Monthly Archive for June, 2009Page 4 of 4

Statements of Fact V

(video below transcript)

Patrician Atheist here with Statements of Fact V.

The Sunni sect of Islam is the largest sect of Islam.

Catholicism is the largest sect of Christianity.

Stalin once stated, “Quantity has a quality all its own.”

Senator John McCain finished 894th out of a class of 899 at the Naval Academy.

Buttercup is the name of a child superhero who wears predominantly green and has green eyes on the cartoon The Power Puff Girls.

VeggieTales is an animated series about Christian Vegetables who want to indoctrinate children into Christianity.

The Devil's Dictionary is a satirical dictionary which was written by Ambrose Bierce and was published in 1911.

EWTN is an acronym for Eternal Word Television Network, which is a Catholic television network.

Jerry Falwell was not a Muslim, but he is dead.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said that “the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.”

The Associated Press, or AP, is the United States’ oldest news organization.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is a Mormon.

Interstate 95 is the main highway on the East Coast of the United States and connects Florida to Maine as it parallels the Atlantic Ocean.

Rome razed both Corinth and Carthage to the ground in 146BCE.

Vice President Joe Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Tallahassee is the capital of Florida.

From 1924 to 1954 the pledge of allegiance was recited as: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

The words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 after a successful lobbying effort by the Knights of Columbus.

The original Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892 and reads: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Fellatio is a fancy way of saying “blow job.

The song Tusk was released in 1979 by the band Fleetwood Mac.

The Freshman was released in 1996 by the band The Verve Pipe.

They Might Be Giants released their version of the song Istanbul (Not Constantinople) in 1990.

Istanbul was previously named Constantinople.

Alexandria, Egypt was founded by Alexander the Great in approximately 334BCE.

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing.

“You Only Move Twice” is the second episode of The Simpsons’ eighth season and initially aired in November 1996.

In the past, the Vatican has told AIDS ravaged regions of Africa that condoms do not prevent the transmission of HIV.

In October 2007, Gillian Gibbons, a British teacher in Sudan, was jailed and charged with insulting the religion of Islam because she allowed her young students to name a teddy bear Mohamed.

In the movie Religulous, Bill Maher calls Sodom and Gomorrah “the original Twin Cities.”

In his book The Gay Science, initially published in 1882, Nietzsche writes that “God is dead,” and “The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.”

In the Book of Genesis, God orders Abraham to kill his son Isaac.

Abiogenesis is the scientific study of how life emerged from non-living matter.

Humans are flawed.

Creationists believe humans are a creation of God.

Creationists believe in a god whose creation is flawed.

Three is not one and one is not three.

Faith healings have killed people who could have easily survived had they been given proper medical attention.

The greatest enemy of faith is reason.

Patrician Atheist,

See Ya Around.


Religious Bus Ads

The friendly atheist blog has a nice post where readers are encouraged to come up with ads the religious could use on their bus ads.

My suggestions were.
“we have no way of knowing if there is a god, but if there is, we are certain we have picked the right one out of the thousands invented”.

“religion; you better believe it because it’s the easiest way we have of making you do as we say”

“hate gays? Religion gives you a socially acceptable excuse for being a bigot”


what are your suggestions?

Rumours of Whores

I though some of you might like to give this band, Rumours of Whores, some support. You can hear one of their tunes at:

http://www.amazingtunes.com/users/rumoursofwhores/tunes/19598

It seems to be making a topical point about the catholic church.

Rumours of Whores

I though some of you might like to give this band, Rumours of Whores, some support. You can hear one of their tunes at:

http://www.amazingtunes.com/users/rumoursofwhores/tunes/19598

It seems to be making a topical point about the catholic church.

Christianity Is Polytheism

(videos below text)

Patrician Atheist Here,

The attempt to indoctrinate me into Christianity never worked. It just never took as I was a heretic from the very beginning who resisted the religion due to both a lack of interest and my natural bullshit detector. Christianity simply never made any sense to my logical mind – just like every other superstition – and one of the things that has always stuck out is the dubiousclaim that Christianity is monotheism or, rather, the much ignored or actively denied polytheism of it all.

Quite simply, Christianity in its many forms has overt polytheistic tendencies at best and is full-fledged polytheism at worst. Its so-called supreme mover of the universe has a large supporting cast and I will be providing evidence to bolster the assertion that Christianity is indeed a religion that promotes “belief in or worship of more than one god or deity.” And a deity, or god, in this case is the one with a lower case g, meaning a being or object that requires human worship and is believed to have more than natural attributes and powers, and specifically, one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality usually from some domain outside of the natural world.

