Et tu, Sanity?

What. The. F$#%#$#@$#%^$uck.
So, on one side, we have the party of the closet racists and lynch-mobs-in-waiting. And on the other we have the party of otherwise sane people who decide to go around beating people with conservative politics in order to...I dunno, prove that Democrats are devoted to politics as well as routine criminal activity.
I have never been more ashamed of this country's politics, or of the liberal base of this country, than now that it has been revealed how completely nuts some of them are. As much as there has been outrage and suspicion involved in the typically underhanded tactics used by the GOP and the anger at some of their rallies, the Democratic base have been the actual ones to go out and commit violent crime in the name of partisanship.
Please, fellow blue-bloods, if you are reading this, pay close attention: VIOLENCE ISN'T NICE! Bad Democrat. Bad. Put the damn weapons down, and think for a f#@$%ing second.
Sigh...I guess this is what happens when your party base has a sizable chunk of dumbass kids contributing to it, who are apparently not rational enough to know when it is and is not socially acceptable to carve a "B" into the face of a person you disagree with.

Jesus Christ...

In fairness, these cases, despite being more frequent than I would like, are incredibly divergent from the mainstream constituency, and the man who cut a "B" into a McCain volunteer's face had already robbed her before being aware of her politics (...which...makes it better...I guess [?]). Arrgghhh...damn exasperating, though.


Edit: Hmmmmm....

Edit Edit: Why am I not surprised? Well, it was nice when my righteous fury was directed in a more diffuse manner for a few hours. But, after verifying, once again, that they are bald-faced liars, my indignation is now back in its proper, right-facing position. Chalk another one up on the big list of neocon distortions and lies for me.

"What's So Great About Blaming The Democrats For September 11th?"

[Note: The post title is basically a spoiler happy alternate title for book D'Souza's book "The Enemy at Home." Which (gasp) he shamelessly plugs by reiterating! ]

This little blog post by Dinesh is a frantic, grasping attempt to try to justify his opinion that exposure to liberal Western media and values is what caused those terrorists to get so angry at us a few years back. He uses the book "Who Speaks for Islam?" to lend credence to this idea of his, although, the ultimate conclusion of the book is that our foreign policy and perceived disrespect of their religion is the key reason for anger, rather than perceived immorality. But the facts have never stopped Dinesh before....

In the seven years since 9/11, we have been subjected to all kinds of ignorant pontification--much of it from the left, but some also from the right--on "why they hate us."

Quoted for irony.

Esposito and Mogahed argue that traditional Muslims, who make up the bulk of Muslims in every Muslim country, strongly identify with the Western principles of rule of law, self-government, and religious toleration. In fact, their main critique of America is that, as they see it, America backs secular dictators in the Muslim world who deny to Muslims the rights that are taken for granted by Americans.

Yes. Their main critique of America has to do with foreign policy. You see that clearly in this book. You are acknowledging it in this very paragraph. And yet...

They reject the shamelessness and frequent depravity of American popular culture. They reject the type of feminism that relinquishes the home in favor of careers. They are resolutely anti-abortion. They consider homosexual marriage to be an abomination.

Oh noes! They are arch-conservative prudes on top of that! Obviously, this must mean one, and only one thing: they hate us for our freedoms!!!1!!1!

But when conservative and religious Europeans and Americans are polled, it turns out that the percentage of people who are fine with homosexuality is about the same as that of the traditional Muslims.

Yes. This is true. Dinesh will be engaging in "push under the rug" mode in three...two....

First, that the values of the cultural left are an important source in alienating Muslims worldwide. Second, that Muslims don't reject modernity or the West: rather, they embrace what may be termed "1950s America" while rejecting the libertine values of the 1960s. Third, America can build alliances with traditional Muslims by showing them the face of traditional America, so that they see that Hollywood values aren't necessarily American values. Finally, left-wing groups like International Planned Parenthod and Amnesty International should stop pushing feminism, gay marriage and libertine values in the Muslim world.

Holy f@#%$&*@$#burger! What a change! The entire article up to this point was basically "here are some facts and conclusions. Neat, I know. But, look away for a minute, because this is what is really going on". I sincerely do not know why Dinesh thinks that the "values of the cultural left", which are basically equal rights for gays, women, and people of all races and religions should be so offensive as to be the only reason that Muslims are pissed off. You'd think, you know, the violence thing would be a bigger factor. Especially when the book you are citing to support your own reaches that conclusion. I also cannot begin to fathom how we could abandon those values, I do not know why we would want to do so just to appease some people who are willing to kill us over being free and equal, and I cannot believe that Dinesh is making an appeal to "the good ol' days" as the assumed perspective of over one billion people (who are hopefully not as naive.)
And I seriously doubt that we are pushing for gay marriage in Islamic countries. "Feminism" maybe. Gay marriage...well...they have other problems to address before that (you know...like not executing people for being gay...).
Also: "Parenthod"?

Pundits like Chalmers Johnson love to say that American intervention in Iraq and
elsewhere has produced a "blowback" of terrorism from the House of Islam. Wrong!
It is in Iraq that America is allowing an elected Muslim government to rule
according to Muslim interests and Muslim values. Iraq is the only country in the
Middle East where the Muslim population actually chose its own rulers. Iraq is
not the problem. Rather, it is the values of the cultural left, and the cultural
imperialism that seeks to impose those values on reluctant Muslims, that is the
real source of Muslim rage, and the best recruiting tool of the radical Muslims

And now I can conclude, after months of reading Dinesh's articles and suspecting it all along, that Dinesh D'Souza is a certifiable moron. Either his head so far up his own ass that he is currently engaged in a boxing match with his own brain, or he is just functionally braindead, and merely types messages on his computer when a precisely applied electric shock causes him to spasm and slam his face on the keybard. He just doesn't have any idea how we noble Americans went about giving that democracy to those appreciative Iraqi Muslims, does he? Doesn't think that terrorists could possibly be perturbed by our toppling governments on false pretenses and insisting that we impose a new one on them? Everyone in Iraq and the entire world is hunky-dory because we gave them a nice, sparkly democratic government, built on the corpses of over 100,000 civilians. Hell of a world you live in, Dinesh.
Here's just one tiny bit of advice: it doesn't matter if you can decide who your leaders are, if there is nothing to lead or if the leadership is crappy. We are making strides, but their democracy is still fledgling, and I doubt that everyone is of the impression that it is the best thing since sliced bread yet. It is disgusting that you are trying to blame terrorism on short-skirts and gay rights. It is even more disgusting that you do so in such an underhanded, yet gleefully confident fashion.
The idea that anyone refers to you as an intellectual, a scholar, or as anything but the right-wing tabloid writer you really are amuses me greatly. I honestly hope that people will wake up and smell the bullshit real soon. Until then, I offer a toast to the arrival of your latest truckload of fail.

Of Protest and Bigotry

Okay...Wafergate is resurging a bit lately, thanks to Dinesh. And, we have a nice little comment which sympathizes with the crux of D'Souza's argument, as well as dragging up the rotten corpse of an argument that has been worn thin over the course of the past 2 months or so. Behold:

"Destroying a cracker is not bigotry."
Neither is burning a couple of
pieces of wood shaped like a 't'.
However, cross burning (which is to be
distinguished *in terms of what it signifies* from burning two pieces of wood
shaped like a 't') is at least evidence of bigotry.
Destroying a cracker
isn't bigotry.
However, Eucharist desecration (which is to be distinguished
*in terms of what it signifies* from destroying a cracker) is at least evidence
of bigotry.

There are so many things wrong with this kind of sentiment, I don't know where to begin. But, here goes.
1. There is a history violence behind a burning cross. There is no such comparable history for host desecration (except, on the Catholic side of the fence...).
2. Burning a cross is not evidence of bigotry in contexts in which it is not intended to be a threat, or directed at anyone (i.e. it is accidental). Eucharist desecration is not considered to be a threat in of itself, in any context.
3. Even getting beyond the symbols, there is a greater history of violence directed towards African Americans in general, independent of cross-burning, relative to that directed at Catholics (some, but not much recently) for the sole reason of their bearing those respective traits.
4. Related to points 1-3 is the fact that the cross burning is offensive because it is a tacit threat, whereas Eucharist desecration is only offensive because Catholics believe it hurts God (or something) and are not personally affected or threatened by it.
5. There is a difference between bigotry (mindless hatred of another group) and criticism. Questioning the worth of symbols, rituals, and ideas, without threatening the group who holds them as relevant is criticism. Calling people out for their own actions and unfounded beliefs is criticism. Dismissing, hating or threatening individuals for being the group that holds them as relevant is bigotry.
6. It could hardly be considered significant bigotry (i.e. indicative of oppression or persecution) when the people that are being protested are of a larger presence (in both influence and population) than the person or group criticizing them.
7. Similarly, it could hardly be considered bigotry against a specific group (i.e. anti-Catholic bigotry) when the person or group offering the critique would do the same to any group with similar actions and ideas. This is clearly the case here (see the involvement of the Koran in the ordeal for details).
8. And, it could hardly be considered bigotry at all if the use of the offensive symbol is done as a protest to a fierce overreaction to a relatively young and naive man's accidental incorrect usage of it, and the protest does nothing to suggest any form of hatred or a precursor to violent activity.

