Monthly Archive for January, 2012Page 2 of 115

Principles – Vague vs Specific

Published

on January 31, 2012

After spending four weeks discussing Sean Faircloth's new political strategy for atheists, I am going to start looking at his list of policy objectives.

However, before I do, I would like to make some general comments about policy objectives.

It is politically useful not to make them too specific. The more specific you make them, the smaller the audience you can appeal to in defending them. Every specific claim will peel off a set of potential supporters who do not like that interpretation, but who thinks a different interpretation still fits the general principle.

By keeping one's policy objectives vague, one can continue to appeal to a larger audience. People will tend to fill in the gaps with their own ideas. This means that different people with incompatible beliefs can all claim to be obeying the same vague principle.

We find an excellent example of this in the Bill of Rights. These items are vague - intentionally so. That is how the authors got the votes to get these amendments passed.

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."

What does this mean?

I have given and defended an interpretation in my last post. However, nothing of that interpretation shows up in the First Amendment itself. Somebody else could offer a different interpretation with key elements that conflict the one I gave, and can still claim to be defending a right to freedom of speech. Both of us may have reason to vote for the vague and general principles, even though, in practice, we would be at odds on a number of issues relevant to that principle.

One relevant point to make is that only an absolute purist defends the idea that the First Amendment implies that Congress shall make no law abridging libel, slander, or revealing military information to the enemy. Nor does the right to freedom of speech invalidate all laws against fraud and misrepresentation when spoken or written.

None of these points are covered in the principle itself. There is no way either I, or the purist, can appeal to the principle itself and say, "This is how it must be applied". We must bring in other facts - facts outside of the specific wording - to make our case as to what the wording actually allows or prohibits.

Some people believe that we can examine the words and actions of the original authors - in this case, the founding fathers - to determine its meaning. This option fails for three reasons.

First, it follows from what I have already written that the vagueness of the Bill of Rights allows people with different and conflicting views to support the same bill. To use the intentions of the original author is to use a conflicting mix of attitudes, each of which the holder could somehow shoehorn into the principle that was passed. The idea that all of the founding fathers had exactly the same thoughts in their head regarding each of these principles, and that we can determine what that common shared belief was, is simply absurd.

Second, nothing can be more clear than the fact that, for the founding fathers, there is sometimes a huge gap between principle and practice. Slavery and the denial of voting rights to women provide the clearest examples of this. When their practice deviated from their principles, we have a question we need to answer. Are we going to follow their practices and abandon their principles? Or are we going to preserve their principles and adopt a more consistent set of practices?

Third, the founding fathers believed that there were moral truths independent of the opinions of mere humans. This is an opinion that I share. There exists, in the objective world, certain moral rights and a just government is one that respects those rights. When the Bill of Rights says that certain rights may not be abridged, they are not saying, "My opinion of what these rights are shall not be abridged". They are saying, "The rights that exist must not be abridged". From which it follows, "If my opinion about these rights deviates from the truth - because I am mortal and prone to error - the Constitution tells you to ignore my opinion and go with the moral facts."

All of these elements leaves open the possibility of different people, with different political and moral beliefs, supporting the same vaguely worded general principle. These elements allows each of them to draw the conclusion that, "In the end, through debate and discussion, my interpretation will win out. So, yes, I can support this principle."

It is politically useful to have a set of vague general principles.

However, this is not a political blog. In the confines of these blog pages, I care nothing about political advantage. I wish to report on the moral facts of the matter - even where some if those facts might be politically unwise.

I will leave it to the politicians to denounce any politically harmful elements, as they see fit.

Starting tomorrow, I will look at Faircloth's policy objectives, and examine, specifically, what they should allow and prohibit.

Hungary joins the United States in pandering to the wingnut brigade

Published

PZ Myers

on January 31, 2012

I was feeling lonely. The daily spectacle of the Republican presidential candidates prancing their “family values” about the stage had me wondering…is there any other country in the world that would give such idiots such prominence?

And yes there is. Hungary. They just passed a new law that sounds so…American.

The new law says the family, based upon marriage of a man and a woman whose mission is fulfilled by raising children, is an "autonomous community…established before the emergence of law and the State" and that the State must respect it as a matter of national survival. It says "Embryonic and foetal life shall be entitled to protection and respect from the moment of conception," and the state should encourage "homely circumstances" for child care. It obliges the media to respect marriage and parenting and assigns parents, rather than the State, primary responsibility for protecting the rights of the child. The law enumerates responsibilities for minors, including respect and care for elderly parents.

Hungary also has a new constitution, with some good points mingled among the bad.

The constitution calls for the protection of life from conception and bans torture, human trafficking, eugenics, and human cloning. It recognizes marriage as the “conjugal union of a man and a woman.”

Something about their obsessions suggests the grasping hand of the Catholic Church in all this.

