) roll a six-sided die, counting the number of rolls until you get a '1' (including the roll on which you do get a 1). Repeat this many times (say, until you get 90 ones - it should be about 540 rolls, give or take). Average the counts for each set of rolls until a '1' appeared

II) roll a die 4 times. If you didn't get a '1' in those rolls, start counting how many additional rolls you need until you get a 1 (if you did get a '1' in those initial 4 rolls, forget that one and start over). Repeat this many times. [Actually, you can use the information from the experiment in part (I): if the count of rolls was 4 or less, throw it away, and if it was greater than 4, subtract 4 from the count.] Average the counts you keep.

The question we're interested in is "How much larger is the average in experiment I than in experiment II?"

What you you guess?

A lot of people would guess 4. (It's the same as the reasoning in the life expectancy example I quoted above.)

Well, actually, the averages are much closer. If you roll a great many times, and your die is fair, you should get 6 for both!

(I just did this experiment using Excel to simulate the die roll - 540 times for experiment I and reused the 272 of them that exceeded 4 for experiment II - the results were about 5.8 and 5.4, which is not quite as close to six as it should be, but at least we can clearly see that the two numbers don't differ by anything like 4.

[Why is this related to life expectancy? Well, assume we have some creature that has a 1/6 chance of death each year (it dies when it rolls a '1') - so its life expectancy is six years. When it reaches 4 years of age, what's its remaining life expectancy? ... in this case, the answer still six!]

Human life expectancy is not that much like the die roll experiment (even if we put a lot more sides on the die), because the probability of death isn't constant at all ages. However, the basic ideas carry over.

Actually, in ancient times, at age 20, your remaining life expectancy then may even have been more than an addtional 25 years!

At birth, the average life span may have been 25, but the average adult was far older than 25.

What made life expectancy so low? Well, higher death rates, obviously, but the higher death rates didn't impact all ages equally. Most of the increase in death rates was for the youngest ages - especially for newborns. If you could survive past about 5 years of age, death rates were much lower - your chances of making it to adulthood were pretty good, and once you were an adult, your life expectancy was reasonable (not great by today's standards, but it was a lot more than a handful of years).

To simplify things dramatically, imagine there's a 50% chance of dying in your first month, and a life expectancy at birth of 25. What's your life expectancy if you survive that first month?

Well, it's 50 (less maybe a few weeks). The overall average in this case will be the average of the lifespan of those who die in the first month - almost 0 - and those who don't. If those who don't die near birth average 50 years, that makes the overall average lifespan (0 + 50)/2 = 25.

Infant mortality rates were extremely high. I don't know the figures for ancient times, but 50% within the first few years is probably reasonably close.

So your expected lifespan at birth was 25, but your expected lifespan conditional on getting past the most dangerous early part was much higher.

Most of the increase in our lifespan during the 19th and 20th centuries was caused by dramatically reduced infant mortality. A large number of dead infants has a huge impact on the average lifespan, so when you improve infant survival, you greatly increase average lifespan. Of course, survival at all ages improved a lot, but it was the infant mortality where the greatest improvements were realised (and these are also the ages where that survival has the greatest impact on average lifespan).

And what was the dramatic increase in lifespan caused by? Mostly better sanitation, clean drinking water, fewer foodborne diseases (with improvements in handling, storage and so on) and other basic disease prevention measures. Inventions like antibiotics in the mid-20th century were amazing, saving/prolonging millions of lives - but basic sanitation and clean water was even more dramatic, particularly among the young - the biggest improvements in expected lifespan happened before the advent of antibiotics.

So our 20 year old Roman-era desert farmer was not staring death in the face, waiting out his last handful of years ... a 20 year old faced many dangers, but their life was much less risky than the at-birth expectancy figure might make you think, unless you're also thinking about the fact that surviving the first few years was the really hard part.

The Decline of Europe

Published
by
HumanistDad
on August 31, 2008
.
This brief news report is whining about how the Europeans are losing religious faith and becoming more and more anti-religious. Why is this a bad thing? Increased divorces, crime and suicide rates. Of course, it ignores the evidence that divorce rates are higher among religious people and that atheists are under-represented in prisons. I don't know about any statistics regarding suicide and faith however my gut instinct tells me that religious oppression is more likely to drive someone to suicide than the openness of freethought and expression.

Anti-religion in Europe

Non-Muslims Told Not To Eat During Ramadan

Published
by
[ Matt ]
on August 31, 2008
.
All members of Tower Hamlets Council in east London, where 36 per cent of the population follows Islam, were sent an email asking them to abide by the restrictions observed by strict Muslims during the holy month.