It is very convenient how much context these people are able to strip from both the symbols they want to compare the Eucharist to, and from the actual events of the desecration as well. Honestly, though...how could I be surprised?

Free Will and Omniscience.

Apparently, wikipedia was kind enough to compile a variety of responses that supposedly are attempts to resolve the contradiction of "free will" and absolute foreknowledge on the part of a creator. They've conveniently lined them all up to shot down.

God can know in advance what I will do, because free will is to be
understood only as freedom from coercion, and anything further
is an illusion.

Hmmmm. Doesn't mesh. Free will is not just freedom from "coercion" in the form of outside intervention but also the ability to make choices free from constraints and causations beyond one's control. Since God knew what events would happen beforehand, from your birth to your death, to every factor set in place from biology to environment that would influence you in a pre-known fashion, you could hardly call that freedom from "coercion" because God isn't doing directly.

God can know in advance what I will do, even though free will in the fullest
sense of the phrase does exist. God somehow has a "middle knowledge" -
that is, knowledge of how free agents will act in any given circumstances.

The problem with middle knowledge is this: it is knowledge of every single possible outcome without knowledge of which one is actually going to happen. Obviously an omniscient deity should have knowledge of every possibility, but, unfortunately, omniscience is worthless if it doesn't even give you an inkling about which occurrence is more probable than others. By giving him knowledge of every feasible option, but no way of discerning the nearly certain from the nearly impossible, it makes that knowledge absolutely worthless.

God can know all possibilities. The same way a master chess player is able to anticipate not only one scenario but several and prepare the moves in response to each scenario, God is able to figure all consequences from what I will do next
moment, since my options are multiple but still limited.

Same problem as middle knowledge. Knowing the possibilities without awareness of which one is going to occur or which one is most likely is essentially worthless, and, given that God would know a nearly infinite number of possible courses of action for billions upon billions over the years, without having some foreknowledge of the actions taken, God would be completely unaware of the future beyond a few days.

God chooses to foreknow and foreordain (and, therefore, predetermine) some things,
but not others. This allows a free moral choice on the part of man for those
things that God choose not to foreordain. It accomplishes this by attributing to
God the ability for Him, Himself, to be a free moral agent with the ability to
choose what He will, and will not, foreknow, assuming God exists in linear time
(or at least an analogue thereof) where "foreknowledge" is a meaningful concept.

Rather arbitrary. Positing selective omniscience, which, somehow, gives us a small amount of free will in regards to "moral" action creates a few problems . If moral actions include the choice between whether to engage in warfare and violence, or whether to rape someone, I don't know how it is possible for God to have a blindspot in regard to that particular decision, yet still have foreknowledge about the potential victim's life. Unless God only "foreknows" predestined events that occur on a global level, but even then, if it has to do with national politics, or collective human activity rather than individual, then God's omniscience is limited to an absurd degree. But, I assume it makes it so that praying actually makes sense...

It is not possible for God to know the result of a free human choice. Omniscience should therefore be interpreted to mean "knowledge of everything that can be known". God can know what someone will do, but only by predetermining it; thus, he chooses the extent of human freedom by choosing what (if anything) to know in this way.

If God cannot know the results of human choice, then he is completely blind in regards to all human activity, society, and warfare, unless he managed to rob that particular individual of his free will. And, the funny thing about positing that he CAN rob us of our free will at a whim that you cannot say with certainty whether a given person is acting freely or not! We could be given as little or as much free will as he desires, and we would never be able to tell the difference (note: this is pretty much the objective verdict of free will in regards to supernatural influence).

God stands outside time, and therefore can know everything free agents do, since He does not know these facts "in advance", he knows them before they are even conceived and long after the actions have occurred. The free agent's future actions therefore remain contingent to himself and others in linear time but are logically necessary to God on account of His infallibly accurate all-encompassing view. This was the solution offered by Thomas Aquinas.[4]

This doesn't help. Existing "outside of time" would mean that he would be aware of past, present, and future with even more certainty than if he were to exist in linear time along with us. By existing outside of time, he can see past, present, and future events and actions all set out before him, with no regards as to what point the current timeline is located. The future has already occurred in such a position. Unless, of course, being beyond time is supposed to mean that God doesn't interfere which means, once again, we get to the problem with the first argument. If it is supposed to mean that he can see an infinite series of possible timelines, we go back to the problem with the second argument.

Instead of producing a parallel model in God's own infallible mind of the
future contingent actions of a free agent (thus suppressing the agent's free
will), God encodes his knowledge of the agent's actions in the original action
itself.

Hrrmmm. Crap. I can't even understand what this means. I'm not sure if this is supposed to mean that God regains knowledge that he once had of an agent's action after the agents have already acted, or that he is always aware of the next action they will make, and only that action. Or if the agent's themselves have God's knowledge of their own future actions. All I know, is it sounds like another "can't predict human social, military, or moral activity past the course of one day" things

God passively seeing the infinite future in no way alters it, anymore than us reading a history book influences the past by simply observing it
retrospectively. However, He might choose (or not) to read any chapter or the
ending, or open the book at any page.

This is the most ridiculous of them all, because it intentionally ignores the fact that God set everything involved in that infinte future into motion while knowing every detail of it. On top of that, he had the power to make it whatever he wanted, and the power to change it at a whim as well. This analogy only works if God was not an omnipotent creator in addition to being omniscient.

Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada has stated that man does have limited free
will; he can decide whether or not to surrender to the will of Krishna.
Otherwise, all material happenings and their implications are inconceivably
predestined. This concept being subject to challenge in customary affairs, it is
then also somewhat ridiculed as a philosophy.

So, this is another one of those free will blindspots, except, the blind spot is incredibly small. Now, here is the problem again: if their is an omniscient deity, who knows and predetermined everything save one specific form of choice, he cannot be aware of any consequences arising from that choice either. If their life is affected, in any way, by the acceptance of Krishna, the omniscient one cannot know about this without effectively being aware of whether it happened. A guy accepts Krishna and saves three thousand people over the course of 40 years due to his belief system, and the all-knowing god cannot be aware of that fact without compromising free will. A guy accepts Krishna, and is told that he should go around killing and eating people to appease him, and winds up ending 60 lives and makes many in the general populace lose faith in humanity, detach from their former religion, and eventually begin civil war with the unfazed maintainers of the status quo. And yet God cannot be aware of any of those facts either, lest he be tacitly aware of the mass-murderer's acceptance.

This brings me to my conclusion: free will and an omniscient Creator just don't mesh. You need to take away one of those (free will, omniscience, or creator) in order for them to make sense together. Even then, it is iffy. Every attempt was either a bizarre attempt to work around omniscience, or to hide parts of the puzzle under the table to make the pieces look like they fit together. They just don't.

Happy 9/11 day, everyone!

I know, bad taste. Honestly, I have to confess, I was not perturbed by the 9/11 attacks when they happened, so I obviously still do not give much of a damn about them today. As far as I can see it, we are fairly fortunate that such an event is rare enough for us to be alarmed in the first place. This comes from a deeply pessimistic perspective, however, so I don't expect anyone else to agree. But, I feel that we are lucky enough to spend most of our time killing ourselves and one another, rather than suffering from external hostility. So, like a certain radical black preacher of a certain Democratic presidential candidate, I couldn't help but the see the attacks as an inevitability, and a little bit karmic (chickens come to roost, all that).

Obviously, I feel bad for the families of the victims. I laud the men and women who tried their hardest to save those lost in the ruin. And I wish that it hadn't happened. Yet, I do not feel bad for fully grown people whose naive sense of security were shattered. I do not appreciate that the attack sparked mindless patriotism in a climate of fear. And I do not pity this country for having lost 4,000 men on that day, when we have sacrificed that same number fighting a war that only occurred because of the mindless patriotism and blind thirst for vengeance that followed one single attack on us, while claiming the lives of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. We have lost any claims to sympathy for these attacks, and it disgusts me that they are still brought up in an attempt to stoke the flames of nationalism. The flames which have driven us to become all the more worthy of the attacks that we were responding to.

The victims should be mourned, their families remembered. But, the blood on our hands for letting our own fear and anger get the better of us should not be forgotten.

Wafergate: Aftermath

Bill Donahue is still crying over PZ Myers desecrating a communion in protest to the treatment of Webster Cook, wafer smuggler. And, about a month and half after the fact, it is even more hilarious.

When I spoke to a reporter from Providence about a play that mocked the
Eucharist, I unloaded. Fortunately, he listened to me explain the source of my
anger. “Because this is the fourth incident this summer of someone playing fast
and loose with the Eucharist,” I told him.