Why I am an atheist – mandrellian

Published

PZ Myers

on January 31, 2012

Why am I not an atheist …

… and why I am.

I am not an atheist because:

I hate God
I prayed to God and my prayers weren’t answered
Militant/fundamentalist atheists converted me away from God
I worship science and the works of man instead of God
I’m rebelling against God like I rebelled against my parents & teachers in high school
I think I’m better than God
I had a bad experience with a priest or church or religious person
I can’t decide which religion to subscribe to
atheism is my religion
I think religious people are idiots
I worship Batman
I worship Satan
I’m immoral/amoral and would rather do what I want
I want to destroy religion

I distrust and criticise certain organised religions because:

they are human inventions and many seem to be more preoccupied with obsessively controlling aspects of peoples’ private lives than improving them
many Christian churches are primarily concerned with attracting money and then keeping it rather than using it charitably
many holy books get descriptions of the world & nature completely wrong, which you would not expect had they been dictated by the omnipotent creator of the universe
many holy books contain descriptions of human events that cannot be historically verified and in all likelihood never happened (eg. Exodus)
many holy books contain numerous laws, acts & stories of a morality that modern, free societies find repugnant; these societies have passed many of their own laws contradicting them
there are so many separate & often violently opposed sects of each religion that it is more likely that none of them are correct than just one of them being so
many religious groups demand special treatment such as the right not to be offended by statements, artworks, songs or anything else that may criticise or disagree with their dogma
religious groups frequently try to have laws passed which unfairly impose their narrow standards of behaviour, based on interpretations of specific holy commands, onto the rest of society
religious people often tend to pick & choose from, or “interpret” their holy texts, discarding what does not conform to modern standards of morality, law & political freedom; they then imply that modern morality, law and political freedom rests on the foundations of their particular religion
there is such a wide spectrum of religious belief & adherence to dogma, ranging from light, barely-existent deism to the kind of rigid fundamentalism that oppresses and kills many, many people in its name, that it leads me to conclude that either God wasn’t clear enough with his message, didn’t spread it to enough people or that humans have basically made their religions and associated rules up as they went along and have been in conflict with each other about them ever since
many religious people & groups wilfully mis-characterise atheists as immoral, empty beings with no appreciation for beauty or mystery simply because we prefer natural explanations for the universe’s phenomena rather than defaulting to “God did it”; they believe that any explanation, even a wrong one or one which explains nothing, is better than “we just don’t know yet”
many religious groups continue to deny long-accepted scientific facts such as the divergence of species through evolution and the verified age of the Earth; some wish their particular mythology taught as fact in science classes and go to extraordinary lengths to accomplish it; some even insist there’s a huge, dark Scientist conspiracy quashing “academic freedom”
some religious people & groups attempt to cherry-pick science (as they do their scriptures) for those parts which conform to their belief system while actively denying others, e.g. agreeing with “microevolution” while denying “macroevolution” or attempting to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to debunk evolution
some religious groups deny the efficacy of modern medicine in favour of treating an ill person with prayer, a practice which has led to many preventable deaths, often of children
they all make extraordinary claims based on their scriptures, provide no evidence beyond referring to their self-confirming scriptures and then insist that the onus is on atheists to disprove their claims
many religions have become inextricably intertwined with the laws of the patriarchal cultures which spawned or adopted them, leading to divine justifications for such horrors as female circumcision and “honour killings”, which more often than not punish women, already under the thumbs of domineering males, for seemingly minute transgressions of law
when it comes to the hot-button issue of sexual abuse by priests, many religions seem more concerned with good public relations, shielding themselves from culpability and keeping numbers in churches than with compensating victims and being active about preventing further abuse

I am an atheist because:

any & all claims of and explanations for the existence of God or any other gods have thus far fallen far short of my standards of evidence
my understanding of the natural universe is that it functions in such a way that doesn’t require (or indicate) the presence of any supernatural entity intervening in either the laws of nature or selected peoples’ lives
That’s it. They are the only two things that I can say I absolutely have in common with any other atheist. In matters of sex, politics, architecture, gaming, interior design, pets, music, clothing, hobbies, language, philosophy, education, sports, typing speed, preferred drugs, affinity with beagles & frogs and any number of other categories I may be diametrically opposite to any other atheist in the world. To label one atheist with the same attributes you label another atheist is ignorant at best, flat-out dishonest at worst. But all of us, if “atheist” is to mean anything at all, do not accept theistic claims.

But what could steer me in the opposite direction? Probably the same things that could steer any atheist…

I could be converted to theism if:

God, or a god, showed himself or performed an act that unambiguously proved both his existence and his attributes as an immortal, omnipotent being. As to what that proof would constitute: that god himself, if omnipotent, would be the perfect arbiter of what would conclusively prove to six billion people that he existed.

