Happy Halloween Atheists!

Where there is no imagination there is no horror. ~Arthur Conan Doyle, Sr.

Question for fundamentalist Christians

I wish fundamentalist Christians would answer questions like the following:

Why do you deny that all the life we see around us (including ourselves) is the product of evolution by natural selection when we have experiments that show evolution happening in real time? See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=evolution-details-revealed-through-2009-10-18

Or (as previously posed by Jerry Coyne):

If our universe simply reflected the action of pure naturalistic laws rather than the intentions of God, how would it differ from the universe we have today? In other words, what conceivable observation about the universe could convince you that God does not exist?

Words of wisdom from the New Testament

Approximately 50% of the world's population is comprised of females. Why they adhere to a religious belief systems that require them to be subservient to men is beyond me. Can anybody explain this anomaly? If you are a believer, how do you explain this bullshit to your daughters?

Please don't remove my button - it's against my religion!

Home Depot is taking flack for the fact that they fired one of their Floridian employees for refusing to remove a button from his work vest which read "One nation under God, indivisible": http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_god_button_home_depot

I would be interested to hear from anyone who believes that this jackass should have been allowed to continue displaying his button at the workplace. If they do, they must support his right to display any of the following buttons as well:

I worship the Atheist Missionary

I worship the Devil

I am as crazy as a shit house rat

Christians - how do you pick and choose?

I had an interesting chat last week with a fundamental Christian about his belief in the rapture. When I observed that many Christian sects don't adhere to belief in the end of times vanishing act, he remarked that this belief is based on what the Bible says will happen at the time of the second coming. In this regard, he is correct. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 (NIV) tells us:

Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

After hearing this, I asked him why he doesn't condone the stoning of homosexuals or eschew figs. The Bible is equally clear on these points. He just laughed and shook his head as if he had never thought about these questions before. I was going to ask him how he picked and chose what to believe from the Bible but I felt so sorry for him I didn't bother.

Hell - the product of an infinitely merciful god?

Hell is a concept which causes Christians fits. They have difficulty reconciling how their infinitely merciful god would allow a soul to suffer an eternity of damnation. Many (such as the blogger Makarios) conclude that "it is what it is" and that it is the fault of unbelievers if they pass up the carrot of eternity. This video by QualiaSoup exposes some of the logical fallacies in this argument, most notably how strange it is for a supposedly omnipotent being to refuse to save those who have been cast into hellfire:

Catholic dogma's all you need ...

John Allemang wrote this little ditty in today's edition of one of Canada's national newspapers, The Globe and Mail:

Leap of Faith

You don't like gays, and women priests
Seem worst than Revelation's beasts?
Then, brother, make the trip to Rome
Where faith like yours feels right at home:
Confined within belief's tight box,
You'll find no place more orthodox,
For current views about what's fair
Don't travel to St. Peter's Square.

Eternal truth's the specialty
Of those who rule the Holy See,
And since our Word comes straight from God,
All change is quickly seen as fraud
Against the teachings of the Lord,
And trendy thoughts must be ignored,
For Catholic dogma's all you need
To follow men whose job's to lead.

Abandon doubt, when you come here,
And lose those feminists and queers
Who've tried to make you sell your soul
So they can play a bigger role
In leading pious flocks astray -
Modernity won't go away,
But prejudice can better hide
By switching to the papal side.

Shrub is looking good

I am in Montreal for a Ferris Buehler's day off. I am currently sitting in a room of perhaps 1000 people (no doubt with a combined net worth of more than a billion) listening to George W. Bush. He looks like he weathered his presidency far better than Clinton.

Shrub says he is writing a book as an answer to those who claim he doesn't know how to read. This guy has a folksy charm and would pass the "beer test" with ease if he were still willing to take a drink.

He gave some amusing anecdotes about the change to more ordinary life after ending his term of office. One fellow came up to him and remarked at how much he looked like the former president.

Very heavy security here today. My estimate is that the crowd of protestors outside is roughly the same size as the audience her today. Poor George certainly has a knack for polarizing an opposition.

Re: the September 11th attacks. He gives a pretty rivetting description of what it was like being in charge that day. Fundamental question for him that day: what do I do? "I thought about protecting my homeland every single day". So he decided to relentlessly go on the offence and spread democracy/freedom as an alternative to hate.

Bush presents a revisionist history lesson on the invasion of Iraq. Simply put, he believes that the ends justified the means. He believes that there would have been a nuclear arms race between Iraq and Iran if Saddam Hussein was left in power. "It is was it is. I am absolutely confident that Hussein made a fatal choice [by not cooperating with the UN nuclear weapons inspectors]".