I believe that I hear the sound of the world's violin playing. Poor wittle Bill, those meanies are making him cwy.

The first incident occurred when Washington Post religion editor Sally
Quinn decided she would show how much she cared about the late Tim Russert by
doing something she hated to do—receive Communion; Quinn is not Catholic.

Boo-friggety-hoo. The idea that you have to be "Catholic" in order to take Communion seems kind of arbitrary, doesn't it? Oh wait...I am talking about transubstantiation. Some bizarre and arbitrary criteria for participation is far from the most ludicrous aspect I assume...

The second incident was worse: a brazen student from the University of Central
Florida walked out of Mass with the Eucharist to protest some innocuous school
policy.

1. He ran out after someone tried to strong-arm him into eating it.

2. That "innocuous school policy" was an unconstitutional financial support, by a state school, of a religious organization. It is only "innocuous" to you, because it helps out Catholics.

The third was obscene: University of Minnesota Professor Paul Z. Myers
desecrated a consecrated Host to protest my criticism of the Florida student.

It wasn't just about you (though you helped put things into motion). It was all the good Catholics who sent death threats to Mr.Cook that spurred him into action. And the death threats directed at him afterwards pushed him over the edge into actually going through with it. Which he performed rather tastefully, all and all.

So when the reporter called to ask why I was unhappy with some woman who decided to mock the Eucharist in a play, he touched a raw nerve.

Cue violin again.

For fifteen years I have been president of the Catholic League, and never have I
seen such a series of assaults on the Eucharist. What’s going on?

One was an accident. The Webster Cook thing was also an accident (debatably). And Myers was reacting to incident 2. So, I think that you are overreacting [gasp].

And what accounts for the total failure of the University of Minnesota to hold
Myers accountable?

Here's my guess: because he didn't do anything wrong legally, and what he did was not done in the role of a professor at the university, but as a citizen, so...free speech...

What’s going on is that militant atheism is all the rage....Hatred of religion
in general, and Christianity in particular. The bulls-eye, of course, is Roman
Catholicism. I’ll give them this much: At least the religion bashers are smart
enough to know who’s on top.

Please. We are hardly "militant", you could hardly call what we have "hatred", and the only reason why we pick on Christianity so much is because it is the world's largest religion, and it is also the one that is adhered to by 80% of our neighbors.

As for your remarks about Catholicism, aside from having the longest history, and being the largest individual Christian institution, atheists could care less about your Church. You're an easy target, and many in mainstream Christianity (hell, even in some Catholic churches) don't even believe that you are a Christian denomination. You receive friendly fire from not only other denominations, but from your own disaffected members. Your Church and traditions are just ripe for satire, even after being plucked and pulped so many times before. You're not a bulls-eye, nor the top. You are a formerly influential corner that currently contributes very much to the population of shooters, and could be broken off and be completely disregarded by the rest of Christendom.

What these authors do is embolden their base. To be specific, they energize
atheists to be more in-your-face about their convictions, the result of which is
an agenda to attack Catholicism.

More or less correct until you get to "whaaa, why are the evil atheists picking on the cafolixx!" part. Again, we do not care about Catholicism any more than other Christian denominations that are comparably intrusive and abusive.

The sick climate that these zealots have created could not have succeeded
without a little help from their friends.In the case of Myers, that means the
administrators at the University. They had several options available to them,
and they passed on every one of them. Predictably, they hid behind academic
freedom, claiming they were impotent to do anything about Myers’ off-campus
behavior.

What did you honestly expect? You can't punish a person for being mean to ideas. Especially when he has not doing so as a representative of his place of employment.

Does anyone believe that the University of Minnesota would do absolutely nothing
about a white professor who packed them in at a local comedy club on weekends
doing his racist rendition of “Little Black Sambo”?

I would honestly hope that "being a racist" isn't a fireable offense if it doesn't extend into his role as teacher or his grading methods. Also, I find it rather hilarious to liken a harsh critique of unfounded ideas to racism. You tend to rant a lot about anti-Catholic bigotry, Bill. It is funny. Anti-Catholic sentiment does exist. It is just nowhere near as bad, currently or historically, as racism. Criticizing your beliefs isn't bigotry, though. Especially when it is coming from atheists (because we give the same kind of criticism to EVERY religion's unfounded beliefs). You should really look to your fellow Christians for that. You know, the ones who don't think that you are Christian, call you Mary-worshippers, and will go on and on about how you don't worship Jesus correctly and are going to Hell for it. Those people. Not the people who are protesting against a bunch of overreacting death-threat lobbers who happen to be Catholic.

Would the very same administrators plead helplessness about a professor who
spoke to community groups off-campus about the mythology of the Holocaust?

Holocaust Envy, huh? You really are trying to stretch here, aren't you? Honestly, once again, as long as Holocaust-denier bizarro-Myers was not using his role as professor to further such an argument, it would, ideally, be ignored.

Lest anyone not be convinced, need I remind you that Larry Summers was driven
out of his job as president of Harvard University for remarks that radical
feminists found objectionable.

And that was an overreaction. Just like your's in this situation. But, slight distinction: Summers' statement was made within his role at the University, not on a personal blog.

It cannot go unsaid that Summers’ comments were made off-campus.

At an academic conference. It is not like he was just talking with his buddies over a cup of coffee.

Moreover, when Summers spoke, it was made explicitly clear that he was not
speaking as president, but as an academic.

Well...sucks for him, then.

Academic freedom was instituted to protect contrarian professors from being
hounded out of the academy for challenging the conventional wisdom on a
particular academic subject.

There you go. Now your on the right page.

It was not instituted to protect hate speech.

Fecking moron. That didn't take long. How is "the Catholic Church has done bad things in the past, Catholics are overreacting to the Cook fiasco, and a human life is worth more than tradition ", verifiably true statements that do not reflect any hatred for individuals on the mere basis of their being Catholic, hate speech? You are chasing phantoms of something that never was, Donahue. Calling out a religious institution is not hate speech. Nor is bringing up the past deeds of that institution. Nor is bringing up the behavior of a small section of those people and responding to it. Nor is nabbing something with a price of $.02 which is handed out freely and throwing it away as your response.

Myers is free to say whatever he wants about his specialty, which is zebrafish,
but he has no moral right to assault the sensibilities of any religious group.

Myers is an American citizen first, biology professor second. The responsibilities of the second should never deprive him of the rights of the first, especially when not in the role of professor. And, considering what tiny things count as an "assault" of your "sensibilities", I am going to call bullshit. You have no right to that level of protection from opposing ideas.

At the very least, the president should have convened an assembly, with members
of the press invited, to unequivocally condemn what Myers did. Even if what
Myers did was outside the purview of the president’s authority, there was
nothing stopping him from holding such a forum.

That's just franky bizarre. Do you really think that the president of the University really wanted to drag PZ, and the entire school through the mud, just to appease the few angry cafolixx like yourself who even cared? Do you even think that this obscure thought even occurred to the president, assuming that he himself even gave a damn about it? Grasping at straws...

Over the summer, Myers’ personnel file ballooned: everything that happened
regarding this issue is in it. Which means that he’d better be careful about
bringing his religious bigotry to bear in the classroom.

The only "religious bigotry" I am aware of is in between folks who, you know, are PART OF A RELIGION THEMSELVES! Myers doesn't get a hard-on for dishing out the hurtie to Catholics, all right? That is very specific, peculiar fetish that only religious nuts have a particular enjoyment of.

If just one Catholic student complains that he is being treated unfairly because
of his religion, Myers will have to answer.

I doubt it. I doubt that Myers teaches classes that are small and intimate enough for him to be aware of a student's religion, let alone be able to discriminate against them for it.

Because of the hate-filled milieu that Myers and his ilk have created, all
kinds of copy-cats have come forth. Some have put videos of themselves up on the
Internet. They all go after me big time, and that is as it should be. They know
who the enemy is, and for that I am eternally grateful.

And thus Bill ends his tale of woe and whining, and cries for vengeance, with a brief allusion to his persecution complex and his wish to self-flagellate himself until he can finally get his Viagra to kick in. And we are, understandably, left perturbed and exasperated.

Yet another fisking...

While looking at the collection of news stories and opinion pieces that richarddawkins.net regularly displays, I had the good fortune of coming across this wonderful little screed.

organized religion not only divides humanity into believers and infidels, it authorizes the former, with a beatific smile, to extinguish the latter. Often religion claims to be doing so for the good of the infidel.

But at least he has a good start :)

Modern would-be Voltaires such as Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins are just as strident in their hatred of religion in general and revealed religion in particular.

Apparently calling Richard Dawkins and company "strident" is passing the threshold into cliche. Nothing revolutionary here.

For my money, their arguments don't amount to a hill of beans. They simply oppose one dogma with another.