Such things as tortillas depicting blurred silhouettes of Mary (or any other second-tier deity) do not count. If you’re there, God, you’re on notice! Any time is fine. No tricks – and come alone (if indeed there’s only one of you, otherwise, bring the whole parthenon).

mandrellian
Australia

Espresso

Published

abufares

on January 31, 2012

In January of 2000 I went on my first trip to Italy. Three days after a job interview in Tartous with a visiting delegation I received a call asking me to attend a meeting in Treviso. The company had applied for an expedited visa on my behalf and one week later I was there, at headquarters.

We sat in a very large and Italian meeting room with glass all around instead of walls. The ceiling and the floor were mostly made of transparent panels too. It was fantastic architecture by all means and although I'm no great fan of cutting edge modern design I was impressed nevertheless. The same 3 men who interviewed me in Tartous walked into the room with an amicable disposition. They inquired about the flight, if my room in the hotel was comfortable enough and whether breakfast was to my liking. Then we sat down to business. I neglected to tell them that I didn't have time for a proper breakfast but instead only had a cupcake. Most importantly there was no coffee in the breakfast area and before I had a chance to order it from the bar the dispatched car and driver had arrived.

15 minutes into the meeting I was dying for a cup of coffee. I was also reflecting on how differently business in Syria is conducted. The first half an hour or so is mostly spent on pleasantries such as talk about the kids, the weather and world economy, in Tartous at least. Coffee and/or tea are brought in by an attendant. Sugar is premixed as per each individual person's preference. Then ever so slowly the talk tangos into the business at hand. One of my hosts, more attentive than the others and who eventually became a personal friend, noticed my discomfort and asked if he could get me something. Yes please, can I have some coffee?

I was surprised that in a company with over 800 employees worldwide and with an office staff of 150 there wasn't a single person with the designated job of making and/or serving beverages. Of course that was my first venture into the world of big business abroad. It's true that I worked in the US before and that there was no one to serve coffee either, but I only worked in a university and a small general aviation company. Carlo, logistics and international crew and recruiting manager, got up himself and fixed me an espresso.

I was 40 and I just had my first real Italian espresso but I got hooked since. There's nothing in the world, not a single dish or beverage that comes close to an Italian espresso. But more than their cuisine or their wines, the football or the super cars, architecture, painting or sculpture, Italians reached their true height in art and science with their espresso machines and coffee.

I bought my first and only espresso machine in February of that year as a birthday present for myself. It was simple and actually the only one I could find, a French Moulinex Gusto. Unlike fancier machines, which contain a stainless steel or a brass boiler, an exchanger, complex plumbing and a powerful pump to flash-heat the water to precise temperature on its way to the basket containing the ground coffee, minee had a plastic water tank, a small heater in the head and an electric pump. Once the water temperature gets to a certain degree in the head itself the thermostat light comes off. I push a rocker switch activating a pump which in turn forces a jet of water over the coffee. I had it for 12 years and it served me at least one cup of coffee every morning I've spent at home since. I never filled it with anything but Lavazza coffee, the brand that I chose as my favorite after my maiden 5 days visit to Italy.

Last week the Moulinex started leaking on the sides around the filter holder. I fiddled with it as best as I could but I realized that it had reached the end of its useful life. This morning, my cup of espresso tasted almost as bland as a cup of American coffee with the consistency and suspended particles I so much despise in Turkish coffee. I cleaned the machine reverently for it had served me well. I even spoke to it and promised that I'll try to fix it but with the relegated role of a backup.

I just bought a new machine, a steam powered espresso coffee maker and an Italian at that. My DeLonghi is set up and ready. I can almost smell the fresh brew and the temptation is killing me. But that will have to wait till morning. For now, a shot of Grappa to celebrate the change of guard is in order. Salute!

A star-warped way of thinking: FRC attacks gay characters in video game

Published

Barry Duke

on January 31, 2012

A MAD US hate group, the Family Research Council (FRC), has declared war on a multi-million dollar video game – Star Wars: The Old Republic – because its creators decided to include a same-sex romance component to the game in a future patch.

Despite the fact that the patch, according to this report, is completely optional and players can choose whether or not they want to romance companions of the same sex, Tony Perkins, FRC’s lunatic-in-chief, recently appeared in a video, saying:

In a new Star Wars game, the biggest threat to the empire may be homosexual activists! In a galaxy not so far, far away, Star Wars gamers have already gone to the dark side. The new video game, Star Wars: The Old Republic, has added a special feature: gay relationships.

Bioware, the company that developed the game, said it’s launching a same-sex romance component to satisfy some complaints. That surprised a lot of gamers, since Bioware had made it clear in 2009 that ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ don’t exist in the Star Wars universe.