Also, as a disclaimer before I introduce my evidence for Christian polytheism, I understand that Christianity is a massive religion and there are many sects. So each piece of evidence I present may only apply to a certain specific sect, or groups of sects, and not to others or Christianity as a whole – and then again, it could very well apply to the whole unreasonable religion. Having said that, and made it clear that I understand not all Christians necessarily believe in all of the items of evidence I will be presenting, hopefully that will mitigate uninformed reactionary comments – hopefully.

My argument will work its way to the most damaging evidence - as I see it - with the final piece of evidence presented arguably being the most persuasive and damaging. We’ll start with what I classify as being minor gods or deities in Christianity – saints.

The main type of saint I will address is that of the Catholic brand – of which there are thousands. And it has to be noted that while I am focusing specifically on Catholic saints to advance my argument Eastern Orthodox sects and others also boast these celestial beings worthy of praise and worship in hope of divine favors. Specifically I will focus on the patron saints, a group of special protectors and guardians over, or advocates for, a specific area of life and reality – which is a crucially important point to make in order to prove they are at the very least minor gods or deities.

For example, St. Joseph of Arimathea is the patron saint of gravediggers. St. Apollonia is the patron saint of dentists. St. Dismas is the patron saint of theft and theives. St. James the Greater is the patron saint of hatmakers, rheumatoid sufferers, and laborers – not to mention the country of Nicaragua. There are patron saints for virtually everything and many Catholics – and others – pray to them for help and guidance in a specific area.

This makes patron saints minor deities, or minor gods if you will, as they have superhuman, supernatural powers that they may use to manipulate the reality of the natural world from some magical place based outside of it if prayed too and revered as gods. Want to be a more efficient and successful grave digger? Pray to St. Arimathea. Want to pray for the well being of Nicaragua? St. James the Greater has got your back.

Even the more watered down definition of a saint – such as a saint simply being anyone who has ascended to Heaven and is in the presence of God – is still a minor deity of sorts, as the deceased is believed to have reached life after death and is a form of spirit the religious often think they can converse with. And I can’t tell you how many times I have heard religious family members of mine, and many other people I know or have run into by chance, invoke a dead relative as almost a minor deity and/or claim the deceased’s spirit was responsible for some significantly fortunate event in their life, or even something trivial like winning 20 bucks on a scratch ticket. Such behavior simply reeks of polytheism in denial and is very much like the Ancient Roman tradition by which the spirits of a family’s ancestors were revered and prayed too in order to guide and protect the family.

While on the topic of spirits, my next piece of evidence for Christian polytheism is angels and demons – two classes of minor deities – one allegedly good, one evil, and two groups of beings which, it can be argued, are former humans who were transformed after death (again, depending on what brand of Christianity we are talking about). These minor gods function as the minions of God and Satan, respectively. The angels are even part of the celestial hierarchy and there are different orders, triads or spheres composed of nine angelic choirs - the most influential variation of which comes from Pseudo Dionysius’ writing The Celestial Hierarchy. And the various angels in these groups all have special areas over which they are protectors and guardians over, or advocates for, in heaven, human lives and/or the natural world – much like the patron saints. In this way they are certainly tools or pawns of God, but they are also minor supernatural players and thus minor deities or gods who are given such capabilities to do tasks for God as spiritual intermediaries between him and humans.

Demons, on the other hand, are malevolent spirits who work for and do tasks for Satan as minor gods or deities under him. There is also a hierarchy of demons, courtesy of the inquisitor Father Sebastien Michaelis – though like that of angels there are several different classifications and Michaelis’ does not stand uncontested and is not universally accepted by all of Christiandom. These servants of Satan are believed to have so much power in the natural world so as to be able to corrupt and even possess humans to make them evil, and this belief is so real and prevalent in some Christian communities that exorcisms are actually utilized. The Catholic Church and other contemporary Christian sects also believe angels and demons are authentic supernatural beings with power over human lives and the natural world in terms of their respective divine superiors.