They have also been told that the town hall's business agenda will be reduced throughout Ramadan to accommodate Muslims, with only seven committee meetings scheduled and special prayer breaks included in the evening events.

Tower Hamlets Council has previously insisted that staff call their Christmas meal the "festive lunch" and replaced Bonfire Night celebrations with a show based on a Bengali folk tale.

Some councillors on the Labour-run authority claim it is favouring one religious group over the others.

Cllr Stephanie Eaton, leader of the Lib Dem group, said she would be ignoring the new Ramadan regime and added: "I was rather disconcerted to see that the arrangements put in place for Ramadan, which we support for Muslim colleagues, have been imposed upon all councillors.
source

Perhaps they should also be told to cover their wives, Mutilate their daughters genitals and kill some gays, You know, so the muslims aren't offended by people who have the nerve to do something not permitted by Islam.

Or perhaps instead Tower Hamlets could concentrate on some real problems they have, Like the 12.7% unemployment, The highest unemployment rate in Britain. But who has time for work when they have to pray 5 times a day and find time to beat their multiple wives, Multiple wives which the rest of us apparently have to support.

I am all for people inflicting whatever imaginary laws they want upon themselves, But your religions rules apply to you and you alone. If i was a councilor in Tower Hamlets i would go out of my way to eat during Ramadan, I would order pizza, have bowls of crisps on the table and ensure that it all contained pork. Know why? BECAUSE YOUR RELIGIONS RULES APPLY ONLY TO YOU.

Faith schools: the wrong issue

Published
by
Steve
on August 31, 2008
.
Faith schools have been criticised for hiring only those teachers who practice that faith. But the real issue is the existence of those schools.

The Warren Report - Just Who IS This Guy, Anyways?

Published
by
Krystalline Apostate
on August 31, 2008
.
Cross posted @ God Is 4 Suckers! I'd heard/seen these headlines about a pastor arbitrating the Obama/McCain discussion. Of course, this in and of itself is enough to curl my upper left lip into a semi-snarl. I mean, don't we just have a surfeit of these religious folks sticking their noses into the process as is? So, as the title implies, I began poking around. I am even less happy now. I am,

The Edger: The Next Big Thing in Online Secular Activism

Published
by
L. Ron Brown
on August 31, 2008
.

In what is just my second post in a long time, I’m making a point of encouraging everyone to check out The Edger. The Edger is a new and extremely well-produced secularism and atheism activism website. I had the privilege of helping to develop this site, and the people commandeering the operation are all very talented and dedicated. The site is run by student activists from across Canada and the United States, but the goal is to add writers from across the globe. Despite having launched not even a month ago, it has already received endorsements from a number of prominent blogs, including PZ Myers’ Pharyngula, Hemant Mehta’s The Friendly Atheist, Larry Moran’s Sandwalk, Skeptico, Tangled Up In Blue Sky, Primordial Blog, and many more. It’s most notable endorsement, however, is from the world’s leading secularism/atheism/humanism/freethought activism organization, The Center For Inquiry - not sure if CFI has ran any Internet statements of the sponsorship yet. Written by some of the most engaged young freethought activists in North America, and garnering the support of international leading bloggers and organizations, The Edger is probably one of the biggest additions to the online freethought community in recent memory and stands to be a leading news, views and activism site for freethinkers and secularists across North America and, in time, around the world.

Christian zealots terrorizing Christians by calling Atheist group terrorists

Published
by
L. Ron Brown
on August 31, 2008
.

UPDATE: This post is now for humour and lulz (at my expense) purposes only. I’ve just been informed that this is a parody site. In my own defense, however, the millions of religious rightards in the world have made it impossible to use ridiculousness as a red flag for satire.

I just stumbled upon a piece of old news that was too absurd to not write about. The culprit of this Christian-on-Christian fear-mongering is OBJECTIVE: Ministries, an organization that easily qualifies as one of fullblown religulous lunacy. A quick glance at its homepage will provide a king’s buffet of psychotic idiocy and paranoia. And it will leave no doubts about its primary objectives: to fully Christianize the world, squeezing out all types of non-Christian and insufficiently Christian thinking and behaviour.