Since the announcement, homosexuals have been celebrating the news, but parents sure aren’t. On the game’s website, there are more than 300 pages of comments – a lot of them expressing anger that their kids will be exposed to this Star Warped way of thinking. You can join them by logging on and speaking up. It’s time to show companies who the Force is really with!

Of course, video games have long been under fire from Christian clowns, like the pair of lovelies pictured below. He is an unnamed granddad, concerned over the “totally demonic” content of Pokemon, and the “addictive” nature Minecraft, which so distracts children that they:

Don’t go back to reading their Bibles, or study the Word.

She is Watchmen Broadcasting’s co-founder, Dorothy Spauling, and together they have managed to create one of the funniest video clips I have seen in a very long while. Click on pic to watch the rant.

Hat tip: BarrieJohn

Last Night on Facebook

Published

Bud

on January 31, 2012

A good friend of mine who is a Christian (and who's not Clayton, FYI) posted this status update on his profile:

Being a Christian with a bunch of atheist friends is a difficult thing. As an atheist, you have to believe that the Bible is a pack of lies, and people who believe it's true are fools.

As a Christian, how do you maintain a friendship with people who hate what you believe, and think your an idiot for believing it? How can there be any kind of mutual respect in a situation like that?

Compelled to respond, I posted a comment which led to an interesting discussion between my friend and me. Much of my conversation with my friend is below. I cut out comments by other people for the sake of length, and because they don't directly affect our conversation (although I chuckled a bit at my friend's mother-in-law, who, rather than actually contributing anything meaningful, trolled the thread by posting random Bible verses and lyrics to old hymns). Enjoy:

Bud Uzoras: I disagree that an atheist *has to* believe that people who believe the Bible are fools. Incorrect, sure, but the atheists I know don't deny that many Christians are rather intelligent (though many think the Bible is ridiculous, but that certainly is not the same thing). Speaking of respect, Christians (generally) believe non-believers are going to hell. How can Christians have any respect at all for someone they believe god (the perfect judge) has deemed worthy of eternal damnation (apart from compartmentalizing or ignoring such a fact, which honestly is disingenuous on the Christians' part). I can respect someone even if I disagree with that person. Of course, I don't think hell awaits that person for not being correct. Respect is earned among friends when a difference of opinion can be tolerated because the greater priorities are to maintain compassion, concern and the mutual bond of friendship, which is more lasting than differences of opinion or belief.

Christian: Bud, you should know better then that. You were a preacher. The doctrine doesn't teach that God declared non-believers were less valuable and deserved damnation. It says we all screwed the pooch, but he gave us a get out of jail free card. Not everyone has accepted. (Calvinism is a separate discussion, and that's not what I'm talking about)

Christian: And the problem here goes a lot deeper then respecting other beliefs. Atheism doesn't have to be a part of your identity. It doesn't have to be a major factor in how you live your life or what decisions you make.

Christian: Christianity is a part of my identity. It's not just a belief, it's who I am. I don't know a single christian anywhere who gets their kicks from talking about how stupid atheists are. We don't sit around actively mocking atheism or talking about how stupid is to believe in nothing. It's not really an issue. The attitude is "they don't understand. Maybe some day they will". There are militant Christians who shove the gospel down your throat, but they are usually the exception to the rule.

Bud Uzoras Sure, according to the "good news," everyone deserves damnation because... god said so. Those who escape such judgment are the ones who managed to figure out what "the truth" is before they died, because after you die it's too late, for reasons that are less than clear. But by faith you have been made righteous. Those of us who lack faith remain in our wickedness. And as the good book says: "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?" (2 Corinthians 6:14,15). You said I should know better, but I'm just going by what the Bible says.

Christian: I don't know a huge number of atheists, but every one I've ever met, present company included, never passes up and opportunity to take a potshot at the church. Yeah, most of the time it's a tongue-in-cheek kind of thing but a good natured reminder that we think your God is stupid is still an insult.

Bud Uzoras: ‎"I don't know a single christian anywhere who gets their kicks from talking about how stupid atheists are." Maybe you don't know any of these Christians, but they're out there, and there's a lot of them out there. And let's not forget about the multitude of believers who mock, scorn, and even threaten people who have been "outed" as atheists. It's a serious problem, yet Christians keep talking about how they're "persecuted."

Christian: Bud, that's still the fringe. I'm not saying it's okay, but I don't know anyone who is a christian who would support any kind of behavior like that.

Bud Uzoras: We can go back and forth on whether such Christians represent "the fringe," but unless we find some hard numbers, the point is moot. "Fringe" or otherwise, the number of Christians who act with prejudice and hatred toward non-believers is still very, very large. ‎"Atheism doesn't have to be a part of your identity." I disagree. In the context of a world in which most people believe in some sort of god (and where so very many of them judge those who don't believe), the fact that a person doesn't believe has serious implications and ramifications. In fact, the term "atheist" only exists because such people live in a world where theism reigns. The fact that a person doesn't believe in a god naturally has an impact on who one is, and what identity one has.