Calling atheists dogmatic? Wonderful. The classic "no, you" defense. Particularly hilarious when you are talking about a group of people defined entirely due to their lack of beliefs, as compared to a group of people unified by their adherence to a specific set of beliefs and rules. Please, tell us about the dogma of political moderates and those with no position on the economy as well.

Their questions like those of the village atheist are just plain silly: can an omnipotent God make a rock bigger than he can lift?

It is silly because the idea of omnipotence, in of itself, is silly. That is the entire point of the question being brought up. Omnipotence is a self-contradicting concept unless redefine what it means (all-powerful within the confines of what is possible to do, or all-powerful enough to override the rules of logic, and even overcome its own omnipotence).

why are they shouting so loudly?

The two most obvious explanations are, first, that they think their opponents are so powerful that they must amplify their own arguments just to get a hearing.

It's not about power, it's about their ability to plug their ears and pretend that they didn't hear a thing. But, of course, now that we have gotten their attention, even if it is through a particularly belligerent crowd, we are suddenly assumed to be vicious attackers of religion, regardless of the actual content of what they are saying. They are vicious and belligerent merely by merit of being heard.

Second, they know full well that their own arguments are so weak that they have to obscure this fact with a high-decibel diversion

That describes must religious debaters I have seen (i.e. "no, you!"). But, I am not sure how well that would work in print, and must of these loud, strident atheists tend to keep an indoor-voice while speaking publically. So, what exactly are you responding to?

, do think religion is both powerful and malign. They can point to Islamists for contemporary proof, but add that the current crop of fanatics has hordes of angelic predecessors, stretching back to antiquity.

Religion is indeed powerful, but not necessarily malign. It is just an undue distraction that can serve to alienate even in its most ideal forms, and can serve to justify the worst atrocities in its least. It does serve good, in much the same way that a pacifier and a security blanket can do good. As for "angelic predecessors", I would hardly think that they would be anything but, even without religion.

Every faith, the dogmatic atheists say, contains a seed of violence and torment, even (or especially) among those who see in their religion a command to love their neighbours, including neighbours as obnoxious as these atheist critics.

No, not every faith....just the ones that are popular. Which happen to be the ones that also have those oft forgotten commandments about love, forgiveness, and tolerance. As for being obnoxious....guilty as charged, mofo.

In short, the atheists' dogmatism is as much an expression of the weakness of their position as is the dogmatism of the believers.

Facepalm. Please show me how not liking religion counts as 'dogmatism', and tell me how this position is weak.

What Dawkins and his pals don't seem to get is that religious people are quite happy to think of themselves, for purposes of genetic biology, as survival machines for genes.

They should be, since it does nothing to deprive them of their social existence, or their mental existence, to explain the nature of our physical self to them.

They wonder, for example, where the first gene, selfish or not, came from. Or, if it came from the soup, where did the soup come from? Or the universe as a whole?

Well, the "soup" was just a liquid-suspended selection of chemicals, and the first gene may have been the result of proteins formed in such an environment attaching to one another. Of course, I am not personally educated on that subject. As for where the relevant chemicals came from, we don't know, and neither do you. At least we have the intellectual honesty to not base our entire lives and ideology off of one person's guess about the subject. When it comes down to it, origins are of a nominal interest to atheists in general, because even if it were consistent with a creator deity, then only deism, devoid of doctrine pertaining to the charcacter of the creative agency, would be given credibility. It is an essentially pointless issue in regards to an objective view of possible supernatural entities.

Karl Marx, who was equally dogmatic regarding such questions, said that even raising such questions was a waste of time. They were, he said, "abstract."

Gosh, I need to know this bloke's definition of "dogmatic", because it only takes a few minutes exploring the matter to discover the question of origins is currently unanswerable, and thus, pointless at our current point in time.

And then he told his inquirer to shut up. "Socialist man," he famously declared, "does not ask such questions." That is probably true. Socialist man does not wonder about where it all came from.

Am I the only one seeing the not-so-subtle jab, here? Didn't think so. How original, to imply atheists to be amongst the ranks of Marxists. As for your actual statement: it is perfectly fine to "wonder about where it all came from". It's when you think that you have the answer, posit an unknown and unknowable entity as that answer, and force others to change their lives and accept that answer, without any evidence, that you should rightly be dismissed. But, of course, your "wonder" inevitably falls waist deep into such dogma; real dogma.

The problem, however, is that some people find raising the question, even if they don't know the answer, a meaningful act. They are going to wonder about such things whether Marx or Christopher Hitchens approves.

As above: continue to wonder freely, but just realize that it is not going to necessarily result in an answer, and that if it steers its way into a pile of tangential doctrines and unverifiable beliefs beyond the realm of fanciful speculation, we reserve the right to criticize you.

Wondering means tolerating mysteries. Interestingly enough, it was Socrates, not some religious fanatic so pilloried by the evangelical atheists, who said that philosophy begins in wonder.

Wonder is something enlightened atheists never could abide. No wonder they shout so much.

Atheists can "wonder" and tolerate mysteries just fine. In fact, I would argue that they are the only ones who can truly wonder with sincerity. The only who sincerely want to protect the real mysteries of this life from misrepresentation. Because, it is when mysteries are subverted to further an unverifiable system of beliefs, draining the wonder from all of existence by claiming certainty in regards to a glorified guess, that atheists get most vocal.

And finally, on the issue of why we [apparently, in some hyper-religious version of reality] shout so much: people as "strident" as yourself don't help a hell of a lot.

Til' next time, folks!

America's Not Racist Anymore! Spread The Word!

After talking about Kenyan success in running events at the Olympics and immediately afterwards trying to draw the most broad conclusions he could from it, Dinesh D'Souza continues to ramble incoherently on the subject of race.

Who could not be moved at the sight of a major political party naming
Barack Obama, an African American, as its presidential candidate? To me, there
could not be a better sign that America has left behind its racist past.

Yeah, no. Considering that you are only talking about slightly more than half of a political party that makes up roughtly half of the country showing their support of Obama up to this point, it only shows that most Democrats are tolerant enough to support a black man instead of Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, there is plenty of room for these people to still have a level of racism in them that they are either trying to suppress or that is slightly less than their hatred of women and/or Republicans. And of course, we still have half of the country who will refuse to support Obama, squarely within the Republican party tent, whose ranks leave plenty of room for America's racism to dwell within it at full strength, under the veil of whatever misguided justifications they can concoct for such a refusal.

If we appreciate the significance of our current moment, we are driven to
an ironic but rational conclusion: perhaps the best way to recognize Obama's
historic achievement is to vote for John McCain this November.

Yes. Voting McCain will definitely prove that racism doesn't exist. Willing to vote in a continuation of an almost universally despised president in order to avoid plopping a black man into the Oval Office. Acknowledge a historic achievment by making it completely irrelevant and telling them "oh, so close but yet so far. Better luck in 2012, but America has spoken, and they want another old white warmonger". The fact that you use the word "rational" for this idea is disgusting.

for the past several years we have been hearing liberal Democrats emphasize how
racism still defines America, how things haven't really changed all that much,
how racism has gone underground and is now more covert and more dangerous than
ever.

It has. In lieu of obvious vehemence, hatred, and violence directed towards another race, there is now just a casual fear, distaste, and racial favortism that simmers, hidden as much as possible but still everpresent. And, due to this subtler, less visible, less obvious form that racism has taken, it is almost impossible to counteract, and impossible to overcome.

It may seem strange that a racist country would adopt legal policies that
discriminate against the majority and in favor of minorities.

Completely missed the point! Do you know why those policies to exist? To circumvent existing racist discrimination against those minorities, enacted by people who knew that it existed, and that it was having negative effects on them. And guess who these people were? If you said: the liberals who were fighting for civil rights from the outset and who have voted Obama to be their presidential candidate, than you would be correct.

Well, I don't know how many people have been drinking the liberal Kool-Aid, but
these people must be utterly shocked at the success of Barack Obama. Here is a
guy who could not possibly have made it as far as he has with only black votes.
He has attracted not only white votes but the votes of some of the most affluent
and successful segments of the white community.

Yes. White liberals. White people who are either plagued enough by white guilt, empathetic enough to not become hung up in regards to skin color, or just plain don't like Hillary enough to support Obama. And, guess what? They do not make up the majority of white people in our country! Hurrah, hooray! You've got to love the attempt to make it seem like racism doesn't exist by using the people who oppose the racist elements of society as evidence.

Obama's public message is that race doesn't matter and that transracial
alliances should be built on shared political and cultural values. It's a good
message, and how it must dismay professional civil rights activists to hear it.

That is some kind of epic retardation, right there. Civil rights activists fully support transracial alliance and wholeheartedly believe that race SHOULDN'T matter, you twit. The only problem, is that for a good segment of society (and a powerful one at that), it still DOES matter. Does it matter universally? No. Does it matter objectively? Should it matter to anyone? No. Does it matter to people? YES. And that's what civil rights activists are active against.