Consider some of the activism that it prominently endorses:

  • The Cross in Space - A mission to make sure the Cross is above every nation of the world by launching it into space in a Polar orbit.
  • The Chalcedon Foundation - Exposing the bankruptcy of all non-Christian (and alleged but compromising Christian) systems of thought and practices and dedicated to providing the tools for rebuilding this Christian civilization with a devotion to maximum individual freedom under God’s law.
  • Pray For France - Currently, France is 99% unsaved, with a shocking 30% afflicted with full-blown Atheism! Rampant secularization has created this situation in what should be a Godly country. But the French Revival is imminent with our help — through Prayer! (Also consider purchasing a “God Bless France” bumper-sticker to get the Word out.)

    • The nuttery of this site could not be done full justice without making a special post just for it. But that’s not the point here. The point here is to talk about a particular instance in which they attempted to use malicious lies to demonize a group of atheists and to scare Christians out of possibly giving a listen to the atheists’  message.

    This event took place in April 2006, and pertained to the people behind The God Who Wasn’t There’s War on Easter. Here is their unedited declaration:

    Militant Atheists are targeting churches as part of a self-declared “War on Easter”

    Suspicious Atheist
    If you see suspicious Atheist types like the one above lurking around your church, call the police immediately.

    The “War on Easter” campaign, designed to terrorize churches across our nation, is part of a larger war on Christians being waged by the leftist forces of Secularism. The group responsible has a website where they issue marching orders, distribute their hate propaganda, and sinisterly post pictures of churches they have attacked.

    They call on members of Atheist sleeper-cells in our communities to sneak onto church property and place anti-Christian fliers — most disturbingly, ones targeting children — and copies of a low-budget film entitled Your God Wasn’t There, which claims that Jesus has abandoned America. As proof of their anti-Christian motives, they are calling for “666″ of the DVDs to be hidden around churches in time for family Easter-egg hunt activities.

    This growing war on Christians has hit home for us as we learned of it this morning when one of their crude fliers was found taped to the front door of Mt. Fellowship Church. Later, our grounds keeper found one of their DVDs hidden in a bush in the church rose garden, where we will be holding our Easter-egg hunt this Sunday. It had a note attached reading “You found the lucky egg”, proving that it was meant for one of our children.

    (The culprit is still at large. However, we are conducting a thorough sweep of the garden to make sure no other items were planted and that the area is safe for children. Rest assured that come Sunday, Lambuel’s Easterday Eggstravaganza will not be interrupted by terrorists.)

    If your church is targeted, we urge you to take the matter seriously and report the incident to the Department of Homeland Security. While the fliers and poorly produced DVDs may seem like some juvenile prank pulled by Secularized teens, the people doing these acts of domestic terrorism are part of an axis of anti-Christianity that is aligned with bioterrorists who seek to wipe out 90% of humanity with ebola virus. We cannot stress strongly enough that you should not open any of the DVD cases as it is unknown what sort of agents or improvised devices might be inside.

    How completely despicable. How on earth is placing fliers and DVDs on a church terrorism? And where in the bloody HELL did these clowns get the idea that these atheists are aligned with international bioterrorists?! I’m not a US civil rights attorney, but I would imagine that this degree of disingenuous malicious defamatory hate- and fear-mongering is sufficient justification for legal action. I’m honestly not quite sure where I stand on the atheists activities in this incident - it surely wasn’t illegal or punishable, but I’m not sure that I’d personally have endorsed it. But regardless, OBJECTIVE: Ministries response is nothing short of deplorable.

    But I guess in their deluded minds, in which the Bible is the inerrant literal word of God and deviation from the divine path is the necessary and sufficient precursor to an eternity in hell, the communication of un-Christian thinking to children whose brainwashing may not yet be complete is among the greatest acts of inhumanity that one could perpetrate. As that evil atheist Sam Harris has pointed out, “if you believe that there is something so spiritually wayward that your neighbour could say to your child that it would put him or her on a path to eternal damnation in hell, then your neighbour is far more dangerous than the child molester next door.”

    Donkey Sex!

    Published
    by
    PsychoAtheist
    on August 31, 2008
    .
    Exposing the internet search habits of the evil atheist conspiracy:



    I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you.

    Carnival Of The Godless #99

    Published
    by
    PsychoAtheist
    on August 31, 2008
    .

    The 99th editon of Carnival Of The Godless is hot off the presses and can be viewed in all its glory at Oz Atheist's Blog. Yet again a varied mix of news and views from the atheist community.

    Don't forget to mark 14th September on your calender when the 100th CotG will be hosted at Prior Perceptions.

    Pat Condell - Take Your God And Shove Him

    Published
    by
    PsychoAtheist
    on August 30, 2008
    .
    Pat Condell has another insightful video up at You Tube:



    Keep them coming Pat!