Christian: I can agree with that, though I still think the number is large because the number of Christians is large. 2 or 3 percent of millions is going to work out to a lot of people. (though I'd doubt the numbers are even that high).

Bud Uzoras Try being an atheist for a while. You might think differently.

Christian: How often do you have to make major life decisions where you have to stop and think, "now, I'm an atheist. How should that belief affect this decision?".

Bud Uzoras: I don't use that exact phrase, but everything that makes up my worldview - including my views on god - influence the decisions I make. For example, if I heard a voice telling me to kill my son, I'd think I needed medical help instead of thinking that god was commanding me to sacrifice my son as part of some divine plan.

Christian: Either way, were navigating away from the point. This isn't about which group has more jerks, it's about whether or not a group of friends composed of atheists and Christians can still respect each other.

Christian: Seriously? You think christians that hear voices are going to automatically assume it's God?

Bud Uzoras: No, I don't think that at all. In such cases, only "the fringe" would think that. To digress even further than we already have, I do find it interesting that most Christians would think hearing such a voice is indicative of a psychological condition, but when they read about Abraham and Isaac, it's commended as virtuous - an act of faith.

Christian: I would assume in Abraham's case, you don't hear the voice of God and not know it's the voice of God. You could argue that Samuel didn't know who was talking to him when he was a child, but there was still someone around to tell him. If God's gonna talk to you, your going to know it. Otherwise, your going crazy.

Bud Uzoras: Yeah, but how would you know? The more convinced a person who hears voices is that the voices are real - the more he "knows" for certain - the more mentally unstable that person turns out to be.

Bud Uzoras: But that begs the question, which lies at the heart of the skeptical movement: *how do you know?* What reason at all, other than emotional attachment or conditioning via cultural context, do you have for accepting the Bible as "the word of god"?

Christian: That doesn't have to be applied to Christians though. Crazy people can blame the voices they hear on anything. It's kind of silly to say that Christians don't know what is or is not rational behavior just because they believe in God.

Bud Uzoras: I didn't say that. In general, how would anyone know whether a voice is from god, satan, a really good ventriloquist, or due to mental illness?

Christian: Again, getting away from the point. This isn't about proving which one is right. It's about respect. Or, if I want to distill it down to the real problem, it's that my atheist friends don't respect what I believe in, and it's hard to deal with.

Bud Uzoras: I can understand that your atheist friends not respecting what you believe is difficult to deal with. That doesn't mean they can't or don't respect you as a person, and as their friend. Imagine how difficult is is to have so many of your Christian friends send you messages like "I see you're an atheist now. I hope you turn back to God before it's too late." Talk about not respecting what you believe! At worst, you have to worry about people thinking you're a fool. Atheists have to worry about people thinking they're going to burn in hell for eternity. No fun.

Christian: The two can't be separated. You can't mock my faith right in front of me, but respect me as a person. If you talk about how ridiculous the scripture is, or how belief is Jesus moronic, your making a direct assault on my character. That's not respect.

Christian: Normally something like that wouldn't bother me. Christianity getting kicked around is pretty much the status quo, but you don't do that to your friends.

Christian: And if you could think of a single time I've tried to ram scripture down any of our friend's throats or told them how they were condemned to burn in hell, I would be absolutely amazed.

Bud Uzoras: That highlights one of the problems with Christianity: a critique of one's belief/faith is equivalent to an attack on one's character/person. That's how it's set up. I, on the other hand, having freed myself from such a shackle, am now free to not worry about being wrong. If something I think or believe is shown to be false, I'm free to simply correct my thinking. I hold my beliefs with an open hand, because I know I'm not all-knowing. My beliefs are not me; therefore, an attack on my beliefs or opinions is not an attack on me.

Bud Uzoras: You've always been great to hang out with, never ramming anything unwanted down anyone's throat. And you've never told any of your hellbound friends that they're condemned to burn in hell. I assume you believe that, and have simply kept it to yourself.

Bud Uzoras: And as far as whether Christianity getting kicked around is the status quo, I beg to differ. Christianity gets its share of criticisms, but we're still a nation dominated by a Christian majority. Call me when we get an atheist president, and then we'll talk.

Christian: Hey, you can't argue the fact that bashing Christians is trendy in popular culture now. When was the last time you saw a TV show or movie that had an openly christian character that wasn't an idiot or a slime ball? Or, when was the last time you saw an atheist character that wasn't a hero?

Bud Uzoras: There are three realms I can think of in which Christianity gets bashed the most: entertainment, the Internet, and among scholars in the upper echelons of science and education. The first two are not exclusively anti-Christian. They could make a Passion of the Christ part two - it doesn't have to make any sense - and it would still make millions of dollars. Concerning the Internet, Jesus gets way more hits on Google than Richard Dawkins (go to googlefight.com and see), and Christianity has nearly three times as many hits as atheism on Google. What you call "trendy" is simply a handful of people - people in the minority - expressing their views. Calling it "trendy" is a bit dismissive.