"The good Lord won't give you any problem that you can't handle. I'm living proof".

Scary comment when he was asked whether he would choose decency over ideology - "I'm not going to compromise my soul". He should have been a Baptist preacher.

I agree with his view that you can't call yourself a religious person and kill innocent people in pursuit of your ideology. He calls this a "false religion".

Two word answer when asked for the accomplishment that he is most proud of: "No attack". I would think that he should add the word "further".

When asked how history will judge him: "hopefully, that I honoured my commitments to my family, the God I believe in and my country". He's confident that he did his best, "didn't sell his soul" and is "comfortable in his own skin".

The best part of the day is yet to come. A fine meal followed by the New York Islanders vs. Montreal Canadiens.
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

Dumb and Dumber

CNN is reporting that the Vatican has worked out a way for dissatisfied Anglican parishioners and ministers (but not Anglican bishops) to "cross the floor", so to speak, and become Roman Catholics: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/20/vatican.anglican.church/index.html

I love it when the delusional argue amongst themselves as to whose delusions should be preferred. It's kind of like saying "my imaginary friend can kick your imaginary friend's butt".

Blasphemy and the shopping mall Santa

National Public Radio tells us today that A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113889251&ft=1&f=2100608

To those who favour the deferential approach, I pose this example: Suppose I assert that my religion is founded on the belief that Santa Claus is God and that it is blasphemous for shopping malls to employ "fake" santas. Presumably, most would laugh at my demand that shopping mall santas be outlawed. Now suppose that I convince a million followers to share in my santa delusion. Should strength in numbers be sufficient to justify my demand? How is respect for the beliefs held by Judeo-Christians, Muslims or any other religion beholden to a divine deity any different?

You cannot respect a religious person by letting let them think that you respect their religious beliefs if you truly believe those beliefs are irrational. That is not respect - that is hypocrisy.

Joseph the Almighty Cuckold

Do Christians ever stop to ponder the logical implications of what they are supposed to believe?

Quote of the day by Colin McGinn

"morality is founded in a sense of the contingency of the world, and it is powered by the ability to envisage alternatives": Philosopher/author Colin McGinn (pictured above).

This quote is taken from McGinn's essay Apes, Humans, Aliens, Vampires and Robots which can be found at: http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/mcginn01.htm

Dad found guilty after botching home-circumcision on 4 year-old son as part of spiritual quest to make things right with God

... and people still ask me why I believe the world would be a better place without religion: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/10/16/bc-home-circumcision-charges.html

Attention Roman Catholics - you knew you were paying for sexual abuse but did you know you are also paying child support?

Attention Roman Catholics. I know you're aware that your Church has been spending millions of dollars to settle sex abuse claims against priests and other supposedly celibate members of its religious orders. However, did you know that your offerings are also used being to pay support for the offspring of priests who stray from their Bride of Christ? Check it out: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16priest.html?em

5 minutes of your life that you'll never get back but at least you have a life

Thanks to my wife for bringing this video to my attention:



My question is why does god more concerbed about saving the piece of chalk than the estimated 26,000 children who die around the world each day from causes directly related to poverty? If you don't believe in god and care about these children or if you are a believer who cares more about these kids than your god, please go to Oxfam Canada's website and make a donation to their General Community Development and Humanitarian Fund: https://www.strategicprofitsinc.com/hosted/oxfam/ I just did and, regardless of your beliefs, I hope you will too.

Because it's all part of your god's plan ....

.. and the front page of CNN's website tonight has FIVE stories relating to the 6 year old boy from Colorado who was thought to have taken off in a runaway balloon. That's just ill ....

Crucified ape unveiled in London

I would be interested to know if Christians take offense to this exhibit (http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/10/crucified-ape-unveiled-in-london.html) and, if so, why. In my opinion, displaying a crucified ape hammers home mankind's inhumane treatment of animals and our specieism in a disarming manner.

Great art captures the attention and makes one reflect. This is great art.

Tell me, Master, what is the best move in the world?

I just finished reading Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. His dispassionate description of life in Nazi concentration camps is riveting. The conclusions he draws from that experience are far from surprising:

Mankind is comprised of two races: those who are decent and those who are indecent. Both races can be found in all places.

The dignity and courage displayed by many of those who suffer is as great as the suffering they manage to endure.

In situations as depraved as those found in the concentration camps, people can still find meaning in their lives.