    Richard Dawkins Reads Hate Mail From Loving Christians

    Published
    by
    [ Matt ]
    on August 30, 2008
    .
    Professor Dawkins reads us some of the hate mail he receives from loving christians, Christians who not only express vile vitriol, But also the inability to grasp the concept of punctuation.

    It begs the question, How would jesus want Dawkins to die? This is just another example of what religion has become today. To the religious now it's more about defending their beliefs with hatred, violence and vitriol than it is about actually following the teachings of their religion. Christians don't give a shit about jesus, They only care about their own precious feelings and their supposed right to go through life without having their beliefs questioned.

    Bible-based Platforms for Republicans and Democrats

    Published
    by
    Steve Wells
    on August 30, 2008
    .
    Since both parties are trying so hard to satisfy Bible-believing Christians, I thought I'd suggest a few bible verses to inspire them.

    [I know I'm a little late, since the platforms are already available online (Republican, Democratic), but what the heck.]

    Economic Policies

    R: For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Matthew 13:12

    The wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous. Proverbs 13:22 (Thomas Muthee translation)

    D: Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy. Proverbs 31:8-9 (NIV)

    The Environment

    R: The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter 3:10
    (So Sarah Palin is right: Global warming isn't man-made; it's God-made.)

    D: And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp... Deuteronomy 23:13-14
    (Clean up your own shit. You don't want God to step in it, do you?)

    Health Care

    R:Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up. James 5:14-15
    (See Faith-based medicine for Republicans)

    D: But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. ... Then said Jesus ... Go, and do thou likewise. Luke 10:33-37

    Homosexuality

    R: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

    D: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone... John 8:7

    Abortion

    R: Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. Hosea 9:16

    D: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. Exodus 21:22

    National Defense and Security

    R: Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruninghooks into spears. Joel 3:10

    D: ...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. Micah 4:3

    Back log of questions…

    Published
    by
    Possummomma
    on August 30, 2008
    .
    Hello all! I hope everyone is having a wonderful Saturday. I don't know what happened this week, but I've got about ten loads to do this weekend. I'm sure you're all jealous of the relationship I have with my washer. *smile*

    Ok. So...the last few months have seemed crazy around here. And, considering everything that has happened, it has been exhausting (emotionally and physically). Some of you have asked questions via blog or e-mail that I've either dodged or not had time to answer. Since I'm in between loads and the kids are all out-and-about...I'll try to answer as many as I can. Oh! I've been jotting the questions down in a paper journal, but I didn't write down names. Sorry.

    What happened that made you go dark on the kids public pictures?
    I still don't want to get into too much detail because of the nature of the experience. It's something I may never be able to talk about here. But, essentially, there was a boundary issue that was, once again, violated. Three such incidents in two years suggested to me that it was time to be less personal. On the heels of that, I began considering the rights of my children. I thought a great deal about their privacy. I mean, really...their lives were being displayed here and I'd never asked their permission. It felt strange. When I started considering it from their point of view, even though they've never expressed any negative feelings, I realized that I wasn't respecting their privacy as well as I should. Added to that, Pdaddy had concerns that I couldn't ignore. He is their father. So, even if I disagree with some of his observations and concerns, there's a point at which those disagreements become a matter of respecting your spouse/co-parent and not being right/wrong.

    Turning Nancy and Thomas in was wrong. Disagreeing with you shouldn't make people fear a child services investigation.
    I agree. And, I would hope that those who read this blog regularly would pick up on the fact that I've disagreed with many, many people over the last two years. I never called child protective services on them. The decision I made had nothing to do with Nancy or Thomas opposing atheism or the way I parented. I made the call because there was cause to do so. It can't be said enough: it was one of the most difficult choices I've ever made. I lost sleep over it. In the end, I won't ask people to agree (though many do and I appreciate that) with calling. I just want to reiterate that it's not retaliatory.

    How's the window film during the summer? Did it work?
    I think it made a huge difference! For one, moving around the house is something I can do without worrying. That, in itself, is liberating. So, yes...I think it worked. Thank you!

    How is your lupus?
    It's no better. But, with lupus, you get some odd cycles where different parts of the body crap out. Then, when you correct that part of the body, there's another part that goes wonky. It's frustrating! But, we're trying to keep tabs on it. I do appreciate e-mails wishing me good health. I try to respond to them via e-mail. Someone asked why I don't post them here more often and I don't have a set reason. I think I don't because posting them would turn the blog into something it's not.