Christian: I'm talking about the media specficially, because the media either reflects or dictates public opinion, depending on the situation. Passion of the Christ was a bad example. It's one of those exceptions that make the rule. One of the reasons it did so well is that Hollywood hasn't made a serious, respectful, big-budget movie about the bible in nearly an eternity. It was a fluke, and even with all the box office sales (driven pretty much exclusively by Christians), it's still a movie that Hollywood loves to hate.

Christian: As for the internet, of course Jesus gets more hits. Christians are still the majority by a massive margin. Lots of numbers means lots of business. It's a big demographic. But if that's the case, why are we so stinking unpopular in the media?

Bud Uzoras: You're not unpopular. That's my point.

Christian: But we are. We're always the bad guys in every story on TV. Brian is brilliant an intellectual (atheist), Peter's father is an abusive jerk (catholic), House is brilliant (atheist), Wilson is naive and a pervert (vaguely mentions god on occasion) , I could go on forever.

Bud Uzoras: Touched By An Angel, Seventh Heaven, The Prince of Egypt, The Narnia movies (while not explicitly Christian, are the adaptations of one of the most respected Christian thinkers of the 20th century, and the allegory in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe is pretty clear). It's not all anti-Christian in the media.

Bud Uzoras: House is at best an anti-hero.

Bud Uzoras: As far as Family Guy goes, everyone in that family is dysfunctional, even Brian (alcoholic who's bad at dating).

Christian: Both are still the popular ones. The script is intentionally written to make you want to be them. It's like that in countless shows and movies. The message isn't even subtle. Atheist characters are smart and make you want to emulate them, christian characters (if there are any) and foolish/week/evil, and should be pitied or despised.

Bud Uzoras: Popular singers, professional athletes, movie stars, et cetera, still thank god when they win something. Justin Beiber is all about being a Christian. Sure, Christianity gets its share of criticism in the media, but it's not as bad as you think. Christian culture tends to exaggerate it because, again, they pass it off as "persecution" when in reality they don't know what persecution is. And I'm not convinced anyone wants to be Brian.

Christian: When Steven Tyler and Ke$ha thank God, it doesn't have the same meaning. When people like Tebow thank God, it starts vicious internet memes that attack his mother. Not really examples of how popular the faith is. Also.... I kinda want to be Brian.

Christian: And honestly, I don't think American Christians face persecution. I'm not going to lose my job, my home, or my life for being a believer. This is more like being in the unpopular crowd in High School. We get figurative wedgies and swirlies pretty regularly.

Bud Uzoras: Ah, but being an atheist *can* cost someone a job, or security, or friends in "the land of the free." It's difficult for me to take the complaints seriously that the media is so anti-Christian when Christians still run the country. Yeah, you guys get made fun of sometimes. Big deal. You are the ruling majority. The fact that there's even the possibility that young earth creationism can be taught on the same level as evolution in this country is evidence that Christians - and pretty fundamentalist Christians at that - are still running the show. A lot of atheists are either still in the closet, or have spent time - often years - finding the courage and strength to come out to friends and family, like they have something to be ashamed of. Declaring atheism is political suicide for someone running for office. Congress reaffirmed "In God We Trust" as our national motto because it makes them look good to the majority of voters. People hear "atheist" and automatically assume "devil worshipper" or "baby eater" or "wicked person." USA Today reported a study which indicated that atheists are as distrusted as rapists. Christians don't have to deal with that in this country.

Christian: It may not be completely anti-christian in the media, but we're still unpopular. I don't think it's a media conspiracy or anything like that. It's just that the majority of Hollywood movers and shakers are atheists, and their work reflects their views.

Dead-Logic.com

[UPDATE: Read the follow-up: My Christian Friend]

A Mormon Tale: Ontario to Nauvoo

Published

Laurence A. Moran

on January 31, 2012

My wife and our children are cousins of Mitt Romney. This is the story of their common ancestor James Hood and his Mormon descendants.A Mormon Tale

Ontario to Nauvoo

When we ended the first installment there were two families from Scotland living in Tosorontio township and Nottawasaga Township in southern Ontario. The Hood family and the Hill family came over from Scotland and settled originally in Dalhousie, in eastern Ontario. They moved south in the 1830s.

On April 6, 1832, Alexander Hill (born in 1811 in Scotland) married Agnes Hood (born in 1811 in Scotland). On Feb. 21, 1840, Isabella Hood (born in 1821 in Ontario) married Archibald Newell Hill (born in Scotland). They were married in Tosorontio where the Hill family farms were lcoated. Two brothers married Hood sisters. We are interested in the children of Isabella and Archibald. Recall that Isabella is the sister of William Hood and my wife and children descend from William.