Clearly there are many in the liberal Democratic camp who are made profoundly
uncomfortable by the recognition that racism is no more a defining feature of
American life or even African American life.

No. Not really. Not uncomfortable at all. I am made "profoundly uncomfortable" by people who are both ignorant and overly optimistic enough to believe that this is true to an incredibly large degree. It may not be a "defining feature", but it sure is a significant influence, even if it is below the surface. There is still is racial tension, and there still is a segment of people who are as hateful towards different races as they were decades ago. The idea that this wouldn't have an effect on the recipients of this closeted hatred is leaves me simply flabbergasted. It may not be "defining", but it sure as hell isn't negligible.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that racism does not exist. This is a big
country, and surely one can find several examples of it. But racism, which used
to be systematic, is now only episodic

Racism still is systematic. It's just that the system has been made less focused on segregation and violence, and more on exclusion and avoidance. If you define racism as only those actions which were defined by the old paradigms, before there were laws to prevent them or weed them out, then obviously there will be rare instances of it. But, unfortunately, racism is in intent, not in action, and the racism that once manifested itself before in certain ways has found new venues now that the old methods are no longer permissible. Instead of lynching black people and giving them separate water fountains, we simply have cops pull them over a little more often than their white counterparts, and have some white flight when they dare to move into our neighborhoods.
It exists still, it occurs reguarly still (though less dramatically and less often). The only difference now is that the government doesn't tacitly condone it anymore. So...that's something.

In fact, when I ask young blacks on the campus today whether America is racist,
many say yes. But if I ask them to give me examples of how that racism affects
their lives, they are hard pressed to give a single one. The best they can do is
to mention "Rodney King" or provide some well-known, recycled horror story.

OMG! Young people who don't have evidence from their own personal experiences to support their beliefs! The horror!

Recently someone told me that McCain is still winning the white vote by a
substantial majority and that shows "we have a long way to go" in overcoming
white bigotry. By this logic, blacks are have even longer way to go in
overcoming their bigotry since Obama is winning almost 98 percent of the black
vote.

Except, you know, for the fact that white people along with black people have been voting white for every election since their respective rights to vote where granted to them. Are you telling me that it would be bigotry to support a candidate from a never before elected minority group that you happen to be part of and who is not only supportive of the rights of your group, but of all other minorities as well? As compared to the alternative candidate, who is not only not part of your group, part of a group that has been elected 43 times consecutively in the past, but also represents a party that is composed of people that hate you? Yeah. A reaction against bigotry is not bigotry.

Even though Obama's candidacy signals that America is overcoming its racial
past, neither Obama nor his wife recognize that. Their personal statements, as
seen for example in Obama's books, are suffused with race-consciousness,
race-obsession and even racial resentment. The more privileges they have
received on the basis of race, the more embittered they seem to become

Just because you are fortunately in a position of privilege doesn't mean that you cannot sympathize with the plight of your less fortunate brothers, and it doesn't mean that you forget the past you had when you were not in such a position. They are "race-obsessed" because of all of the times they have most likely been subjected to questions, and criticisms based upon that very trait. A person in a society that doesn't care about race (i.e. one that isn't racist) would not become "race-obsessed". One that is responding to a society that has focused on such a trait unduly, however, would become one.

The source of these pathologies is the very liberalism that the Obamas have
embraced: a liberalism that declares them equal while treating them as inferiors
who need preferential treatment.

No. That is a strawman of affirmative action, which is intended to counteract institutional racial favoritism in regards to hiring policy, rather than to give them compensatory handicap. The "pathologies" are due to a hostile and racist climate that, surprise surprise, didn't just fade away into nothingness in the 40 years after the Civil Rights Act (in much the same way that it hadn't faded in the century or so since slavery had been abolished up to that point).

If you want to get rid of racial obsession, stop talking and thinking about race
so much. If you want to remove race as the basis of decision-making in America,
let's eliminate America's policies that make race the basis of decision-making.

Finally, something I can agree with. Almost. Racial obsession and racism will fade if people stop talking and thinking about it. The problem is that many people refuse to do so. Many people refuse to give up their blind, racially motivated hatred and cannot be forced to do so. But, as long as these people remain, and as long as they exist in a large quantity and have even a small amount of power and presence, racism will not die. In that sense, we must keep race in mind: not as something to judge people by, but as an indication of the potential prejudices that such people had to overcome. Hence, why we can't totally abandon race entirely as a basis of decision-making in regards to the protections provided affirmative action.

And if you want a party that stands for color-blindess and equal opportunity, you might consider voting for the Republicans.

Hilarious. They are "color-blind" in the sense of not being willing to defend people from those who adamantly hate a specific color. They are "equal opportunity" in the sense of giving people in a position of a power an equal opportunity to discriminate against people who are not part of one their arbitrarily defined groups, including race. They want a color blind government for a racially divided nation. Democrats want a color blind world, and will make sure that the laws protect the softer targets until then. Dinesh's futile attempt to spin that is both entertaining and depressing.

When Opinions Suck

How can you miss the point so thoroughly, and show your prejudices at the same time? Write an opinion column about a group of people you clearly don't like and most likely know nothing about!

He definitely starts out on the right foot:

A few atheists have their panties in a twist once again, this time fussing that an atheist leader wasn't invited to speak at an Aug. 24 interfaith service that's part of the Democratic National Convention.

The service will feature Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist speakers. The official reason for the interfaith services is "to honor the diverse faith traditions inside the Democratic Party," which could easily include atheists. If they aren't welcome, it's probably because they're rude

The irony of suggesting that a diverse group of people is universally "rude" while beginning the column on that subject with a phrase such as "have their panties in a twist" is just so incredibly delicious.

This column has advocated religious liberties for atheists, citing case law that defines atheism as just another religion - as in just another unproven and forever unprovable belief.

Le sigh. How is lack of belief in an unproven and unprovable assertion an unproven and unprovable belief? How is lack of religion a religion? Under what condition could a person be said to not have any religion at all?

Therefore a belief in creation - or an original intelligence, Jesus, Buddha, or the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" - is no more valid in the eyes of the law than the odd belief that nothing could possibly exist beyond what our embryonic state of scientific discovery has seen in our relatively primitive microscopes and telescopes.

Attacking materialism, are we? Well, I've got to say, seeing as how we can say absolutely nothing with certainty about those things beyond our current realm of scientific understanding, saying that such things are essentially irrelevant to us for now is perfectly valid. It is definitely foolish to say that there is nothing at all that exists beyond our current scientific understanding, but that is only a straw man. The point is that we can only work with the things that we know, and those things are physical. Anything outside of that is just speculation, especially when you claim detailed knowledge. Belief in a specific kind of creative intelligence is infinitely more specific and much more unfounded than such assertions.

To rational thinkers, atheism seems a sad and shallow belief. That's because great scientists understand that, metaphorically, they've discovered little more than the drawings on the walls of a cave. They don't know what's beyond the cave or how it began.

And once we discover more, we will be ready to accept that. But, the thing is, once again, anything positted at this point about such subjects is just speculation. If atheism is a sad and shallow belief, I cannot imagine how to describe those who state with utter conviction that they know how the world came to be, and that an unproven and unprovable entity is behind it, of which they have exact details of what his demands are. Even the boldest atheism is humble by comparison.

They pretend that atheist beliefs are proven true, while others are proven false.

Since atheism is lack of beliefs, and there is no proof either way, that is pretty much true. If not, please complain about the unfounded beliefs of a-fairyists, a-bigfootists, and a-UFOists as well.

Their approach to ministry is overbearing and rude. They engage in confrontation, with disregard for persuasion

Every challenge to your religion would be considered "overbearing and rude" no matter how polite the demeanor and tame the content. The mere act of questioning religious authority is deemed "rude" by most people. And, as for "confrontation", do you seriously think that you can call the attempts of those within your own religion to persuade other people to "see the light" only less confrontational than atheists? The only reason you see it as confrontation is because it is calling you on bullshit that you've place up on a pedestal and that is just not very polite, is it?

In other words, if I'm not invited to your party then you're bad.

Excellent straw man. She was not judging the character of the DNC, only saying that supporting faith is turning its back on those who do not have faith. No value judgments, just an attempt to show them that they are embracing one group at the expense of another in the name of unity.

You simply weren't invited to a private party for "believers.

It's not a private party for believers: it is an event sponsorred by the Democratic Party during their national convention in order to express their support of people of various faiths. But, the issue is not that we simply were not invited, it is that the event itself was designed specifically to exclude us, by, as you said, being "for 'believers'". It should be for EVERYONE, be they Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or nothing at all. Because these are all the faiths and non-faiths that make up the Democratic party. By making it just about the religious people, they are excluding a segment of the Democrats as well as perturbing the religious moderates that make up a significant amount of the party base.

Boulder atheist Marvin Straus accused Democrats of "pandering" for the religious vote. How dare they reach out to people who believe in God? There oughta be a law!

Sigh. Did anyone suggest that they SHOULDN'T do it? No. Is anyone suggesting that they should make sure to include those who are not religious as well? I would assume so....

Hitler imagined a world without Jews. The Freedom From Religion Foundation rented a billboard near the Colorado Convention Center that says: "Imagine No Religion."

That Godwin came outta nowhere. Anyone aside from this putz think that the sign suggests genocide? Anyone? Anyone else think that Hitler killed the Jews out of hatred for religion, rather than just out of simple religiously supported antisemitism? Anyone? Bueller?

Imagine a world with no religion and one sees a world without the Golden Rule, devoid of most charities, hospitals and great universities.

Really? The "without religion, there is no morals" gambit? There is a reason why almost every religion on Earth has some variation on the Golden Rule. It is because it is a self-evident description of how basic human empathy forces us to behave. As for charities, hospitals, and universities having religious origins: that is merely because such a large portion of our population (and almost every person in a position of power) happen to be religious. One could hardly assert that their religion had anything to do with the existence of such institutions, however.

Imagine no religion and one sees a world ruled by atheist tyrants - Pol Pot, Albania's Enver Hoxha, Stalin and Mao, to name a few - who have murdered tens of millions in modern efforts to cleanse society of religion.

This crap will never die, will it?

American Muslims, Baptists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Mormons, Quakers, Amish, etc., don't erect billboards saying "Imagine No Atheists."

First, "atheists" and "religion" are hardly comparable. Besides, they don't need to. They are able to advertise their religion in every form of media imaginable and use that as a platform to implicitly or explicitly rant about the evils of non-belief just like you are doing here. The bulk is a major issue. A single billboard erected by harmless minority talking about a general institution rather than a specific group is much different then people saying "get rid of this minority group".

They don't advocate theft and desecration of atheist property, even though an atheist hero in Minnesota stole and destroyed the Catholic Eucharist

And I didn't think that you thoroughly established your retardation enough in the former sentences. Thank you for sealing the deal. Deciding to not eat a wafer handed to you is hardly the same thing as "theft". And besides, he only destroyed property that was meant for destruction anyway. He just did it in a manner different than intended. The only comparable thing that they could advocate in retailation is for people to get invited to atheist's house for dinner, and secretly flush a single portion of the meal down the toilet at his own house afterwards instead of eating it.

Besides, do you even know the rabid response that PZ received in response to the very suggestion that he may do such a thing? Advocating theft pales in comparison...

It's likely they didn't invite atheists to their faith service because they didn't want embarrassing guests

Hahahaha...DIAF.

Atheists should fund universities and hospitals. They should feed and clothe starving kids.

Hear of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Are you aware that most atheists are not internet trolls? Your presumptions are sickening. I wish that rebutting you didn't play right into your hand, allowing you to point and say "look at how rude and intolerant they are!". But, whatever. I am not a representative of the atheist anymore than you are a representative of whatever idiotic religion turned you into the heavily blinded putz that you are. END.

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation; Case One: Happiness vs. Religiosity

Guess who is at it again?
Go ahead.

Guess.

That's right! Dinesh is back! And this time, his arguments are weaker than ever!

In fact, his regurgitation of data that I have stumbled across before has inspired me to delve into matters of other people leaping to a conclusion regarding causation with only correlationary information. But first, let us deal with the task at hand: Dinesh D'Souza and the Blog of Utterfailure.

In mentioning a variety of studies regarding the happiness of different groups of people, D'Souza says:
"Brooks notes that 'faith is an incredible predictor, and cause, of happiness. Religious people of all faiths are much, much happier on average than secularists.' Specifically, 43 percent of those who attend church weekly or more call themselves "very happy," versus 23 percent who attend seldom or never. Observant Jews and Christians are by Brooks' measure the happiest people in America."

So, what is this? Being a regular church-goer means that you are twice as likely to be "very happy"? Somehow, I don't think so.

It could just be that happy people are more willing to go to chruch regularly, and people who are not happy are unwilling to do anything, with lack of church attendance being indicative of their level of depression rather than their lack of religiosity.

It could just be that people who go to church are exposed to an environment where there is social pressure for them to exhibit happiness, which results in them either being authentically happy, deceiving themselves into believing that they are happy, or feeling unable to express any doubts, sadness, or fears to others, and thus more liable to exaggerate their positive emotions (honestly, though, I don't lend much credence to this thought).

It could just be that attending religious services and happiness are both related to one another through a tertiary variable. In all seriousness, I think that this may be the case, because church attendance is a form of social interaction, and provides one with an extra social network beyond those who do not attend church. If church is used as a social network, to interact with other human beings and build relationships, this will increase happiness just like it would in any other context. Of course, other outside variables aside from extra social networks could be a reduced sense of responsibility due to faith, mitigated stress due to being confident in a second chance at existence, and the mere reassurance of having a controlled routine.

But, let's see what Dinesh thinks!

" So why are secular liberals in general so miserable? I offer two reasons. The first is that liberals are political utopians. They consider human nature to be wonderful, and they expect freedom to be used wonderfully well. So they are always bitterly disappointed when they discover that this is not the case. Conservatives, by contrast, have a dimmer view of human nature. So their expectations are more modest. When things don't turn out half-badly, conservatives are pleasantly surprised. They are happier because it takes less to make them happier."

Political utopians? Human nature is wonderful? And here I thought that I was the pessimist! Apparently, though, I am the idealist with his head in the clouds, and the conservatives are the ones who are deeply disillusioned with humanity. Of course, since he admits that liberal idealists are "always bitterly disappointed" when they see humans do as humans do, would that make both ends of the political spectrum deeply pessimistic, in effect? Or maybe the conservatives only have a "dimmer view" on certain subject matters, (like those involving criminal justice, government influence, and international affairs) but are naively optimistic about others (religion, economy, and environment). Not exactly cut and dried, is it?

"It's not too hard to figure out why religious people are happier. Belief in God gives people a powerful sense of higher purpose in life. It assures people that the universe is in the benign hands of a omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate higher power. It offers people a code for how to live. It gives us a reason to hope in cosmic justice, which is better than the imperfect justice of our terrestrial world"

Belief in God may give people a sense of purpose, but it probably shouldn't. It is a sense of purpose derived from overconfidence, from unwarranted pride, from the belief that you hold a piece of information that no others hold, and that you are better than them for it. It is a sense of purpose that seems to have no basis in the actual obscure, demeaning purpose that the Bible suggests we have: to serve a tyrannical entity who will only accept us by his side if we happen to accept him first in some sort of celestial guessing game, and do so for the rest of our life. Our supposed purpose is entwined with God's, and God needs no purpose, since He just is; inevitably, our reason for life is lost in that process.

As for believing that an all-powerful, all-good entity is at the controls, and that you have all the rules regarding what you need to do in order to prevent raising his ire; that is reassuring. Unfortunately, as good as that is at relieving stress, it also is a thought process that leads to the development of an external locus of control, a sense that you have no influence over your life. The happiness that shows up in a secure believer could easily turn into a mental breakdown for that same believer who suddenly, despite following all the rules, begins to suffer unduly, and takes as the wrath of God which they can do nothing to fight against.

"By contrast, secular people have little to hope for. They are sure that they came from nowhere--the chance product of random mutation and natural selection--and are going nowhere. They know that terrible things happen, and they don't believe there is any purpose in this. No wonder that secular people have so few children: they have much less reason than religious people to believe in the future."

Does life itself need a divine origin in order to be meaningful to the living? Is an apple tree less beautiful if it came about through natural processes? Is there no reason to live for a young child if they are only allowed to live once? Does explaining away tragedy make it any less tragic?

The answer is no. We are not sure that we came from nowhere, but have no reason to believe that we came from somewhere that is not observably existent. We are the chance product of random mutation and natural selection, and allowing that to depress you is akin to being depressed that you were the chance product of one lucky sperm out of several million and a single egg that leeched itself into becoming a human being over the course of nine months. Knowing that terrible things happen and not positing a reason for it is intellectually honest. Positing a reason for catastrophes comes from and leads to the just world fallacy. And secular people have less children because they are not guilt tripped about using birth control, are not pressured into being fruitful and multiplying, and rationally consider the consequences of having too many children and too little time and/or money. Apparently, one or more of these checks are removed from the faithful, helping them contribute to overpopulation (despite a good portion of these people thinking of the world as corrupt on the verge of apocalypse), and you think that this is a good thing.

And, he ends with "our temperaments are also the consequences of two very different worldviews, one producing the wholesome optimism of What's So Great About Christianity, the other the angry bitterness of The God Delusion. "

And this is the crux of his article: Christians are happy and optimistic due to their religious faith, atheists are bitter and depressed due to their lack of religious faith. And that, of course, despite being a common assumption, is not a logical conclusion from the information he has offered. It follows well enough from his baseless speculation regarding the data, but not from the data itself. Why is it inconsistent? Simply because faith is not necessarily the causal factor for an increased incidence of happiness in the faithful, especially in a culture dominated by the faithful, that attempts to appease their will at every turn, and that is oppressive towards those who are not. That is clear in the nature of the titles that D'Souza is touting. It is not that Dinesh is inherently happier than Dawkins. It is that Dinesh is in a position of being supported by the majority, and being able to appeal to them without fear of significant rebuke. And Dawkins, by contrast, is in a despised, minority position, trying to put an argument forward against a markedly larger group that will most likely ignore him unless he makes his position clear, distinct, and, unfortunately, extreme. Thus, Dinesh gets the privilege of a masturbatory, self-congratulatory title that will attract the proud eyes of believers, and Dawkins gets to help himself to a critical, accusatory title necessary to draw the attention of believers in a similar quantity, though in an incredibly different fashion. It has nothing to do with happiness directly, just as faith may have little to do with happiness as well.

Random Reply to Comment of Unknown Origin

Interstingly, I found this comment cut and pasted into a drafted blog post. No notes on where it came from, or who it belongs to, or why I grabbed it. But, I suppose that I might as well respond to it now.

Life on Earth is finite. Human beings have immortal souls. In the scheme of things, I suppose any suffering we endure is as finite as our lives on earth in comparison to the eternity we will spend with God. Suffering is a teaching tool for us, a way to expand our understanding and depth of character, adding to the richness of our relationship with one another and with God. It enables us to serve one another, to understand our own mortality and to see God in one another.

Slight problem with justifying the existence of suffering by saying that it is a "teaching tool": there are other ways that we could be taught, other ways to add character, other ways to deepen understanding, that not only exist and are available to us, but are also ideal possibilities for an omnipotent, loving deity, that all do not involve unfair, excessive, debilitating, and occassionally outright destructive pain that characterizes our reality. I agree that suffering does allow for the best in people to shine, and for people to develop, but, I think that the cost is greater than the benefit, honestly. Not exactly the best setup of reality that God could come up with.

Suffering also exists because we do have free will and we do live in a flawed
world.

Yes. We definitely do. I just wonder why a powerful, loving, wise, and intelligent God who apparently has a fondness for a certain form of sapient primate didn't do a bit of better job.

If you take the Gnostic view, the world was created by a flawed godling
called the Demiurge rather than the ultimate God.

That's a rather interesting view, since it detracts from one of the major components of the Christian idea of God. While explaining why existence is less friendly towards us than it otherwise would be, it just makes one wonder what significance God has if he was not responsible for creation, and cannot override its flaws.

If you take the classical Christian view, it's all due to the sin of man against
God.

Which is simply ridiculous if you do not also explain the several problems that arise from this particular argument.
1. How would an all-knowing Creator God not be aware that this "sin" was going to occur?
2. Why would an all-loving Creator God want to allow his favored creations to suffer, regardless of their supposed crimes?
3. How is an all-powerful Creator God not responsible for the nature of man, his tendency towards committing the sin that He punishes them for, or the existence and nature of suffering [as a consequence of collective or individual sin or not]?
This particular argument tries to seem like more of an explanation than it actually is by being intentionally vague. But, it still fails for the same reason as any other explanation involving the Christian perspective of God.

There are all kinds of philosophical and religious traditions that try to
explain it, undoubtedly not to your satisfaction.

I have no idea who this person saying this is, or who he directed this statement towards, but let me just say that he is rather prophetic.

I find it impossible, in fact, to look at the world and the universe and not see
the hand of the Deity in creating it.

And I find it impossible to look at the world and the universe and think that it would be intentionally constructed in this fashion, especially of life (specifically human life) was supposed to be of high priority in its formation. Yes, the universe is very pretty, and seemingly complex. But, unfortunately, I just don't see any compelling argument in positing that a human perception of design means that a designer had to be involved. We tend to be overzealous in our pattern seeking as humans, and I think that that is at work here.

Science has never been that good at explaining the "why" of things or the
ultimate beginnings. It's fascinating when it explains the how. I find science
quite compatible with religion.

I sort of agree with the first two sentences (save the idea that "why" and "how" are essentially the same kind of question, but "why" has some bizarre implication that you are playing on here, so I'll go with it).. Except, I would disagree if you positted that religion explained the "why" at all. It tries to, certainly. But I would hard pressed to find evidence that any succeed at giving anything more than a few aphoristic sentiments that hold little water in regards to the "why". Sure, it serves to satiate the common man on the street, and gives them something to embrace as an answer, but in reality it is just a glorified guess, wrapped in false authority and appeals to ego and emotion. As such, it is obvious that science is quite compatible with religion: as long as religion remains to be a security blanket with no basis in reality or rational thought, it will never be impeached by scientific knowledge. When it tries to be something more than that though, not so much...

He tries so hard...

Ever wonder what atheism and baby-killing have in common? Well, apparently our favorite man-child, Dinesh D'Souza, already knows the answer! It just so happen that the common thread is atheist philosopher Peter Singer. And, obviously, Dinesh cannot contain himself:

"Given the connection that Singer draws between atheism and child murder, using the former as his premise to recommend the latter, I wonder if our atheist friends are going to rush to embrace this guy as one of their heroes. Is Singer showing us where the road to complete secularism actually leads?"

Classy guy, that D'Souza.

Here is D'Souza's summary of Singer's most controversial points:

"[Singer] argues in favor of infanticide, euthanasia and (this is not a joke) animal rights! One of Singer's interesting proposals concerns what may be called "fourth trimester" abortions, i.e. the right to kill one's offspring even after birth!"

Of course, D'Souza is among the few who would actually see a contradiction here. If accounting for the potential for human (or animal) suffering were put into play, euthanasia would not be a bad thing, infanticide would not be a bad thing , and animal rights (protecting the animal from being abused) would be a good thing. It's all very simple, but D'Souza wants to see a contradiction so badly...

Some good points that Singer makes:
"The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness."

"Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."

And D'Souza's attempts to dismiss them as too icky:
"So while Christianity introduced into Western civilization the concept of dignity of human life, Singer explicitly says we have to get rid of this outdated concept. He contends that God is dead and we should recognize ourselves as Darwinian primates who enjoy no special status compared to the other animals. In the animal kingdom, after all, parents sometimes kill and even devour their offpsring. Singer argues that the West can learn from the other cultures like the Kalahari where children are routinely killed when they are unwanted, even when they are several years old."

So, once again D'Souza argues that nobody cared about life, humans, society, morals, or even any form of restraint at all until Jesus moonwalked onto the scene. Oh, and of course, evil atheists are attacking the "dignity of human life" because it is a religious concept, or something.

A newsflash for D'Souza: humans are "Darwinian" primates, no matter how you slice it. Christianity wasn't the first religion to give "dignity" to human life, and religion is not necessary to see that it is a social imperative, in most arenas, for such "dignity" to remain. Oh, and, the thing about infanticide is that killing a human that young would not cause the child too much pain if done without malice, and would cause no duress to third parties or to social networks related to the child and its "journey" through life, which is all that Singer is arguing. And the thing about it is, he is basically right! There would be no social damages or mental anguish felt by any aside from the participants in the act, and the infant, ideally, would not suffer nearly as much pain as any other dying human being would. Needless to say, I emphatically do not support infanticide regardless, since going about a normal abortion gives you more than enough leeway in regards to bringing about the same result. Once a nervous system gets involved in the matter, it is too risky to attempt to justify beyond that, since doing so depends on a definition of humanity that is not just about cognitive function alone, but a certain level of cognitive capacity...which is a slippery slope into eugenics (which I do not feel like defending in the same breath as infanticide).

"He doesn't want state-sponsored killings. Rather, he wants the decision to kill to be made by you and me. Instead of government-conducted genocide, Singer favors free-market homicide."

Funny how you pretend to have a problem with this, when you could care less about death in the name of patriotism and religion. Government-conducted genocide, of course, is wrong to you, but not when it occurs within the confines of traditional warfare, or is directed against indigenous peoples. Free-market homicide is fine to you as well, as long as there aren't wittle babies or people on their death beds involved. As long as the homicide is in the form of an electric chair for people that we are fairly sure deserve it, it is A-Okay. As long as the homicide is in self-defense, it is justifiable. But don't touch our precious brain-dead coma patients, pain-wracked cancer patients, or infants whose mental capacity are on par with the chickens we so gleefully slaughter for our lunches, but are nonetheless afforded protections not afforded to other animals merely due to being a member of our species.

The issue isn't about being able to kill at whim. The issue is about having no logical basis by which we can deem it fit to let the dying suffer hopelessly, to bring harm to animals, and to afford protection to infants who are no more intelligent than the animals we devour. Our excuses for why we do these things are rooted in favoritism for our own species and for a natural tendency to try to preserve the lives of those in our in-group. It has an evolutionary basis, a psychological basis, a traditional basis, arguably a religious basis (beyond that encompassed by the first three), but no rational basis.

But, whatever. Secularism leads to legal murder! Everybody, run before zombie Thomas Jeferson re-establishes the wall of separation of church and state, and then eats your baby! No! Dr. Kevorkian, what hath your experiments wrought?!

How To be an Atheist: ZOMG more than one step!

On Ray "Jesus Banana" Comfort's blog, a brilliant man named "Ex-Atheist" decided to offer some insight into how one goes about being an atheist. Let us have a look into this profound masterpiece:

How to be an Atheist:

1) Refute everything in the Bible because men wrote it.

Or we could just refute the fact that it is infallible, divinely inspired, and God-approved due to the fact that was only written by men. But...that's the same thing to you, isn't it?

2) Believe and quote other writings of men to prove that the Bible is wrong.

Hey, if they actually have proof, they've got one up on the Bible. Besides, I'm not the one who has hang-ups about trusting the works of men instead of "works of God".

3) Completely ignore the inconsistency between steps 1 & 2.

It's inconsistent to trust what competent human beings with valid evidence say, but to distrust a book rife with mythology because people claim that it was written by a supernatural entity when that is clearly untrue? Well, forgive me. You can go back to believing your 2000 year old book, admittedly written by men, and thus no more credible than any other holy book or mythological text.

4) Call yourself a “freethinker” and “open minded” but don’t practice such virtues when it comes to Christianity.

Why would we have to be open-minded and freethinking in regards to Christianity when a majority of the population throughout the history of the Western world have given them such a leeway? Sure, it is the democratic thing to do and all, but, seriously, after spending much time, deliberation, and effort in trying to be open-minded about Christianity, I find that I really don't need to be, since the believers give themselves enough elbow room without me helping by trying to give them a level of consideration that I am not expected to give any other belief system or religion. Christians will not suffer if I show them the same level of closed-mindedness that they show to everyone else.

5) Try to laugh out loud every time a Christian makes a statement about what they believe even if you don’t think it’s really that funny. This helps avoid a “serious” conversation.

A serious conversation about theology? Trying not to laugh...but really...you bring it upon yourself!

6) Always bring up Zeus, Allah, and Santa Claus to prove that if you must believe in one God then you have to believe in all of them otherwise it’s just not fair.

Well...it isn't! There is no possible reason that you would believe Yahweh to be true over any other god that is logically defensible.

7) When referring to the Bible use the word “myth” as often as possible and call believers whatever names you want because the goal is to frustrate the Christian so that his sinful nature comes out and he gets angry and then you can call him a hypocrite

Pssst...they don't need our help! They are usually frustrated, angry, and ready to indulge in their sinful nature far before we even get to the table! Also: myth!

8) Set your own moral standards very very very low so that you’ll never look like a hypocrite yourself. The lower the better.

That is hilarious! Okay...so it is perfectly alright to have lofty, unattainable morals that you hold others to abide by, no matter how ridiculous. But having morals that are practical, more intuitive, and harder to break without going way off base...that's just cheating!

9) Never answer a question directly but quickly change the subject to make a completely different point. If you’re asked why you keep changing the subject just repeat this step as necessary.

....and that is why the Jews have a natural fear of panthers. Wait. What were you saying?

10) Be as argumentative, loud, sarcastic and verbal as possible – there is no need to make sense or use logic in your arguments – just keep arguing.

The irony. It burns!!11!1!on2!3!!

11) Use words like “strawman,” “ad hominem,” “fallacy,” “red herring” and non sequiturs” against every argument whether you understand those terms or not.

I'll make it a new years resolution of mine to not point out the fallacies in your argument. Which means I still I've got 7 months, motherfucker!! Strawman, implicit ad hominem, all wrapped up in a massive persecution complex. Nice job.

12) Claim that atheism is rooted in “common sense” even though less than 10% of the human population claim to be atheists.

(Spillover warning) Ad populum! Since when has something being common sense or not been dictated by whether people actually realize it or not? Because, to be honest, the things that are typically deemed to common sense are logical, simplistically true, but still overlooked by a sizeable portion of people. Common sense: so obvious, that you decide it can't possibly be what you are looking for.

13) Reject all notions of faith even though you must put your faith in pilots, cars, food, doctors, evolution, and the next chair that you sit in.

Oh yes...the classic fundie word definition project (copyright 32 A.D.). The faith that I require for those people, objects, and ideas is not the same kind of faith you have for Jesus, your Lord and Savior. It is a faith that is marked by trust in thoroughly tested human beings, past observations of performance, concrete evidence and data from these things in the present world, and experience of all the things, with the exception of evolution. Your trust is in people you have never met or seen, your observations are unverifiable by anyone aside from yourself, your evidence is subjective, and your experience of anything that you are having faith in is non-existent (unless you consider the experience of having faith to be an experience providing for faith...which is dizzying). In short, the similarity between faith in the unfalsifiable and faith in the probable outcome is pretty much limited to semantics only.

14) Always ask for evidence for God but never accept anything presented to you. At the end of a discussion remind them that all you needed was some evidence for God.

Ugghh. Ever occur to you that your "evidence" is weak? That all of your evidence of God basically presumes that you already accept that he created existence, relies on faulty reasoning, or is simply anecdotal and could be easily dismissed solely as a psychological phenomenon? No? Yeah. Didn't think so...(sigh)...

15) Quote only the Bible verses that make God look mean and unfair.

You mean, quote the Bible verses that Christians like to pretend don't exist? You mean, basically, cherry-pick for quotes of the exact opposite nature that Christians try to cherry-pick? Because, I think it is patently dishonest for those verses to be left alone by Christians, in that it shows a patent refusal to accept the fact that God may not be exactly what your pastor told you he was. But whatever...obviously looking at the whole Bible is not what a good Christian is supposed to do. Sorry to expose you to the half of the Bible that you were supposed to disregard.

16) Talk about being a good person remembering that you are allowed to define good however you would like because there is no objective moral standard.

I am a good person by your purported objective moral standards, even if none really exist beyond your own suppositions. But that doesn't matter, because the moral standards of your religion are reprehensible.

17) Say that you have read the Bible and that you understand what it teaches whether this is true or not.

I have not read the entire Bible. I may not have understood what it supposedly teaches, but, in all honesty, I think that you take too rosy of a view of what it teaches, anyway. When it comes down to it, I am really hard pressed to find anyone who derives their morality directly from the Bible. What other lessons it teaches aside from that, I do not know. Personally, I think that Buddhism would be better at it anyway. Also, ad hominem in suggesting that atheists do not understand the Bible simply due to the fact that they do not share your boundless love for the text.

18) Only pick on Christians – you don’t want to get killed in a Jihad. However, be sure to say that there is no difference between Radical Muslims and Fundamentalist Christians.

We "only pick on Christians", because 1. Christians are the majority where we reside, and in the world, and are thus the biggest target 2. Muslims are a minority in the Western world, and thus not a comparable social evil and 3. Christians make sure to "pick on" Muslims enough as it is without us helping!

19) Always use the crusades to make the point above.

Hey, you can't deny the past, right?

20) Remember that you are looking for faults in other worldviews not trying to defend your own – do not try to prove atheism! Remember, it’s much easier to destroy than build up.

There is nothing in atheism to build up! Skeptics do not need to prove anything, since skepticism is simply not accepting the claims that others are making about a certain subject! Of course it is easier to destroy than to build up, but, you see...the problem is that you are building things up, but, unfortunately, the architecture is suspect at best and with little to no foundation. Our attempts to demolish the edifices of faith is merely so that we can prevent you from being crushed when it inevitably collapses in on you of its own accord. A house built on fairy dust and unicorns cannot stand!

21) Make the claim that you only have one life and don’t want to waste it on religion.

I have no problem wasting my life on religion. I just don't have any particular reason to pick one over the other. So, I spend my time delving into a variety of religions without adhering to any one of them. It's actually funny how easily atheism comes when you have been exposed to more than one religious worldview. Says something. About religion.

22) If your conscience begins to bother you because of moral guilt you can numb it with drugs, alcohol, sex, or pride. You can give up the first three but never give up your pride.

I've got plenty of guilt, but, then again, if you don't feel guilty, you probably should. Oh, and no drugs, no alcohol, no sex, and I may have some pride, but I hate myself just enough to make up for that infraction. To be honest, I thought that rampant sex, drug use, and alcoholism was more common amongst the Christian folks once they were free and let loose upon the world as adults. But, then again, maybe America really is a sitcom from the 1950's, and Christians are chaste, sober, humble, and friendly by default. Unfortunatley, I find that Ned Flanders is a rarity in our culture.

23) Everyday feel free to thank God that you’re an atheist – just in case.

I'll stick with Brahma, thanks.

So....I'm guessing that this guy just calls himself "Ex-Atheist" without actually being one. A lying for Jesus cherry on top of a fundie-licious sundae. That's it for this dip into the shallow depths of the absurd. Peace!