    Read any good books? /What are you reading now?/ Why did you stop the book list?
    Yes. / A few things./ Life got crazy. :)

    Any chance of the podcast coming back?
    I think there's always a chance. But, it won't be the same as it was before. "Jack" got into some other things and had some major life changes that prevented him from being able to do the show. I would love to ressurect it. But, it did take a substantial chunk of time. I've spoke with another person about trying it again...with some changes, but there's still the issue of my home-bound state and putting together a quality podcast. If you have ideas, then I'm willing to hear them.
    I will say this, though. There are many, many good atheist podcasts. At some point, I wonder if over-saturating the cast world is a good idea? Basically, we all have the same things to say. I would like to recommend a few great podcasts that I listen to. All can be found on iTunes or by googling the name of the show.
    1. The Non-Prophets
    2. The Atheist Experience
    3. Skepticality
    4. Nightline
    5. NPR (various casts)
    6. Pat Condell's Godless Comedy
    7. Quackcast
    8. Point of Inquiry
    9. Skeptoid
    10. This American Life
    11. Plane Madness
    ETA 2 I forgot to include
    12. The Infidel Guy
    13. PBS Now
    The last is an aviation related podcast that I've developed a weird affinity for. :) Enjoy!

    Are you on IM?
    I have accounts with AOL and Yahoo, but I am rarely logged on. I'm afraid it would become a monkey on my back...and I already have four monkeys. E-mail is always a safe bet if you want to chat privately.

    A Welcome Accord for Atheists?

    Published
    by
    TheEO
    on August 30, 2008
    .

    A new interfaith and rationalist coalition is suggesting that the government reform faith schools to ensure they cannot discriminate against pupils and teachers on religious grounds. They want a clear commitment to inclusive, community-wide education for all Britain's pupils.

    The coalition includes a teaching union, religious groups, humanists, clergy, rabbis, academics and leading public figures is calling for fairer admissions policies in faith schools and equal employment rights for staff, regardless of their beliefs. It also wants to see a balanced curriculum, a consistent inspection regime and assemblies which reflect the true diversity of belief and culture.

    As a fairly hard line Atheist, with no respect for anything supernatural, my inclination is to be skeptical about any group which includes people with "faith". However, as a pragmatist and realist, I must agree that this body is making reasonable demands and is likely to get wide support.

    If you agree, go to:
    http://www.accordcoalition.org.uk
    and sign up.

    It might be the Black Sea vodka talking

    Published
    by
    Eclectic Infidel
    on August 30, 2008
    .
    Yet nonetheless, I find myself concerned that the US o' A will once again find itself with a good old boy for Prez'dent. An abortion hating, gay hating jerk who just selected a breederific anti-abortion, anti-science mommy for his VP.

    Do I want Obama as president? No. McCain? Doubly, NO! I am dissatisfied and I am disgusted and am a wee bit disturbed.

    Perhaps I should have another drink, wait for the food and woman to arrive and think of other things.

    Yes, I'll do just that.

    Stupid 9/11 truthers again…

    Published
    by
    Kazim
    on August 29, 2008
    .
    I regularly download The Rachel Maddow Show on my iPod. For the last few months, the hostess has been a regular panelist on "Race for the White House" on MSNBC, and so the first 40 minutes of Rachel's Show show are a simulcast of the audio portion of "Race."

    Anyway, I tried to listen to the episode from yesterday, which was broadcast live from the convention, but I found myself was unable to hear the discussion. Some guy with a bullhorn had parked himself next to their table and was screaming "9/11 was an inside job! 9/11 was an inside job!" repeatedly throughout the entire show.

    Holy geez, you people are assholes. Even if I didn't believe self-described "truthers" were complete nutjobs, what do they even think they're accomplishing by making public annoyances of themselves? Do they actually think there are some people in America who aren't already familiar with their claims? Or do they think the skeptics will be convinced if only they could hear some mindless phrase chanted over and over again at a higher volume?

    I mean, seriously, it's not much more effective than hearing an infinite loop of Spongebob Squarepants laughing that stupid laugh of his for 30 minutes.