There is no abstract meaning of life to strive for. Frankl writes: "The meaning of life differs from [person to person], from day to day, from hour to hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person’s life at a given moment .... To put the question in general terms would be comparable to the question posed to a chess champion: “Tell me, Master, what is the best move in the world?” There simply is no such thing as the best or even a good move apart from a particular situation in a game and the particular personality of one’s opponent. The same holds for human existence. One should not search for an abstract meaning of life."

Frankl's analysis is interesting because he takes pains to point out the dangerousness of succombing to existential despair. He describes how not an insignificant percentage of his psychiatric patients had lost, or failed to find, meaning in their lives. He also describes how this kind of despair was invariably fatal to concentration camp inmates.

Frankl relates how religious faith assisted some of his patients and those faced with the overwhelming despair of the Holocaust. However, he takes great pains not to share his religious views (or lack thereof) with his readers. How anyone could live through what he lived through and retain an ounce of belief in the Judeo-Christian interventionist Yahweh is beyond me.

Why won't Christians sell their churches and feed the hungry?

Why didn't I think of this first? Well, actually I did. I've been harping about the hypocrisy of churches accumulating wealth for years.

If you call yourself a Christian, why don't you sell all of your church property and feed the hungry? Practice what you preach.

Another Bible verse they never read to me at Sunday school

I am often asked by Bibleists if I have read the Bible and, sadly, I am forced to reply in the affirmative. It's at this point that I usually ask them if they truly believe that the Old and New Testaments are the divinely revealed word of their god. When they inevitably respond with "of course", I pull out some of my all-time favorites, which includes this gem from the Book of Samuel:

1 Samuel 18:25-27 (NIV)

25 Saul replied, "Say to David, 'The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.' " Saul's plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.

26 When the attendants told David these things, he was pleased to become the king's son-in-law. So before the allotted time elapsed, 27 David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full number to the king so that he might become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.

Why didn't they ever read this one to me at Sunday school?

Atheists are no better than baby rapists in the eyes of God

Thanks to Volly for drawing this excellent video clip by Edward Current to my attention:

Personal Correspondence - Rapture Will

I just sent this email:

Dear [Christian fundamentlist friend of mine]:

I see [stock name omitted] is doing nicely and that 64% pop up from the IPO price is sweet. Let’s hope we can hold the gain and that the coming year will pay off nicely. In the interim, I trust you will recall that you have promised in the past to leave me your Pings if (I suppose you would say “when”) you vanish in the rapture. This got me thinking about your 1,000,000+ shares of [stock name omitted]. Once you and all your loved ones vanish at rapture time, you’ll have no need for any earthly wealth. As a result, could you please make me the sole beneficiary of your Rapture Will.

Thanks buddy and may Zeus bless you. TAM [my real name omitted].

P.S. I heard a great quote yesterday from former NFL quarterback Dan Fouts: “I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in”.

The NFL and religion

Those who follow this site will be aware that I am a rabid fan of the NFL. Today, I thought I would share a couple pictures from my favorite professional sports league that you might find of interest.

The first one highlights the hypocrisy of players pointing skyward after making a big play. Do they really think their god cares if they score a touchdown or down a kick inside the 5 yard line? Why don't they stick their middle finger skyward after throwing an interception or losing a fumble? Why does he/she/it get credit for their successes but manages to avoid any blame for their foibles? I just don't get it.


The second picture is a sideline shot of mega-celebrity and Church of Scientology adherent Tom Cruise speaking with Jim Zorn, the coach of the sad sack Washington Redskins. I'm wondering if Zorn was asking Cruise how in hell Scientology managed to qualify as a tax-exempt religion under the US tax code. If you can pull off that miracle, surely there's a way for the Redskins to make the playoffs.

Religion - should we protect a sincerely held right to hate?

For anyone who believes that "sincerely held religious beliefs" should always be afforded respect, please watch this:



The sad fact is that these lunatics are only preaching what the Bible says when they condemn homosexuality.

I had to smile at the counter-protest against these ignorant purveyors of hatred pictured below:

I wonder what cretards will think of Knowing

I saw Nicholas Cage's Knowing last night. A great show with superb special effects - watch it on the biggest screen you can find. It's a thriller about a recently widowed astrophysicist who stumbles upon on terrifying predictions about the future and sets out to prevent them from coming true.

The movie is rife with religious references and end of times imagery. The Village Voice had this to say: Disbelievers will get face time with Revelation, undergo a foxhole conversion, realize their pastor father was right all along, etc.—but by then, it’ll be too late. I had a decidedly different reaction. I wish every creationist would watch this show and ask themself why the ending is not more consistent with a "first cause" explanation than the one spouted by their Bible.