Archibald Newell Hill and Isobel Hood had two children while living in Canada. Samuel Hood Hill was born in Tosorontio on Dec. 23, 1840. Hannah Hood Hill was born in Tosorontio on July 9, 1842. She died in Colonia Juarez, Mexico in 1929 but a lot of interesting things happened in her life between those dates.

Read more »

Quotable misleading op-ed piece

Published

1minionsopinion

on January 31, 2012

Damn. With a headline like Tim Tebow Will be Responsible For the End of the World, I had theories about what direction the article would go. Alas, trickery!

I’ve been thinking about Tim Tebow a lot ever since Jesus Christ blessed Tom Brady with a 45-10 pounding of Tebow and his Broncos in the playoffs, in what I am convinced was God’s way of confirming He’s sick of the attention the evangelical quarterback is giving Him. Not long after Jesus blessed Tebow with an abysmal quarterback rating of 52.7 against the Patriots, I read an interesting perspective in the Washington Post. Columnist Charles Krauthammer ruminated on the question, ” Are We Alone in the Universe? “

Don’t they call that a “bait and switch” tactic? I come into the article expecting what the headline promises and get delivered something completely different. Then again, I’m not complaining. Not by a long shot. This is a better topic than Tim Tebow. I don’t even like hockey…

I’ll write more about it once I’m finished listening to the audio edition of Penn Jillette’s new book God, No! but one of the first things he said in it winds up slightly relevant. He suggested that three of the most important sentences an atheist has in his arsenal are these three: “I don’t know.” He explained that believers come across as incredibly arrogant people when they claim they know God’s mind or plan or purpose. Tebow believing that God and Jesus care about his football prowess.. really? His team has to care. His coach has to care. His fans probably care. But a god? I don’t know about that.

There’s a lot we don’t know. Scientists come up with theories and Krauthammer goes through a few of them in the article Mexico quotes. The topic of extra-terrestrial life is fascinating. Ignore everyone who insists they get abducted on a regular basis or claim to have photographic proof of a close encounter, “we” – as in astronomers etc. – are finding planets that could be viable yet there’s been nothing in the way of radio waves detected or any other signs that could be translated as “Hello out there!” Or worse, but just as exciting: “We’re coming to get you! See you in 50,000 years!” Both articles mention Carl Sagan’s thought that any civilization advanced enough to be detected might already be extinct, doomed by their own intelligence and technology.

One way to stop that from happening on earth: figure out how to get so many diverse cultures on one planet to behave and keep the peace. Mexico points to the way to start.

So long as religion is taken seriously, we can all agree, that global armistice will simply never happen. In a world rapidly advancing the ease with which we can render ourselves extinct, religious extremists will happily do it.

Quickly. Because it really only takes one. The only prayer homo sapiens have to stop the religious nuts–of all faiths–is by cutting them off at the knees. Ending religion on Earth.

I know, I know. Good luck with that. People hug their religions to their bodies like security blankets, or treat faith and beliefs as if they are as important to survival as livers, kidneys, and lungs. They can’t be made to divorce their religions, and banning the practice merely leads to underground attempts to retain them, with martyrdom extended to those who die for them. Being rid of religion. It’s a nice thought, but is it doable?

I don’t think belief in gods is the problem. The problem is behaviour. It’s one thing when you want to claim that god belief leads you to charities and doing the right thing. The trouble is, that same belief can be stretched to allow all manner of bad behaviour to be justifiable, too. Restricting the rights of women or gays, abusing children, killing anyone suspected of witchcraft, torturing anyone suspected of adultery. Religion leaves room for all of that. Plenty of room. Krauthammer points to politics:

There could be no greater irony: For all the sublimity of art, physics, music, mathematics and other manifestations of human genius, everything depends on the mundane, frustrating, often debased vocation known as politics (and its most exacting subspecialty — statecraft). Because if we don’t get politics right, everything else risks extinction.

We grow justly weary of our politics. But we must remember this: Politics — in all its grubby, grasping, corrupt, contemptible manifestations — is sovereign in human affairs. Everything ultimately rests upon it.

This is why it’s vital to push for politics and politicians to be secular. We need politics to be secular. Politicians have to speak for everyone, not just those who think and believe like they do. They have to have the future of everyone in mind. They have to be open to facts and reality. They have to have understanding of issues, not just positions to play on TV when their voters might be watching. If they’re against abortion, it needs to be for reasons other than “The bible says it’s wrong, therefore it’s wrong.” That’s not a reason, it’s a cop-out.