Unsurprisingly, a significant framework for the hierarchies of both angels and demons came from the Bible, which is my next piece of evidence even though I rather dislike using it for anything. Unfortunately, it is THE book of Christian mythology. And while its frequent mention and acknowledgement of the existence of other gods is not necessarily polytheism it sure doesn’t help the monotheism claim. Mercifully for Christianity, I am only going to focus specifically on Genesis 1:26-27 to support this portion of my argument for Christian polytheism. The King James Version of this selection of the Bible reads:

And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The most conspicuous parts of this text are undoubtedly the use of the words US and OUR, which both imply polytheism as God clearly appears to be speaking to other deities who are similar in nature and appearance to him – regardless of whether they are of lesser, equal or greater power – quite simply it is a polytheistic account of creation. And I have seen no convincing evidence God is speaking in the majestic plural, or royal “We,”whereby an authoritative figure refers to him or herself in the third person and speaks on behalf of others who are under their authority. In fact, just the opposite is true as it had not yet been invented when this was written.

If God is speaking or referring to some sort of heavenly court of angels, that simply brings back the minor deities referenced to earlier into the equation. If he is speaking to other supernatural beings then it is also automatically polytheism. What this cannot be taken as an example of, however, is God speaking to other members of the Trinity as the concept of a triune god had not been revealed, or rather invented, yet.

And the Holy Trinity is my next piece of evidence for Christian polytheism. On a number of occasions I have pointed out the contradiction of a triune deity, and thus the Christian god, because this tortured reasoning essentially states that God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus are all the same person and not the same person all at the same time – a blatant contradiction that boils down to the logic of “God impregnates the alleged Virgin Mary as a ghost to impregnate her with himself, because he is his own father, and then kills himself to save us from himself.” Completely absurd.

Nonetheless, there is an undeniable polytheistic element to it and we need only to focus on the part that asserts God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct supernatural figures and deities with very specific functions and roles. And quite simply, for the rational mind it is “an either or” proposition when it comes to the trinity – either God is one being or there are at least three major gods of Christianity. No appeal to the power of God being able to do anything he wishes suffices or is satisfactory to a logical mind. If God is the only major divine being, fine – we still have angels and saints and demons – and if there are three primary gods to Christianity we simply add more deities to the already packed Christian pantheon. In either event, the ridiculous concept of the holy trinity either aids or does nothing to diminish my argument that Christianity is not monotheism, but polytheism in denial.

As for my final piece of evidence it regards a former angel and figure previously mentioned – Satan, or the Devil. This mythological figure is arguably the second or fourth major god of Christianity, depending on what you think of the holy trinity. And he appears to be close to as powerful, or even at least as powerful, as God.

Satan holds great supernatural power over the natural world and is in constant combat with God for control of it – which is rather embarrassing for God having to fight over control of a world and over humans he himself supposedly made. Because the devil not only has the power to make bad things happen in the world (like God) but he is responsible for human possessions in which he or his agents can corrupt or make people evil – because if a person is not possessed by some minor demon they are possessed by the king of demons. And God’s typical response to his followers when possessions are suspected is “you’re on your’re own; you got this.”

And the exorcist specialists reenter the picture again because their supposedly Supreme deity needs to be begged to protect his followers from this rival god. And let’s not forget that in Isaiah 14:13-15 Lucifer tries to be like God and is cast out by god only to become the very thing God had cast Lucifer out of heaven for aspiring too – being a major god. And this subsequently begins their rivalry as virtually equal divine beings.

In this struggle between evil and slightly less evil – which Christianity is dependant on for survival because otherwise what is the point of the religion without a clear and present bad guy - Satan has a very specific supernatural, or rather divine, function and role. He is God’s nemesis and, quite frankly, to be the nemesis of God you have to possess the powers of a deity, or else you are not much of an opponent or threat to the works or another deity, which is why Satan is a major deity of Christianity – or at the very least a very prominent minor one – though I lean definitively towards the former.

Frankly, the Christian assertion Satan is not a god is like saying Hades is not a god in Greek mythology. And the Christian logic that “Satan is not a god, or deity, he is the devil” is inherently flawed and a little like me saying "I am not a human I am an atheist" – but it is even worse and more nonsensical than that because Satan is the Devil and Lucifer, for that matter. And whatever name you call this mythology character, him being a god is not mutually exclusive to that name. Christianity can claim it is monotheism and worships one Supreme Being all it wants, but the facts depict quite a different picture altogether.

In the end, the case is strong for Christian polytheism using rational processes. In spite of this, I can already hear attacks on my credibility because I am not a quote unquote an “official expert in theology,” which is rather the pro-league of just making nonsensical shit up and wrapping it in pseudo-intellectual speech and is much like saying I am not a professional bullshit artist. And my low opinion of theology can be summarized by a quote attributed to an unknown individual which defines theology as “the study of elaborate verbal disguises for non-ideas.” Of course, my definition of theology is “the study of elaborate verbal disguises for contrary-to-logic, irrational and categorically stupid ideas.”

My argument may not be entirely proper as far as theology goes – and I take great pride in this as a rationalist – but it does use the only tools that give a damn in the natural world we live in: logic and unflinching reason. And these tools tell me Christianity is polytheism in denial. You can surely decided for yourself.



Loophole Allows Gays To Marry

Those pesky gays and their agenda to devalue heterosexual marriage!

The law has no place in scientific disputes: Simon Singh petition – sign it!!!!

The law has no place in scientific disputes
We the undersigned believe that it is inappropriate to use the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence.

The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic for various children's ailments through an open discussion of the peer reviewed medical literature or through debate in the mainstream media.

Singh holds that chiropractic treatments for asthma, ear infections and other infant conditions are not evidence-based. Where medical claims to cure or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these views.

English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being viewed as the "libel capital" of the world.

Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate, whether in peer-reviewed journals, on websites or in newspapers, which have a right of reply for complainants. However, the libel laws and cases such as BCA v Singh have a chilling effect, which deters scientists, journalists and science writers from engaging in important disputes about the evidential base supporting products and practices. The libel laws discourage argument and debate and merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics.

The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence; the BCA should discuss the evidence outside of a courtroom. Moreover, the BCA v Singh case shows a wider problem: we urgently need a full review of the way that English libel law affects discussions about scientific and medical evidence.

Signed

Click here to read additional comments from signatories

Sign this stament now

Main Page



Stephen Fry, Broadcaster and Author:
“It may seem like a small thing to some when claims are made without evidence, but there are those of us who take this kind of thing very seriously because we believe that repeatable evidence-based science is the very foundation of our civilisation. Freedom in politics, in thought and in speech followed the rise of empirical science which refused to take anything on trust, on faith, on hope or even on reason. The simplicity and purity of evidence is all that stands between us and the wildest kinds of tyranny, superstition and fraudulent nonsense. When a powerful organisation tries to silence a man of Simon Singh’s reputation then anyone who believes in science, fairness and the truth should rise in indignation. All we ask for is proof. Reasoned proof according to the established protocols of medicine and science everywhere. It is not science that is arrogant: science can be defined as ‘humility before the facts’ - it is those who refuse to submit to testing and make unsubstantiated claims that are arrogant. Arrogant and unjust.”


Professor Richard Dawkins, FRS, University of Oxford:
“This splendid manifesto hits so many bullseyes, I feel like adding my signature to every line of it. The English libel laws are ridiculed as an international charter for litigious mountebanks, and the effects are especially pernicious where science is concerned.”

The law has no place in scientific disputes: Simon Singh petition – sign it!!!!

The law has no place in scientific disputes
We the undersigned believe that it is inappropriate to use the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence.

The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic for various children's ailments through an open discussion of the peer reviewed medical literature or through debate in the mainstream media.

Singh holds that chiropractic treatments for asthma, ear infections and other infant conditions are not evidence-based. Where medical claims to cure or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these views.

English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being viewed as the "libel capital" of the world.

Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate, whether in peer-reviewed journals, on websites or in newspapers, which have a right of reply for complainants. However, the libel laws and cases such as BCA v Singh have a chilling effect, which deters scientists, journalists and science writers from engaging in important disputes about the evidential base supporting products and practices. The libel laws discourage argument and debate and merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics.

The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence; the BCA should discuss the evidence outside of a courtroom. Moreover, the BCA v Singh case shows a wider problem: we urgently need a full review of the way that English libel law affects discussions about scientific and medical evidence.

Signed

Click here to read additional comments from signatories

Sign this stament now

Main Page



Stephen Fry, Broadcaster and Author:
“It may seem like a small thing to some when claims are made without evidence, but there are those of us who take this kind of thing very seriously because we believe that repeatable evidence-based science is the very foundation of our civilisation. Freedom in politics, in thought and in speech followed the rise of empirical science which refused to take anything on trust, on faith, on hope or even on reason. The simplicity and purity of evidence is all that stands between us and the wildest kinds of tyranny, superstition and fraudulent nonsense. When a powerful organisation tries to silence a man of Simon Singh’s reputation then anyone who believes in science, fairness and the truth should rise in indignation. All we ask for is proof. Reasoned proof according to the established protocols of medicine and science everywhere. It is not science that is arrogant: science can be defined as ‘humility before the facts’ - it is those who refuse to submit to testing and make unsubstantiated claims that are arrogant. Arrogant and unjust.”


Professor Richard Dawkins, FRS, University of Oxford:
“This splendid manifesto hits so many bullseyes, I feel like adding my signature to every line of it. The English libel laws are ridiculed as an international charter for litigious mountebanks, and the effects are especially pernicious where science is concerned.”

Comedian Dave Allen on Religion

The A Word 2009-06-03 22:47:22

Cross

Why Organize?

American's who do not believe in any gods (we would call them atheists, although they may not) are a large part of the population. Some polls would say that there are more atheists in America than Mormons and Jews combined, however, we are either underrepresented, or our politicians are lying about their religious beliefs. If nearly one in five of us are atheists, as some polls suggest, why are we treated as a much smaller minority? Much of that has to do with numbers and organization.

Right now, across the country, atheist groups are scrambling to make themselves known to people who had no idea there w
as a group for them. They are doing this through ad campaigns, websites and radio shows. There are some who say that we are recruiting members to a hate group. I would say people are willingly joining a hated group. By being organized, by being a part of a group, whether as a dues paying member, or not, you are helping. The more you participate, the more you make others around you comfortable to be who you are without fear, or shame. We should not be afraid to say that we're going to a spaghetti dinner for Minnesota Atheists on the weekend when a coworker asks us what we have planned.

Don't we live in a tolerant society? After all, we have the separation of church and state to protect atheists and the religious from interference from churches and the government. We should be able to have an event in the public without fear of harassment, but we're not there yet. As atheists, many of us are not interested in debating with the religious about the existence of God, the accuracy of the Bible, or whether Jesus rose from the dead. However, simply by holding a sign with the Minnesota Atheists logo, you open yourself up to harassment.

Jeannette Watland, Associate President for Minnesota Atheists, held a sign at the last Flying Spaghetti Monster spaghetti dinner in Como Park to direct people to where the dinner was being held. She was only out there for 20 minutes, maybe a few hundred cars drove by, but in that time she was called names, yelled at, honked at, told to, "stop proselytizing," and forced into debates with people about the origin of the Universe. Just for holding a sign.

By getting involved, by speaking out and standing out, you are helping to educate the public. We live in a diverse community; however, our existence is hidden. We are your neighbors, coworkers, friends and family. We have morals and deal with the same problems in life as anyone else. One quote Jeannette remembered from her experience was from a mother pushing her child in a stroller. "What's that word mean, mommy?" "Atheist? That's a dirty word." With your help, people will see that it isn't.

Why Organize?

American's who do not believe in any gods (we would call them atheists, although they may not) are a large part of the population. Some polls would say that there are more atheists in America than Mormons and Jews combined, however, we are either underrepresented, or our politicians are lying about their religious beliefs. If nearly one in five of us are atheists, as some polls suggest, why are we treated as a much smaller minority? Much of that has to do with numbers and organization.

Right now, across the country, atheist groups are scrambling to make themselves known to people who had no idea there w
as a group for them. They are doing this through ad campaigns, websites and radio shows. There are some who say that we are recruiting members to a hate group. I would say people are willingly joining a hated group. By being organized, by being a part of a group, whether as a dues paying member, or not, you are helping. The more you participate, the more you make others around you comfortable to be who you are without fear, or shame. We should not be afraid to say that we're going to a spaghetti dinner for Minnesota Atheists on the weekend when a coworker asks us what we have planned.

Don't we live in a tolerant society? After all, we have the separation of church and state to protect atheists and the religious from interference from churches and the government. We should be able to have an event in the public without fear of harassment, but we're not there yet. As atheists, many of us are not interested in debating with the religious about the existence of God, the accuracy of the Bible, or whether Jesus rose from the dead. However, simply by holding a sign with the Minnesota Atheists logo, you open yourself up to harassment.

Jeannette Watland, Associate President for Minnesota Atheists, held a sign at the last Flying Spaghetti Monster spaghetti dinner in Como Park to direct people to where the dinner was being held. She was only out there for 20 minutes, maybe a few hundred cars drove by, but in that time she was called names, yelled at, honked at, told to, "stop proselytizing," and forced into debates with people about the origin of the Universe. Just for holding a sign.

By getting involved, by speaking out and standing out, you are helping to educate the public. We live in a diverse community; however, our existence is hidden. We are your neighbors, coworkers, friends and family. We have morals and deal with the same problems in life as anyone else. One quote Jeannette remembered from her experience was from a mother pushing her child in a stroller. "What's that word mean, mommy?" "Atheist? That's a dirty word." With your help, people will see that it isn't.