Discrimination in the name of religious irrationality

A transgendered teacher in the province of Alberta has been fired by his employer (a Roman Catholic school board) because his gender change is not aligned with the teachings of the church and would create confusion and complexity with students and parents as a model and witness to Catholic faith values. The teacher, Jan Buterman, has filed a human rights complaint but you can rest assured that the school board will be asserting a freedom of religion defence. Cases like this are rare because religious organizations usually discriminate at the time of hiring.

Just think about the implications of upholding the school board's decision. I could establish the Whole Person Teaching Academy based on a holy book that I draft during an acid trip. One of the founding principles of my Academy could be that amputee teachers create confusion with my students because they are, obviously, not "whole persons". If I refuse to hire an amputee teacher or fire a teacher who becomes an amputee as a result of an accident, how would that be any different than the treatment afforded to Mr. Buterman? Of course, there is no absolutely no difference.

Stupid is was stupid does and discrimination in the name of religion is STUPID.

The CBC news story describing Mr. Buterman's firing can be found here: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/01/gender-teacher-fired.html

By the way, if you haven't seen the film Transamerica (starring Felicity Huffman and Kevin Zegers), you must check it out. It is excellent.

Personal correspondence

A good buddy of mine has married into a family of fundamentalist Christians and has become one of the biggest Bible thumpers I know. I love him like a brother but I just have to shake my head in disgust at his newfound faith. I thought you would all be amused to see an unedited exchange of emails between us from earlier today:

For you:

This email is confidential and may be subject to solicitor client privilege. If you receive this email in error please delete it and advise the sender by return email or by contacting the fax or phone numbers above.

Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 3:42 PM

Subject: God vs. Science

The following is considered a true story that I thought you might enjoy reading.

Let me explain the problem science has with religion. The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

You're a Christian, aren't you, son?

Yes sir, the student says.

So you believe in God?'

Absolutely.

Is God good?

Sure! God's good.

Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?

Yes.

Are you good or evil?

The Bible says I'm evil.

The professor grins knowingly. Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?

Yes sir, I would.

So you're good...!

I wouldn't say that.

But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?

The student remains silent.

No, you can't, can you? the professor says. He takes a sip of waterfrom a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?

Er..yes, the student says.

Is Satan good?

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. No.

Then where does Satan come from?

The student falters. From God.

That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

Yes, sir.

Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything correct?

Yes.

So who created evil? The professor continued, If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.

Again, the student has no answer.

Is there sickness? Immorality?Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?

The student squirms on his feet. Yes.

So who created them?

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. Who created them?There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. Tell me, he continues onto another student.

Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. Yes, professor, I do.

The old man stops pacing. Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

No sir. I've never seen Him.

Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?

No, sir, I have not.

Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelled your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?

No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.

Yet you still believe in him?

Yes.

According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?

Nothing, the student replies. I only have my faith.

Yes, faith, the professor repeats. And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own.

Professor, is there such thing as heat?

Yes.

And is there such a thing as cold?

Yes, son, there's cold too.

No sir, there isn't.

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet.

The student begins to explain. You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat,unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called "cold". We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.

Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?

Yes, the professor replies without hesitation. What is night if it isn't darkness?

You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.

In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester.

So what point are you making, young man?

Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. Flawed? Canyou explain how?

You are working on the premise of duality, the student explains. You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantivething. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.

Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.

Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.

The student looks around the room. Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain? The class breaks out into laughter.

Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelled the professor's brain? Noone appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.

So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers: I guess you'll have to take them on faith.

Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life, the student continues. Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?

Now uncertain, the professor responds, Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.

To this the student replied, Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.

The professor sat down.

The student was Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein did write a book titled God vs. Science in 1921...

If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail to your friends and family with the title 'God vs Science'.."For we walk by faith, not by sight." 2 Corinthians 5:7

My reply

Enjoyed that email but I’m not sure what to make of the comment: “'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor”. I know you like to thump the Bible with the best of them but please tell me that you are not an evolution denier. If you can seriously doubt the fact of evolution, you might as well believe that the world is flat. If you are interested in reading more on the subject, I recommend Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True.

I liked the email because it can be interpreted as defining God as all that is good and evil as the absence of good – I have no problem with that definition but you can quickly get bogged down in a quagmire of what constitutes good and evil. In any event, what I think is completely whacked out are people who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, that God intervenes in the affairs of humanity and that Jesus of Nazareth actually died (started to rot) and came back to life. If you believe that bunk, you will believe anything

I’ll still drink with you anytime … at least until you tell me that’s against your religion. TAM.