Uh...yeah...

I was talking to my wife last night about how it's been more than a month since I updated this.

I should start out with some basics again I guess.

Atheist = Someone that doesn't believe in god or a god.
Agnostic = Someone that doesn't know if there is a god or not.

So I would say I am an Agnostic Atheist. I don't believe in god or worship one, and I am pretty sure that no such person exists, but I could be wrong.  Granted there is no evidence for a god so it would take something pretty big to convince me.

Psychics make me sick

From Hemant Mehta,

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/05/06/in-2004-psychic-sylvia-browne-told-amanda-berrys-mom-her-daughter-was-dead/

So this piece of shit Sylvia Browne told the girl's mother she was dead. The mother soon died afterward.
Now granted, the stress of loosing a child was ample enough to kill anyone.  But this fraud continues unabated in her cold-reading bullshit.

Another one I can't is that Long Island Medium, Theresa Caputo.  I won't link to her site or to her stupid "reality" show on TLC, but here is a blurb about her on James Randi's site, http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1755-long-island-medium-a-tall-story.html

I think what gets me the most is not that they get away with it, but people are falling over themselves to throw money at them.  That's not just willful ignorance, it is blind, rabid stupidity.

I shouldn't disgusted or surprised, but I am.

Explaining Gay Marriage to My Children

I have two boys.  Aged 10 and 13.

I was talking to my 10 year old yesterday about marriage and I told him that my brother was getting married today (yesterday).  I asked him if he ever wanted to get married and he said "of course".  Ok. So they get, at their level, what marriage is.  Cool.

Last might I was mentioning my brother again and said that he got married to his long time boyfriend (and btw it was married, not a domestic partnership).  Their responses where along the lines of "great! are we going to the wedding?" "that's nice. Can I play Minecraft now?"

My kids get it.

Why can't the idiots at the Illinois Family Institute get it too?
Well that is because they are quite literal dumber than a 4th grader.

Save Me White Jesus!

So this picture showed up on Pharyngula today.

Again, it would be better to laugh if so many didn't take it do serious.  Not taking Jesus serious, but White Jesus.

To start off I know this is sub minority of Christians out there. Plus many Christians probably would agree with me on all of this. Or most of it.

I can recall having a conversation when I was younger.  I am not going to say with whom, it was too long ago and they could have changed their minds by this point.  But the conversation basically went along the lines of them telling me that since Jesus was God's son he therefore looked more like god and thus blond hair and blue eyes.  I remember asking if this person was getting Jesus confused with Superman.

I can also recall sitting in the library at college and looking some of this stuff up.  Yes, there is scholarship where people go to great lengths to explain how this 1st Century Jew would have looked like a member of the Aryan Brotherhood, or at least like a less-Disco BeeGee.

But you don't have to pull an anecdotal comment out of my past.  Just go over to right wing whack job Victoria Jackson's Facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=473833846012912&set=a.230529357010030.59347.229633827099583&type=1&relevant_count=1

Ok, Ok, I know poking fun at Victoria Jackson is like picking on a child, but ignore her and read the crap posted about the picture.

There are two big issues at work here.  Both of course are denied by the people that partake in this.

Issue 1, Racism.  This is the easy one.  While the defenders (and you can read this all for yourself) will say that they see Jesus as some sort of shapeshifting Pooka that changes to fit who is worshiping him, it is really about white Americans being uncomfortable with a guy that probably looks more like a stereotypical cab driver than anything else.   It's just racism pure and simple.

Issue 2, Stupidity. Sorry this is also the big one. Not only is it racist, it's also stupid.  I mean honestly do they really expect us to believe this shit?  Back to the scholarship above, a lot of the claims are based on what sort of lineage Jesus had.  Hmmm Did they all miss the fact that by tracing this all through Joesph they are missing the big picture? According to the tale, Mary was a virgin and Jesus had no biological relationship to Joesph or anyone in his line. So they can't even keep their own story straight.

Both issues only serve the same one goal.  To make this group of Christians a laughing stock.  Really.
To other Christians, you should cull your herds a bit more.  Their stink will rub off on you as well.
Don't like it?  Well remember that the next time you lump all atheists in with Stalin.

Though I have to admit there is one other Jesus meme that cracks me up so much I can't stop laughing long enough to even take it serious.  You think White Jesus is bad?  Allow me to introduce Super Mega Fighting Jesus!

I can hear it now like a bad movie sequel.  "It's the Second Coming and Jesus is Pissed!   This time there will be no forgiveness "  You can almost hear the the wood splintering.

Sanity vs. Insanity

This post is not about Atheism per se, but more about how we will sometimes, many times, engage in some truly insane thinking.

There was a secret government operation known as A119 which was a plan to blow up a nuclear device on the Moon to impress/scare the Russians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119

The news media is covering this as our plan to "blow up the moon" but I seriously doubt that 1950s nucelar devices could have done this.  In fact the bomb they planned on using was about a tenth of the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima.   Though this is how we get Space:1999.

Who was one of the people that pointed out that this plan was, well, insane?  Carl Sagan.

Listen to the Scientists people. They don't always know better, but at least they know WHY they know what they know.

GONK! Gravity Always Wins

You know what argument makes my blood boil?

"It's just a theory."

It isn't even an argument  It's an excuse.  Worse it also shows how fundamentally ignorant the person I am talking to is.

Evolution is a Theory.  A scientific theory supported by multiple hypotheses, data, observation and yes experiments.  We do know what it would take to disprove the Theory of Evolution.  Scientists look for those sorts of things all the time, but they have not found them. Not once.

Gravity is also a Theory.  We know it works. We know how it is applied and can make observations, collect data and run experiments that confirm the finds and data.  We DON'T know WHY it works.  We know the more massive an object is the more "gravity" it has.  We know that there is a time dilatation effect the further you are removed from gravity.  Astrophysics even uses gravity to hypothesize about other things like black holes, extra solar planets and even parallel universes.  But Gravity is still "just a theory".

I was explaining this to my two kids today.

I was talking to them about gravity and how it always wins.  Gravity can be "just a theory" but if you try jumping out your window.  GONK. Gravity wins.
Try floating away.  GONK. Gravity wins.

For something that is "just a theory" it has an awful lot of power.  Here is the thing, like I said, we still don't know 100% how gravity works.
Our understanding of the mechanics of Evolution is much better. Do we know how it got started? Not that I know.  Can we see it working? Every-freaking-day.

So the next time someone says "it's just a theory" I am tempted to say "GONK."

New Poll

I was going through Wikipedia's Lists of Atheists.

And I was surprised that there were so many names on the list of people I already had respected them or their work.

This got me thinking.  Would your knowledge of someones beliefs change how you appreciate their work?

I don't have the luxury of saying I would avoid the works of all believers.  That would leave me with nothing to watch, read, see or listen too.  I DO avoid the works though of Scientologists simplly because they don't need my money or encouragement.  I do avoid the works of others on more personal reasons too that have nothing to do with belief or lack thereof.

So note the poll on the right.
The question is: Would your enjoyment of something be lessened if you knew the person who had created it was an atheist?

I also have only two possible responses, yes and no.  If you want to get more detailed post it below.

Now obviously this question is directed much more at the theistic members of my audience.  As atheists we don't often get the chance to say yes to material created by theists.  I will post that question at a later date.

Let me know what  you think.

Conservatives do not want you to learn

A couple of links that "graced" my computer screen this morning.

The first is the "Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries"
http://www.humanevents.com/2005/05/31/ten-most-harmful-books-of-the-19th-and-20th-centuries/
I am not sure what they mean by "harmful" because by my understanding the most harmful book ever published was "The Bible" followed by "The Koran".  But this is a conservative website so who knows what they are thinking.  Let's look at a few of the books.

"The Communist Manifesto" and "Das Kapital"- I am not a fan of communism and I have not read these, so I can't comment.

"Mein Kampf"  ok I can't disagree with them here.

" The Kinsey Report" they are really quote mining this one.  This book pushed the understanding og human sexuality out of the dark ages.  Yes, it has it's problems, to list this one as "Harmful" says more about the people making the list.

"Democracy and Education" now this is just plain stupid.  Dewey was brilliant and I have based most of my educational career on his ideas. Calling this a harmful book is pushing some agenda.

"The Feminine Mystique" again the only reason this is on the list is because these guys want some members of the population to go back to where they were and shut up.  Their reasoning is full of  Ad Hominem attacks as well.

"The Course of Positive Philosophy" and "Beyond Good and Evil" they disagreed with religion therefore they must be bad.  What are these guys afraid of?  I say guys, but there was one woman on the panel.

I really have no words for these people.

The other is "14 Wacky "Facts" Kids Will Learn in ouisiana's Voucher Schools"
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/07/photos-evangelical-curricula-louisiana-tax-dollars

Dinosaurs and men hanging out together?  The nice KKK?  This one has to be seen to believed.

Better to be thought a fool...

A couple more of the faithful acting like fools.

http://fannin.fetchyournews.com/archives/2259-Atheist-Dont-Exist-God-Said-So.html and

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/hagee-tells-atheists-leave-country-because-they-are-not-wanted-and-wont-be-missed

Normally I would ignore such mindless dribble.  After all, it's not news when a baby drools or craps their diaper. Why should I care when a couple of Christians do the same?

Well there is one issue.  What if, say for example, I said "All Christians need to be deported" or "Jews don't exist because Darwin said so."  Well I had better make sure my address is unlisted then.

I would not say those things though, why? Because they are stupid things to say.

Just like these two bozos. Should bozo be capitalized?

Anyway, is this more of that Christian love I keep hearing about but have never seen?

There were giants in those days...

Or not.

I have to admit one of my guilty pleasures is watching "Ancient Aliens" on History Channel.  A show (and network) that takes both science and history down a back alley and executes them gang-land style.

This weekend there was nothing else on so I watched it.  This one was about how ancient aliens interacted with dinosaurs and how our ancestors knew about it.   Now before I get into that, I should not have to point out how our ancestors of even a few thousand years ago could have any better of a clue about what happened a few million years ago.  But apparently I do.

So this speculation all grows out of Genesis 6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days", meaning the fallen angels or Nephelim or whatever.  The implication is that the "Giants" of the bible were the Dinosaurs.

Ok. Sure.

It is a typical Creationism myth that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Which of course there in not only no proof, there is substantial evidence that there will never be any proof.   Creationist though hold on to this idea for dear life since they know (correctly as it turns out) that a human coexisting with a dinosaur at 65 million years or more before would challenge evolution to it's very core.  But that is not likely to happen.

Of course this got me thinking about the other argument that creationists usually make with this verse.  The existence of giant sized humans.  I once got into an argument online with one guy about this.  It ended as these arguments often do for me; the person I am arguing with deleting all my posts and closing his site to comments.

Let's talk about giant humans for a bit.  If you have been on the Internet for a bit I am sure you have seen this picture.

In fact I still get this one sent to me as "proof" of either the existence of giant humans (and therefore the literal truth of the bible) OR the Great Science Conspiracy^TM in action to hide this evidence from the American people.

Of course neither are true.  The photo is from Cornell University and it was Photoshopped.  Here is the original.

You can read more about this photo at Snopes and at National Geographic..

Here are a bunch of others, many appearing in Creationist "Museums".

But what about the guy that decided to delete all my comments?  He said, basically, I could not use evolution, biology or Snopes to prove my point (but oddly enough he cherry-picked his arguments from all the above).  What did I finally say that made him so mad he had to delete all my responses?

I attacked his argument with math.

The trouble with giants, of any type, is they must still behave in ways consistent with this world's physics.  The rules are not different for different animals.  All physical things (living or not) behave as spelled out by the Square-Cube Law.

I won't go into detail about this, you can read for yourself, but the simple fact is a human that large would break their bones every time they walked, a bone that long can't support it's own weight.  There are long bones out there of course, elephants are a great example, but their bones are shaped different.   Galileo even drew a bone for a large human in his 1638 Dialogues.  Dinosaurs likewise have different shaped bones AND we are still discovering more and more about how their bones and structure worked.  Whales of course get the buoyancy of water to help them (which is one of the reasons why a beached whale will die on land).

This is not just simple science, it's simple math.  Yet people ignore this so they can push their own agendas or badly constructed views of the universe.

Banana Man

I don't ask for much really, but if you are going to argue for creationism please at least do your homework.  Failing that at least look it up on Wikipedia.  (Banana on Wikipedia).

Here is evangelist and creationist Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  I believe combined they know less about science than most 2nd graders.




See this is exactly why I don't take creationism seriously.  Well, one of the many, many reasons, but let's talk about this one.

So Ray here holds up a banana as the perfect example god's design.  Except that the banana he is holding was designed by people.

This is the banana as it occurs naturally,

It's a near inedible, fibrous mass full of large, hard seeds.  If this was "designed by god as a perfect food" then god hates us.

The point here is this.
We live in a fascinating world full grand, and sometimes sublime, human achievements.

The modern banana is one those grand and sublime achievements.  Not made by a supernatural agent, but by humans over thousands of years of selective breeding, of trial and error, of science.  WE designed the perfect food for US.   And, here is the important part, all of this is documented.  We know it.

To look at, well any of our food, and assume it has always been like that is not just near-sighted folly, it's laziness and stupidity.

Why didn't Ray "Banana Man" Comfort just go look up banana?  Did he talk to anyone that grows them?  Did he talk to a biologist about where they come from?  Either he did or he didn't.  If didn't then that is laziness and points to a strong tendency just to accept the world as is and not question things.  If did and choose not to believe it, then that is just stupidity in the sight of overwhelming data.

That video is not "Atheist Nightmare", that video is pure comedy gold.  It should be called "Creationist Nightmare" because there is no way the creationist can honestly look at this and not be embarrassed by it.

Y is for Young Earth Creationism

The religious right does a lot of things to piss me off.
The denial of human rights to other not like themselves, their near blind hatred.

But the thing that gets under my skin the most is their complete denial of of science.
The worse of the lot are today's topic.

Y is for Young Earth Creationism

According to Wikipedia, Young Earth Creationism is the belief that the Earth is only about 6000 years old and all life was created in the Biblical 6 days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

I should not have to mention that is notion is completely insane.

Yet this special brand of stupidity is widely followed and believed by plenty of people these days.  It was on the decline, but in the Theocracy that they want to make America, they are on the rise.
Now normally I wouldn't care about what a bunch of lunatics have to say, but when they want to infect schools and children's minds.

It still happens. Just have a look at Tennessee.

The evidence against the Young Earth creationists is so overwhelming is almost like talking to a Flat Earther. But at least the Flat Earthers know they are crazy.

Creationism links at Pharyngula

X is for X-Xtians

One of the big features in the Atheism movement is the wide variety of "X"s in it."ex-christians", "ex-jews", "ex-muslims", "ex-catholics" (they do ID themselves that way).

You know what I don't a lot of? Ex-Atheists.

Sure they are out there. But you never really hear bunch about them.  When one does happen it seems to be big news.  Sure there are far less Atheists than the faithful, but our numbers are growing.

I myself am not an X-christian.  I have never considered myself a christian in my life.  I have been a deist (breifly), an agnostic, but mostly I have been and remain an atheist.
In the 30+ years I have talked about this with people I have yet to hear a rational argument for belief.  And yes, I am well aware of Pascal's Wager.  Frankly if god can be fooled by a bit of mental 3-card Monte, then he is unworthy of worship.

V is for Victory

V is an odd one for this blog.  Over at my other blog, the Other Side I have been talking about Victorian era games.  So I have an embarrassing of riches over there.

Here I started thinking about the battle/fight/whatever of atheism.  I see reports on atheist blogs about how our side is "winning" (damn Charlie Sheen has ruined that word) and I'll see the same on Christian blogs.

So I have to ask, what is "Winning" or more to the point how will either side know they have "won".

V is then is for Victory.

Victory for me personally would be to see an Atheist President elected to office.  Look how long it took us to get an African American President. We still don't have a woman president.  So, how long will it be before we get an Atheist one?

A really long time I am guessing.

I am not concerned with "stopping" Christians or Christianity or any other religion.   I don't expect them to end in my life time.  Nor would I want too since that is antithetical to what I would want for myself.  But I do want to get to a point where scientific discourse happens without having someone bringing up religion or belief.

What are the Victory conditions for the Atheist movement?
How do we know if we "won"?

U is for Unicorns, Invisible Pink Unicorns!

What if I told you I believe in something.  Something you can't see. But you have to believe in it, cause I do and  I faith it is real.

I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Not only is She invisible, she is Pink!  That is how awesome She is.
She can do wondrous things.  Like the other day I went to make coffee and I was all out of Blue Mountain coffee all I had was Columbia. So I cried out I was being oppressed so I prayed for more and you know what? There was some in my basement pantry!  The Invisible Pink Unicorn provides!

Now you make think this is silly, where upon I cry out "Don't mock my faith!".

But seriously.
It is silly.  There are no unicorns. Invisible, pink or any combination of the two.

Just as there is no God.

Most of the arguments I have heard for god are just as lame as the ones for the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Sagan's Invisible Dragon.   People can claim all sorts of things, but that does not make of them true.
Now lest you suspect I am part of logical fallacy here, yes just because one is not true doesn't imply the others are not true.  The IPU is independent of the FSM who is independent from God.  But in science they are all the same because they can't be observed, measured or otherwise quantified.

You can no more prove to me God exists than I can prove to you that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does.

To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Frankly god has shown any of that.
To re-quote Christopher Hitchens, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."  So if I want you to believe in the IPU then I had better cough up some evidence.  If I can't (and it had better be good evidence) then you are free not to believe me.

And I will do the same.

R is for Religion, and Atheism isn't one.

Why is religion of any sort given preferential treatment in this country?

If someone tells you they have a deep and profound relationship with their god/goddess/saint/whatever they are more than likely treated with respect.
If someone tells you they have a deep and profound relationship with the Flying Spaghetti Monster or an invisible pink unicorn then they are treated like they are crazy.

What I am asking is why are they not both treated the exact same way since they are acting and believing the exact same way?

Religion is the only aspect of our society where you are encouraged to believe, talk about and spread complete and utter bullshit.  AND it is considered rude to even consider thinking differently.

The Constitution of the United States is rather clear on this point:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

So no preferential treatment to religion, but no impediment to practicing it either.  That is fine and I am not here to debate Constitutional law or the wisdom of our Founding Fathers (I happen to think they got it right).
Except churches get tax exempt status and the religious faithful are not locked away for believing in utter bullshit.

While I do tend to agree with Hitchens that "religion poisons everything", unlike him I don't care what people actually do in their own homes or churches for that matter.
I think religion is nothing more than a complex set of superstitions at best or a cleverly evil means of controlling the population at worse.

Atheism, for the record, is not another religion.
To quote Bill Maher "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual position."


(btw this is the same video where he unbaptizes Edward Davies)

A person can be a theist and not even be religious.  
But atheism is not on the same continuum of regions,  it is by definition completely off of the continuum.

Being an atheist is easy to do really, there is simply put no evidence what so ever for God.
But if hard evidence did show up, like Bill Maher, says then we have to change our minds.  Those are our rules, you caught us.  See how easy that is?  But so far no evidence has happened and it has to be evidence where there is no other plausible natural explanation.

What would it take for you to change your views?  What sort of evidence would you need to to change your current religious or theistic view-point?

L is for Logical Fallacies

If you are going to be an atheist the you need to be prepared to have to argue your point of view.
It's not exactly fair really, the religious and the faithful get to believe all sorts of bat-shit insane things and never get called on it, but we have to defend every inch of territory we have.

That's ok with me though, see as an atheist I have science and logic on my side.

But if you are going argue logic, be sure you know what you are talking about and how to do it.
Thanks to Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist (the guy who sold his soul on eBay) I now have a link to share.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/02/a-beautiful-compilation-of-rhetorical-and-logical-fallacies/

A link to the larger one is here:  http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

I have seen each and everyone of these used in arguments against me before.
Here is an example of it being used to combat the Anti-Same Sex Marriage speech of Cardinal O'Brien of the President of Bishops' Conference in Scotland.
Click for larger or go here: http://infobeautiful2.s3.amazonaws.com/RhetoricalFallacy_SameSexMarriage.png

You can do similar things to the speeches of most of the religious.  In fact you could even make up cards and play logical fallacy bingo!