    What Obama Must Do

    Published
    by
    The Exterminator
    on August 29, 2008
    .
    Sarah Palin is a very bad choice — for Democrats. The Obama campaign needs to reevaluate their stupid strategy and tactics immediately. Here are some reasons why Palin should be making Republicans salivate.
    • She's hardcore pro-forced-maternity. She’s anti-gay. She’s got that whole Christian thing imbuing her with a godly glow. That will mobilize the fundies and give "undecided" woo-ists a good reason to abandon Obama.
    • She can say, over and over again, something along the lines of: “The Democratic candidates talk a lot about what they've done in the past for women. But the Republican party is the one that really empowers women today." I predict that she'll mention Hillary's "18,000,000 cracks in the glass ceiling” many, many times throughout the campaign.
    • She nullifies Biden. Because of his age and potential "chivalrousness," he will not be comfortable attacking her with full vigor. Or else, he'll look like an asshole, and probably put his foot in his mouth. She, on the other hand, can lace into him freely — and, no doubt, will.
    • As a former beauty queen and sports anchor, she won't be too threatening to Republican sexists, who will be able to dismiss her — privately of course — as "window dressing," all the while talking publicly about how egalitarian their party is.
    • She'll be able to play on the just-below-the-surface justifiable anger of middle-of-the-road white women, who feel as if their gender issues have once again been forced to take a back seat to African-American issues. This has been going on since shortly after the Civil War, when the word "male" was added to Section 2 (which addressed voting rights) of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    • She's young enough for Republicans to fantasize about her running for president eight years (or only four!) from now, after she has raised her national profile in the vice presidency.
    • She's a fisherwoman and hunter, and her husband is a sportsman. She has been a member of the NRA all her life, and her husband is a longtime union member. Those blue-collar workers, the electoral base that, apparently, must be pandered to, will eat that up.
    • She really can call herself a maverick because she stood up to Republican insiders in Alaska, and raised hell about corruption within her own party. Pat Buchanan characterized her as "a reformer with guts." In fact, she ran her gubernatorial campaign as an agent of change. So the Democrats can no longer claim sole ownership of that word. (Biden, on the other hand, is clearly a Washington insider, no matter how many times he took the train back and forth during the last thirty-six years.)
    • She cut property taxes when she was mayor of Bumfuk ... excuse me, Wasilla. Americans hate property taxes.
    • She has a son going to Iraq in September, just as Biden does. So all the before-the-fact presumptive heroism of Beau Biden is moot now. On top of which, the Biden kid is a privileged captain, while her son is an enlistee first private.
    So here are some things the Democrats must do if they want to win:
    • Immediately give up on pandering to the evangelical fascists, and start trying to excite freethinkers and other secularists, who are embittered by the constant god-pushing of the primaries and the convention.
    • Cede the gun-lovers to the Republicans. Advocate, loudly and proudly, for gun control.
    • Stop being so wishy-washy about abortion and categorizing women’s rights by how many months have elapsed in a pregnancy. Say Roe v. Wade as often as possible.
    • Don’t keep telling us what a good man John McCain is, and how he served his country heroically. He’s not a particularly good man; he’s a fucking hustler. And it doesn’t take any courage — or military savvy — to get shot down.
    • Resist the temptation to praise Hillary at every goddamned opportunity. Mentioning her over and over merely pours salt on the wounds of her supporters. She and Bill know that. Instead of singling her out, talk about how women will be empowered in an Obama administration. Maybe even make a promise to appoint women to the Cabinet and/or the Supreme Court.
    • Avoid characterizing Michelle as a wife and mother, and give her free rein to open her effective mouth and speak out strongly on the issues.
    • Don’t fall into lockstep with the Republicans on the Russia/Georgia situation. Point out how the Bush White House helped to instigate a world crisis.
    • Refer as often as possible to the Bush family’s friendship with the ruling Saudi theocrats. If necessary, trot out some photos of their mutual hugfests.
    • Come up with a substantive alternative energy plan, and explain how that will ultimately help Americans save money.
    • Talk about an education plan that will keep our public schools out of the hands of fundamentalists, who discourage children’s interest in science, and by so doing, may hinder future scientific advancements. Excoriate states that propose bills or amendments (like Florida 7 and 9) that will publicly finance religious teaching at the expense of secular education.
    • Drop all support for faith-based initiatives, reading aloud, if necessary, the First Amendment to the Constitution and appropriate passages from the writings of the Founding Fathers (for example: Thomas Jefferson's "Act for Establishing Religious Freedom" and James Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance”). Remind Americans, again and again and again, that one of the things that makes our country great — and separates us from the Muslim world — is our absolute refusal to bow to the authority of religious extremists.
    I don't know how the rest of you feel about my suggestions. But if Obama does all those things, he might actually earn my vote.

    Barack Obama’s convention speech

    Published
    by
    Kazim
    on August 29, 2008
    .
    Last night I went with a friend to join the Great Hills Democrats at Baby Acapulco's watching Barack Obama's speech. There was a fajita buffet, and four TVs facing outward from the center of the room.

    The speech was absolutely sublime, that's all I can say. I already know Obama is a good speaker, but I was very impressed even with my high expectations. He hit most of the right notes, didn't pull any punches on McCain, and had a lot of well received jokes. Watching Obama work the crowd, I was very much reminded of seeing Bill Clinton live at UCSD at my graduation. I continue to be impressed by his qualities as a speaker, and desperately wish to again have a president who can string coherent thoughts together.

    Because Bush sucks so much at public speaking, Republicans make the mistake of dismissing this ability as "He's good at reading a teleprompter." Nonsense. Certainly being a good speaker doesn't automatically make one a good leader; the skill of demagoguery can be used for either good or evil. But as someone who enjoys public speaking, I am adamant that the ability to read is a necessary but not sufficient skill. You have to really grasp what you're saying in order to emphasize the right stuff at the right time. Anyone who thinks otherwise is making a claim similar to believing that you can be a great comedian by going out and reciting someone else's jokes.

    Like comedy, it's all about timing, and timing is one thing Obama has in spades. For instance, there's the way he worked the applause. When he first came on, the crowd kept cheering for several minutes. Obama acted sort of exasperated, pretending to speak and then looking like he couldn't get them to shut up. But he was clearly in complete control, it was all showmanship. When he really wanted to talk, they shut up. And I loves me some good theater.

    The crowd of about 30 people watching the speech with me was mostly older; in fact at one point I wondered if my friend and I were the only attendees under forty. But they were full of energy, cheering, laughing, and shouting regularly.

    After the speech, we somehow wound up getting in a discussion with with three marginally drunk, marginally right wing, off-duty Austin cops. The topics ranged from the situation of the homeless in Austin to property taxes to the war (even Republican cops are against it now, it seems). I don't feel like any of them will switch up their vote to Obama, but I may have perhaps depressed one or two of them enough to keep them home on election day. >:D That's a useful accomplishment, although in Texas it probably doesn't amount to much. Although drunk, they were all friendly, thought we made some good points, and said they enjoyed the discussion. And I got out without getting punched -- so hey, an evening well spent.

    Since you asked: my take on Sarah Palin

    Published
    by
    Kazim
    on August 29, 2008
    .
    Hank the Tank says:

    Waiting with baited breath for your take on John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin for VP. I've already put mine up on my blog.

    You know, the guy has actually won back my vote. Hey Russell, you've got quite the brainpower, come on over to the Good Side of the Force (pardon the Star Wars jingo).
    Cost you less to fill up your tank as well.

    So fine, here's what I think...

    Eh. She's not terrible. I never heard of her but that doesn't necessarily matter. Picking a woman was a good move. It may pick up a little of the disaffected Hillary vote, but probably not as much as you think, since Hillary has been so effective in throwing her support behind Obama. Her speech and Bill's at the convention were both pretty impressive.

    On the other hand, this choice signals that he's pretty much abandoning the line of attack that Obama is weak because he's "inexperienced." In Palin, you have a one term governor of one of the smallest states (population-wise). Daily Kos is humorously referring to her as "Sarah Quayle Palin." Plus, she's a creationist, and you know how much I love THAT. ;)

    Nevertheless, I think countering McCain's "old white guy" persona with a young woman is a good call, and it kind of takes some of the "historic moment" exclusivity out of Barack Obama's hands, by providing Republicans a chance to vote for the first woman veep. And considering some of the much worse choices I HOPED he might make, this seems to be dodging a bullet. I was picturing Giuliani (one of the most universally hated political figures of our time) or perhaps Lieberman (Hey, let's alienate both Democrats AND Republicans!!). So all in all, this was probably one of the least bad choices he could have made.

    But I will say this: I am dying to see the VP debate between Biden and Palin. That's going to be way fun.

    Barack Obama: He Completes Us

    Published
    by
    JJ Berg
    on August 29, 2008
    .

    John Stewart’s show has gotten really really good in the last year. This is hilarious.

    Just for fun!

    Published
    by
    Joe Brummer
    on August 29, 2008
    .

    Palin

    Karin:

    Palin:

    Karin:

    Would it be wrong to pray for diarrhea?

    Published
    by
    Steve Wells
    on August 29, 2008
    .
    Well, not according to the Bible, anyway. Here, for example, is a prayer from the Psalms.

    Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart. As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him. As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones. Psalm 109:16-18

    But the Bible-god not only curses bowels, he also, on occasion, messes with them so much that they completely fall out.

    Thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out. 2 Chronicles 21:15

    So praying for diarrhea has a solid Biblical basis. And though the following video is just making fun of Focus on the Family's (failed) prayer for rain on Obama's acceptance speech, it might be worth a try.

    Focus on the Family proves again that nothing fails like prayer

    Published
    by
    Steve Wells
    on August 29, 2008
    .
    So Samuel called unto the LORD; and the LORD sent thunder and rain that day. 1 Samuel 12:18

    And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. Matthew 21:22

    Jesus said that believers will get whatever they ask for in prayer. And the Old Testament prophet, Samuel, made it rain just by praying. So why were the prayers of thousands of believers unanswered? Why didn't it rain on Obama's acceptance speech?

    Because, as everyone who has ever tried it knows, nothing fails like prayer.

    Messiah Remix goes off!!!

    Published
    by
    MothRust
    on August 29, 2008
    .

    Respect

    Published
    by
    Possummomma
    on August 29, 2008
    .
    I started responding to comments in my last post and, as I wrote, I decided I needed more space. And, it's something I want to discuss. I am particularly interested in how my respected theist readers respond to this.


    Let's talk about "respecting religion". Sure. I know that some people have no problem reading the Bible, having faith, and remaining sane. It's probably the norm. But, when faith allows less sane people to flourish in their absurdity, we have to stop it. When everyone "respects" the abusive man who is "just following the Bible", it's time to get real. Nancy believed every word of the Bible that she read. She believed that her husband had power over her and that her role was to be submissive and obedient. Thomas had been told to lead forth a righteous family and, no doubt, some one pointed him to the passages in the Bible that back up the duties of a father.

    Thomas, no matter how nuts we think he is, was following the mandates of the Bible. Wrong or right, the Bible justifies most of his delusions. So, if you defend the Bible, then you're defending him. The Bible says "spare the rod, spoil the child" (and about ten other justifying verses). If you see the problem with following those verses, then how can you defend the work as a whole?
    Just how many awful verses of advice would the Bible have to maintain before you'd see that it's a book we shouldn't respect?

    Atheist Brigade?

    Published
    by
    Possummomma
    on August 29, 2008
    .
    I ran across this article today.
    The Whiny Democratic Atheist Brigade
    With a title like that, how could any rational person take him seriously?

    If you are a Democratic convention planner, you've got to be pulling your hair out trying to deal with something like this: the party's bend-over-backwards attempt to show that it's friendly to religious people is making left-out atheists boo-hoo-hoo.
    Let me get this straight...we, as atheists, are not entitled to ask a potential president to elaborate on comments which effect us? And, while I've seen a few posts regarding Obama's comments, it's not as if this was the biggest issue in the atheist blogosphere. Don't we have an obligation to question the thoughts and words of our potential leaders? If Obama had said that religion should be checked at the door, then you can bet your ass the evangelical, fundamental Christians would be burning crosses on his lawn.

    Never mind that the Democratic Party is already strongly secularist. This extremely petty complaint reminds me of the time seven-year-old Your Working Boy complained to his parents that there was a Mother's Day and a Father's Day, but not Children's Day. You know exactly what Mama said: "Every day is Children's Day."
    If they are "strongly secularist", then why would they be pulling their hair out? His analogy sucks, too. How many theists have we read about, or seen, who believe that their religious beliefs justify the inclusion of religion in all aspects of life? How many have complained and whined when a secularist (or moderate Chritsian) suggested that they already have an entire day a week set aside to their bullshit in some states. What the hell are the Blue Laws if not a "Christian Day"? Every Sunday is "Christian Day" in those states!

    Just so. In the Democratic Party, every day is secularist day! Cut Obama and the DNC some slack -- they're right to do this kind of outreach.
    Thereby negating his original premise for the article.

    This guy also proves his bigotry by assuming every atheist in the United States would be democrat. I'm sure that there's a higher number of democrats than republicans in secular America, but there's no atheist dogma that says you can't be politically conservative. This guy's just too stupid to realize that.

    ---------------------------------
    Yes. I know they deleted their blog. I received an e-mail that I would love to post, but I'm afraid the subject is getting old.

    I am Jane Doe, and I am an atheist

    Published
    by
    Teen Atheist
    on August 29, 2008
    .
    Holy Prepuce forwarded me this plea by Craig A. James (The Religion Virus), for all internet atheists to “come out” and post their real identities. My decision was due to a comment from my book agent, who asked, “What are you afraid of?” I had no good answer to that question. There was just a vague, [...]