No religion would go part of the way towards fixing some of the problems with the world, that can at least be said with honesty. Not all of them, but it would be a start. Which reminds me, CFI Kamloops is hosting their second Imagine No Religion conference in May. A few of my Freethinker friends are going to that. They went last year, too, and had a good time. I know I should sign up for something like that at some point. I know it would be interesting and I can afford to go, but .. well, if excuses were mooses, dragons would fly… or whatever. They’ll come back with a report of what went on at least. I’ll live vicariously through the adventures of others.

Filed under: atheism, In the Media, religiosity Tagged: atheism, politics, religion

Blackrobe Down

Published

Mr. Apostate

on January 31, 2012

Alexander Aan, Under Attack for Blasphemy, Suddenly Converts to Islam

Published

Hemant Mehta

on January 31, 2012

We haven’t heard much from Alexander Aan since he “blasphemed” on a Facebook group for the Minang Atheists and stated that God didn’t exist. The authorities in Indonesia took him into custody and he faces up to five years in prison for speaking the truth.

Several groups have tried to step up in his defense, to no avail…

The newly-formed Malaysian Atheists put out this support statement/open letter:

We declare that the continued incarceration of Alexander Aan and the threat of bringing the force of a blasphemy law upon this person for the crime of expressing a disbelief in the religion of Islam to be an unacceptable violation of his freedom of expression as well as his freedom of belief.
We hope you, as the leader/representative of Indonesia, a country that is quickly developing into one of the most successful nations in the world, will take steps leading to concrete action that will show the world that Indonesia has truly become a developed and civilised country where a person may be free to believe and disbelieve as they please as well as the freedom to express their opinion without the fear of incarceration, violence, and any other repercussions that would impede a person’s right to speak freely.
We suggest the immediate actions as follows:
1. Dismiss any and all charges of blasphemy against Alexander.
2. To charge his assailants in the court of law for violent behaviour.

Is It all a moot point if new reports are true that Aan is now converting to Islam…?

An Indonesian atheist who was detained after declaring God did not exist on Facebook was considering abandoning his lack of religious faith and embracing Islam, police said Monday.
…
‘His parents came and told us that he wanted to repent,’ Dharmasraya police chief Chairul Aziz said by telephone.

First of all, it seems obvious that Aan may have said something to that extent to get the authorities off his back. He doesn’t have to mean it. He just doesn’t have any other choice, and it’s not in his best interests to stand by his convictions.

Second, even if he repented, the charges would still proceed (blasphemy charges don’t get overturned because you suddenly, magically “found god”).

So what is there to do at this point? There’s a petition you can sign, though it may not do anything. There’s a Facebook group here and here, though those are often a dime-a-dozen. But I’m not saying that to be dismissive. Each of those things may not be helpful by themselves, but together, they raise awareness of the issue and bring Aan’s story to a wider audience.

Alonzo Fyfe offers a solution along those lines, lest the entire story be forgotten:

Has anything been done to identify, arrest, and convict those who are guilty of assault against Mr. Aan? Or is the message being spread throughout Indonesia that acts of violence against theists are acceptable and shall not be punished?
We should be demanding that action be taken of those guilty of assaulting Aan, at the very least to establish a precedent and to give a warning, for the sake of all atheists, that these forms of violent response to atheist beliefs are to be shunned.…

Finally, Atheist Alliance International has launched an appeal in Aan’s defense and they’re also collecting money to “help pay for Aan’s legal costs and to support the Aan family’s living expenses while he is in jail.”

Whatever you do, don’t ignore this story. Keep him in your thoughts and let that inspire you to take some sort of action.

there’s a patch of snow on the ground

Published

helen sotiriadis

on January 31, 2012

like it? click it!
view in the dark

look around
leaves are brown
there's a patch of snow on the ground

©2011 helen sotiriadis

New Model No. 15

Published

Kris King

on January 31, 2012

I don’t know about you, but when I heard the news this week that the twin bills SOPA (Screwing Over Proper Artists) and PIPA (Positively Invading People’s Anuses) had suffered a humiliating defeat/climbdown when pretty much the entire world told the entertainment industry to go fuck itself and stop trying to ruin the internet, I [...]

Fred Peeps

Published

vorjack

on January 31, 2012

Courtesy of Stuff Fundies Like. It looks like an entry in the Washington Post Peeps Show, but I can’t find the specific entry.

Creating Controversy: Misguided Indiana Creationism Bill Advances in State Senate

Published

Simon Brown

on January 31, 2012

If some lawmakers would spend as much time studying their constitutional responsibilities as they do promoting their personal understanding of the Bible, creationism bills would probably disappear. Related articles:

National Prayer Breakfast serves up an unlawful mixture of state/church

Published

Freedom From Religion Foundation

on January 31, 2012

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has sent a cautionary letter to President Barack Obama asking him to once again disassociate the Oval Office from the so-called annual "National Prayer Breakfast" taking place on Thursday, Feb. 2. Obama is scheduled to once again participate. Related articles: