The Occasional Solipsist

Transubstantiation.

It is the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist according to the teaching of some Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, while all that is accessible to the senses remain as before.

(from Wikipedia)

Before I looked it up, I had never heard of the word myself, though having been raised by the poster-girl for fundamentalist religious zealotry, I knew all about that whole crackers and wine bit as the flesh and blood of christ. But in all the many, many reasons for ridiculing the world's various religions, and the particularly offensive one that is catholicism in particular, I somehow totally missed this.

I mean, if you're a fundie, and you go to church, and you step up to the buffet line for a whole heaping helping of the eucharist, and you are a believer, you actually think that your priest just magically changed that cracker and wine into someone else's flesh and blood. And you ate it anyways. Ergo, you (at least in your head) believe yourself to be a cannibal. Like there wasn't enough material to make fun of here.

This all comes up because I listened to this week's Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast, in which there is a long discussion about a kid who had received death threats for taking a eucharist cracker out of church. When a rational individual came to his defense, and in that defense was hit with a few death threats himself, the story made quite a stir.

Here's a great little article that discusses the whole kerfuffle (crackerfuffle?) in much more detail than I am prepared to.

If you're a fundie, give this article a wide miss. But if you are a fundie you already know to give most things a wide miss. Things like evolution, rational debate, critical thinking, the scientific method.

If however, your brains haven't fallen out of your head and been replaced with divine goodness, this whole death threat over someone mocking transubstantiation is awesome. Pack of fucking lunatics if you ask me. Pack. of. fucking. lunatics.

What's even better is that I very soon get to have a visit with my favourite fundie, in the form of a visit for a few days with my Mom as she comes to stay with us over my vacation.

As an aside, this brings up a recent choice I had to make: Sharing a hotel room with 3 people (and a bed with another dude) while milling around with a whole shitload of comics geeks at Comic Con, or spending a few days trying to survive a visit with my Mom. I stand by my choice. That whole paying to go on an unpaid working vacation in the middle of the summer without the girls with money I don't have AND having to share a room with three strangers (and a bed with another dude) or hanging out with my sometimes loony Mom really wasn't much of a choice at all.

Either way, I am seriously thinking of bringing the whole Crackergate thing up when she comes up tomorrow just so I can watch her explode in a puff of self-righteous outrage.

Labels: atheism, everything else, rants

A blog that I follow 'religiously' (har, har) recently posted a meme that outlines the hows and whys of an atheist individual's belief system. Sometimes I try to avoid these memes, but it seemed that the focus of this was one I couldn't pass up. That and I am on the long stretch of time off part of my swing shift, and with everybody sleeping, and only so much Unreal Tournament one can play...

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?

An total absence of belief in a supreme being (or beings).

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

Baptized anglican, raised among missionary, catholic, anglican faiths, among others. I had a zealot for a Mother that just couldn't make up her mind about which one fit her best. Probably helped me see that everyone was peddling an only slightly different flavour of bullshit.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?

Ludicrous.

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

Space exploration. We should have been on Mars 20 years ago, and since we're not there yet, I am following the current Mars mission with interest.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

Let's find a way to be less lethargic about things and get more effectively organized.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

"Can't we go get you a tattoo and a nipple ring instead?"

Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

That the wonder of the universe just can't be explained by science and rationalism alone. I refute it by saying simply that I look at the wonder of the universe and want to understand it without abstractions or supernaturalism. It is enough that it is magnificent to an atheist, and to a theist, it isn't.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

When I go off about that '100% Fatal Fundie Virus' that I keep hoping will go around and take care of that pesky religion problem for us. Only problem is there wouldn't be all that many people left in the world afterwards, sadly.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Harris. He so eloquently represents the Atheist position. Dawkins is a close second.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

Just one? Can I pick a country instead? Like maybe the majority of the vocal United States, please.

Props again to Nullifidian for the meme.

Labels: atheism

So I have been having some fun with the Out-Laws lately, specifically the F-I-L. Great guy, as I have said before, but now that we are in the middle of getting the outside of our place ready, he is being just a little more vocal in giving his opinion on how I should get things done than I am comfortable with. He is a very forceful guy, used to being completely in charge at work, and that bleeds out a bit whenever anyone is working with him. Normally its all good, as I am usually helping him do something, and I acquiesce to him where his business is concerned. But lately, he's been helping out at our new place, and he has been a huge help, bringing over tools, and machinery, even driving his tractor over to help smooth out topsoil. Holy shit I am going to sound ungrateful complaining about this.

But, here's the thing: As helpful as he is, he thinks that there is only one right way to do anything, and guess whose way that is?(I'll give you a hint; it's not mine.) And he might be right, but that is not the point.

One part of doing things his way is for me to agree to every suggestion he might have on how best to prepare our lot, which I rankle at, because I do not like people telling me what to do. Advise, if asked, sure. But tell me what to do with my own place? Grr. The other, and more judgemental way of doing things his way is the not-completely-voiced opinion that I should be out in the yard shoveling, raking, planting, whatever every free second I have. Which is not my favourite thing to do. In fact, I get no enjoyment whatsoever out of working in the yard other than that once its done, I won't have to think about it except to mow the fucker. And I hate that too, btw. And because the only exercise I get anymore is the occasional bout of yoga, I am so ill-equipped for extended periods of manual labour that tonight every muscle in my body is screaming at me for being so abusive to myself. Especially my back. Maybe might have to step up the yoga regimen.

So basically I am in the position where I don't want to take advice because I am not asking for it, and I am annoyed that I am being judged based on someone else's idea of how my time off at home should be best spent. Maybe I don't have a fucking clue how to prepare a lot, or even maintain it, but it is mine, and if I want to fuck it up, I think that is my prerogative.

And while I am on lingering familial issues: I love Superwife's sister like one of my own; she's a terrific person, but fuck me does she try to get a rise out of everyone sometimes. I used to think I was exempt from it, but yesterday when she was over, she threw out a string of Jesus, God and The Holy Father Bless You's, when Trin sneezed, even though she knows that shit drives me nuts. When someone says 'Bless you' I say 'No thank you', and mean it. And I want my home to be a place that is free of all the religious horseshit I grew up with, and perpetuating that crap (intentional or otherwise) in front of my kid is not something I tolerate. I actually hate that Christians think that its polite to say that to everyone in the world. What if the recipients of the christian sentiment are of a spiritual persuasion that does not accept blessings, or are even Atheist, like me? I think the next time someone says 'Bless you' to me I am seriously telling them to fuck off. I think that will garner a response.

And did I mention my back is killing me? I did? Oh. Well it still is.

Labels: atheism, family, rants

I don't know what else there is to say other than this is the bestest thing I'll read all week. Maybe longer. Go read.

If only this apocalypse had already happened.

Labels: atheism, comics

So its early xmas morning, even earlier than I would normally be up on the 25th of December, and instead of getting ready to watch my little girl exhaust herself opening and playing with her xmas presents, I am instead getting ready to go to work for a 12 hour shift. The joys of shift work are now being fully realized as I get to experience firsthand that when you work somewhere that never closes, someone has to be there on xmas.

There are a few things that are going to make it worthwhile though. It is likely to be stone dead at the office today, and that will be a nice change of pace for a day shift. I will also get paid a ridiculous amount of money thanks to that strong union and their requirement that people that work stat holidays get paid twice their normal rate. And the last one isn't so much a benefit but rather a consolation; Trin is only 2 and a half, and as such isn't going to know that when she celebrates xmas on Boxing Day that she's really a day behind the rest of the world.

And as an atheist I really don't have a leg to stand on anyway. Its not like I'm missing out on the cake and ice cream at the birthday party we're throwing at home for Jesus or anything.

Labels: atheism, everything else, family, work

I just watched one of the most interesting and truly thought provoking movies that I have seen in a long time. The movie was called 'The Man From Earth', by Jerome Bixby, a guy I had never heard of but who it turns out makes for an interesting footnote in the history of science fiction.

The movie starts with a group of college professors getting together to celebrate the early retirement of one of their own. The retiree has decided that before he vanishes to parts unknown, he is going to tell the rest of the group the shocking truth of his life, that he is a 14,000 year old man, and over the course of the movie divulges his unique perspective on human history.

As the story unfolds, it basically becomes a 12 angry men scenario as more details of the man who currently calls himself John Oldman's life are revealed and the group attempts to put what he is telling them into something they can understand, and decide if he is crazy, lying, or telling them the truth.

Aside from some of the really interesting historical observations in the film, it is it's discussion about religion that ends up taking center stage and provides for the most interesting dialogue. It turns out that John Oldman ends up playing a fairly pivotal role in the evolution of modern religious ideology, much to his own disappointment, and it is this part of the movie that provokes the most reflection.

I don't want to give too much more away than I already have, but this movie should be required viewing for pretty much any thinking person.

And it opens up some interesting lines of thought as far as the religious references go. I am an unapologetic atheist, as anyone who has stopped by here before is likely to already know. I just have such a hard time understanding why theists have to attribute more than there already is to the natural world. I look at the universe and marvel at its breadth, depth and grandeur and I see theists as looking at the same view and saying, 'Yeah so what else is there?' I can empathize with the need for an afterlife to settle up with the innate fear of death, but once you get past that, I guess I wonder why what is just isn't enough.

But I got thinking about one of the film's premises and got to wondering about this Jesus character. On some days, I think that there might once have been some dude named Jesus who lived 2000 years ago, made a few reasonably on point comments, and was subsequently gangbanged over and over again by revisionist history and a power hungry religious empire. On other days I have thought that maybe the guy is a total fiction, fabricated completely from the minds of that same self-serving organization that still seeks to own the nonexistent souls of its members through fear. How's that for a Jedi mind trick eh? Teach the masses that they have some unknowable, unseeable eternal spiritual avatar, and then teach them that the only way to avoid that avatar spending eternity in agony is by doing exactly what you tell them to. Uh huh.

But maybe this Jesus guy was a real guy, just some regular schmuck with the idea that things could change. What if, as the film suggests, he were around now to see how his unorthodox teachings had been used and bastardized over the generations between? Would he see the many different churches grown up in his name as anything other than abominations? Would he go mad, cry, seek to repair the damage? Or would he quietly hide out, hoping that someday we might drop all the religious nonsense and get back to his original message that people just be nice to each other?

It really was that good of a movie. Every thinking person should see it at least once. And if you’re a theist that refuses to allow rational thought in for fear that it might throw that antiquated belief system into the unrelenting glare of obvious truth, then you need to see it even more.

Labels: atheism, movies, philosophy, scifi

I can't call my favourite atheist an atheist anymore. And that's because he's asking me not to.

Sam Harris, one of my favourite authors on the subject of organized religion and the impact it has had on society has issued an open invitation to anyone who would call themselves an atheist to just stop labeling themselves, and he makes a very convincing argument why.

Basically it boils down to the idea that calling oneself an atheist sets up an argument where you have organized religion on one side and atheists on the other, and anyone who doesn't want to get involved abdicating completely. The argument, Sam feels, should be between organized religion and logical thought. And all this atheist organizing is only drawing attention to both sides instead of the the real issue that antiquated, outmoded beliefs about what happens to a person after they die have no place dictating policy in an enlightened society.

I myself am not what anyone would consider an 'organized atheist'. I have always felt that there wouldn't be a point in joining other people in declaring our non belief in god. After all, there aren't clubs for people who don't believe in Santa Claus. Okay, maybe there are. But that's beside the point. Bottom line is, I can see where letting go of labels completely might help. Instead of arguing with fundies about the place their various belief systems should have in society, we end up endlessly debating the same points of faith versus reason, and get nowhere. If we simply call out the tenets of each of the various faiths for the absolute bullshit that they are, and defend ourselves with the collective logical thought of the entire rest of the world instead of a few cranky atheists, maybe we'll finally get somewhere as a society.

In his argument, Sam also likens the social animal that is organized religion to racism, and that one day it will be like the scary, uncomfortable thing we did in the past of our collective memory that no one wants to admit to.

What a day that would be.

Here's a sample.

We will have won this war of ideas against religion when atheism is scarcely intelligible as a concept. We will simply find ourselves in a world in which people cease to praise one another for pretending to know things they do not know. This is certainly a future worth fighting for.

It may be the only future compatible with our long-term survival as a species. But the only path between now and then, that I can see, is for us to be rigorously honest in the present. It seems to me that intellectual honesty is now, and will always be, deeper and more durable, and more easily spread, than "atheism.

He makes a pretty good case for his point on all fronts. So I won't call him an atheist anymore. And I'll work on not calling myself an atheist, and just believe that someday there won't be a need to any longer.

Here's the link to Sam's original article.

And here's his response to those who missed the point the first time around.

Labels: atheism, rants

How to Believe in God in Six Easy Steps
(by Sam Harris)

1. First, you must want to believe in God.
2. Next, understand that believing in God in the absence of evidence is especially noble.
3. Then, realize that the human ability to believe in God in the absence of evidence might itself constitute evidence for the existence of God.
4. Now consider any need for further evidence (both in yourself and in others) to be a form of temptation, spiritually unhealthy, or a corruption of the intellect.
5. Refer to steps 2-4 as acts of “faith.”
6. Return to 2.

Full article here.

Labels: atheism

I really don't think there is an atheist alive who better expresses how insane it is that the bulk of humanity lets their beliefs about an afterlife dominate every single facet of their lives than Sam Harris.

Sam Harris' latest article God's Dupes further demonstrates exactly why I like this guy's writing so much.

Here's a snippet:

Every one of the world's "great" religions utterly trivializes the immensity and beauty of the cosmos. Books like the Bible and the Koran get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong. Every scientific domain — from cosmology to psychology to economics — has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture.

Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music.

Labels: atheism

One of our xmas traditions around my house is to watch one of our favourite xmas movies the night before the big day. This is in lieu of other things we could be doing to kill time instead. Going to church for example.

One of the ones we invariably watch at least once over the season is National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (which we watched last week). I came across a 30 second flash version of the movie and thought I'd share in the hopes that those who just don't have time to sit in front of the tv for 2 hours (because they're wasting time somewhere else, maybe in that aforementioned church) still get to have a few laughs with The Griswolds. And its done with bunnies, so you're pretty much laughing from the beginning.

Merry Xmas

Labels: atheism, everything else

I just read a thoughtful article about the dualism of trying to teach your children logical thinking as it pertains to one thing: religion (as an atheist, that's what I'll be doing), while lying your ass off to them about a similarly made up individual, namely that fat guy in the red suit.

Superwife is completely behind me on the religion thing, though she doesn't believe that religion is as dangerous as I do. Sam Harris would call her a 'weak atheist'. I am categorically a 'strong' atheist.

But there was some deal-making that had to be done when it came to the institution of xmas, and more importantly, whether to tell Trinity about Santa Claus. I vehemently opposed the idea, primarily because I want to lie to her about as little as possible over the course of her life. And I do not think telling her to believe in a fictional character who is omnipotent, all-knowing and can do some very interesting things with time and space is such a great idea. And that was before it had occurred to me that Santa's story reads a lot like another one which I will be very firm in placing with the other myths: That one about that kid from Bethlehem.

I had thought myself ok with the arrangement that Superwife and I had come to: That we would tell Trinity about Santa, but not make a bid deal about him. Make him more of a minor superhero than anything else. That he is not the guy in the mall (he's an impostor) and that he only gives okay presents. Like clothes. The present that Trin runs around the house calling The Supercoolestbestestpresentever would be from us.

I was okay with it, but now after reading this article comparing Santa to so many people's favourite imaginary friend, I'm not so sure.

I suppose the adage 'fight the fights you can win' applies here. And considering Superwife's love of all things secularly xmas, I doubt this one falls in that category. Here's a taste of the article, and look for the link to the whole thing after the jump:

But what concerns me almost as much as the blatant dishonesty about the Santa conspiracy is the way it fosters an uncritical acceptance of magic and miracles in very much the same way religion does. Skepticism is discouraged while faithfulness—believing without seeing—is the highest virtue.

Of course, I could just lighten the fuck up a bit, but that would be out of character.

Full article here.

Labels: atheism, trinity

I was sifting through the profuse number of blogs I currently subscribe to a few minutes ago (it really is a ridiculous amount), and I was delighted to see that one of my favs was linking back to me in response to one of my posts about The Flying Spaghetti Monster, that protein-rich deity that all of us pirates love to worship in favour of that lame-ass christian one that has always sounded more like Santa Claus than a believable deity.

Jen over at Spaghetti Harvest built her website around the ideology of this not-any-sillier-than-any-other-religious-idea and has been laughing about her inside joke seemingly ever since. And aside from laughing myself every time I go to her site, she keeps a blog that is very thoughtful, incisive and incredibly honest, with posts about her life, her business, and her ruminations on in-laws and what she would secretly like to do to them, if only she could get away with it.

Think Dooce with balls, and without all of that Mormon rhetoric.

But why did I enjoy her most recent post more than normal you ask?

Well, aside from the little thrill of seeing a peer taking an interest in something I wrote, she posted the as yet undiscovered by me 8 commandments of Pastafarianism. They are hilarious.

My favourite:

4. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go Fuck Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off the TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.

Have a look at them yourself here. Even if you are a fundie, (or maybe especially if), you should check it out, as they are very funny.

Labels: atheism

I seem to be having more frequent conversations of late about religion, sometimes in debate with a co-worker, sometimes with Superwife deciding the best course of action to explain what we believe to our daughter as she grows up.

But none of my debates get quite as eloquent as this one I came across tonight. In fact, most times they end up with me telling the faithful that there is a straight-line relationship between high intelligence and atheism. (And by contrast a similar relationship between low IQs and religious faith.)

Here's a snippet from Sam Harris' opening volley, the link to the full article follows:

As an atheist, I am angry that we live in a society in which the plain truth cannot be spoken without offending 90% of the population. The plain truth is this: There is no good reason to believe in a personal God; there is no good reason to believe that the Bible, the Koran, or any other book was dictated by an omniscient being; we do not, in any important sense, get our morality from religion; the Bible and the Koran are not, even remotely, the best sources of guidance we have for living in the 21st century; and the belief in God and in the divine provenance of scripture is getting a lot of people killed unnecessarily.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

And just for fun, here's Harris' response to the oft-heard argument that atheism is as equally unprovable as theism, courtesy of Bertrand Russell:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

When I make that argument I also like to quote the 'untestable' claim of Carl Sagan's garage dwelling invisible fire breathing dragon. But that's just me.

Check out the full article here.

Labels: atheism

The one good thing about living in a time when the forces of religious zealotry leave almost no room for intellectual thought to survive, let alone prosper, is the application of Newton's Third Law to human sociology: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

One major component of the reaction to the unending barrage of religious dogma that is splintering and destroying us is Richard Dawkins, whom I mentioned in a recent post about The Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just finished an article by Dawkins that any rationalist, atheist, humanist, or any other non-dogmatically-challenged-ist needs to read.

Look for the link after the jump.

Here's a sample, where Dawkins quotes Sam Harris:

by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ . . . Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency. Does Bush check the Rapture Index daily, as Reagan did his stars? We don't know, but would anyone be surprised?

'American Taliban' indeed.

And here's Dawkins' conclusion, for the very lazy. It ruins nothing for those who want to enjoy the full article:

We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin's principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.

Check out the full article here.

Labels: atheism

When I was around ten or eleven years old, I made a very conscious decision to have nothing more whatsoever to do with religious faith in general and organized religion in particular. I couldn't say for sure what finally prompted my decision, other than the realization that took years to finally sink in: that only one out of the myriad faiths out there could ever be the right one, and why did the one my Mother have to cram down my throat over and over have to be it?

I have been an atheist every day since.

I was baptized Anglican, but I've endured litanies in Lutheran, Missionary, Roman Catholic, and other flavours besides.

In fact, it was in all likelihood in spite of my Mother switching denominations like a hooker changes sex partners that exclamated my newly found enlightenment, a fact that causes her no small amount of discomfort, I am sure.

And ever since The Day I Woke Up and Stopped Blindly Believing Every Unsubstantiated Thing Other People Told Me, I have tried to learn as much as I can about other religions around the world in an attempt to understand why they exist, and what goals they serve. What it is about their particular brand of beliefs that brings people comfort and makes them think they are more correct (and therefore better) than everyone else? I have spent years in this pursuit and I have yet to come up with a satisfactory answer.

From my view in the existential cheap seats, all I see religion (and yes, that's ALL religions, though I pick largely on xians) doing is fragmenting the peoples of the world and giving them cause to go to war with one another.

I find it fascinating, as well as pants-shittingly terrifying that a person's belief about What Happens After Death informs everything else they do in their lives, as well as causes them to hate and fear and attack and murder others who don't happen to hold the same untestable beliefs about an afterlife that they do.

And this is where we get to The Flying Spaghetti Monster. The product of protest against so-called 'Intelligent Design' being taught in US classrooms, it is the deity of a completely fabricated religion, designed to spoof organized religions the world over.

In the script of life, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a MacGuffin, an arbitrary placeholder for a creator being that simply says a person's belief in (insert religious Creator-type here, be it God, Brahman, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Odin, etc) is no more plausible than an admittedly fictional monster made mostly of durum and meatballs. It shows to demonstrate just how ridiculous and arbitrary the religious beliefs that hold the vast portion of the world's population hostage really are. Wikipedia's great article outlines this parody religion better than I could.

So why did I bring this up? Other than to bring my deeply personal and strongly held convictions up in a public forum?

I just came across an article by a very public atheist, Richard Dawkins, in which he makes a very public case for the end of organized religion before it literally destroys humanity. Its a bit of a tease piece for a book of his that I will get to reading shortly.

I recently read another book along the very same lines by Sam Harris called The End of Faith, which pretty much calls for exactly the same end that Dawkins speaks of.

And I think that Dawkins and Harris may be right: It could be that the time for sitting on the fence and saying that its okay for other people to believe whatever they want has passed. That used to be my opinion, so long as no one was harmed by those opinions. But of course there has been and currently is great harm being done in the name of those beliefs. There has been more blood spilled in the name of religious 'truth' than for any other reason in the history of mankind. (See pretty much any conflict anywhere for proof of that last statement)

Here's the inflammatory interview with Dawkins that got me riled enough to post again about the worst thing to happen to humanity ever, and the pseudo-serious way we can elect to make fun of it: via The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Here's the official Flying Spaghetti Monster site.

And here's the new t-shirt I am waiting patiently for as of five minutes ago.

Labels: atheism

I came across this post on Better Living through Chemistry while blogsurfing for traffic on BE on my lunchbreak this morning.

After the hysterical laughter died down, I thought this would make an excellent recommended read. It's timely, what with the global shitstorm currently surrounding the release of the theatrical version of the Dan Brown book, The DaVinci Code.

And it finally answers the question that all christian fundies must eventually ask:

"If Adam and Eve only had sons, who exactly were their daughters-in-law?"

And the image of Abel taking a dirtnap is the piece de resistance of the whole thing.

Labels: atheism

The following poem almost exactly sums up my experiences with religion and consequent personal belief system. The details may differ, but the sentiment is the same. The last stanza is almost verbatim what I tell people when/if they ask why I am an atheist, but without the iambic pentameter.

I came across the poem in a great thread about religion vs atheism on The Atheist Mama

I Am An Atheist
- Michelle Rhea


It is not for a lack of desire,
for who would not want an Omnipotent Being
looking out for one's welfare,
protecting one's loves?

It is not for a streak of rebellion,
for I live my life no differently
than most who believe in God.

It is not for disappointment
in prayers unanswered,
for my life is good.
Some call it "blessed".

It is not due to misunderstanding,
for once I believed as they do,
bible at my bed, read through
dark nights of doubt,
praises to God in the morning.

It is not due to anger at clergy,
nor encountering the wrong church
or hypocrite laity,
for I've known many wonderful believers.

It is not hatred, fear, pride,
selfishness, or lack of education;
It is not bigotry, persecution, or immorality
that prevents me from believing.

I am an atheist,
not believing in the gods of today
for the same reason believers
disbelieve
in the gods of yesterday.

Labels: atheism

An online friend of mine has a post and a corresponding comment thread going on religious faith.

As a fan of the late great Dr. Carl Sagan's work, I always appreciate it when someone quotes him to shine the light of scientific reality on religious dogma.

Don't waste anymore time here. Check out the article here.

Labels: atheism, rants

So it turns out that rebuilding my blog didn't take that long after all.

All of my old posts have been plugged back in, and thanks to the new SQL database's backup capabilities, this latest catastrophe shouldn't repeat itself.

But it felt good to go through my old entries as I rebuilt the site, seeing how my writing style has evolved (slowly), browsing through some of my more interesting posts. And some that don't hold up as being interesting at all.

But that's me, warts and all.

Speaking of blogging, I came across a really good faux Tom Cruise blog a few minutes ago, nicely coinciding with a discussion my wife, sister and I had earlier about the lunacies that are both Scientology and that afforementioned actor.

The laughing starts here.

Labels: atheism, tech

I came across a great entry on another blog about how Hell would work a few minutes ago. It was a bonus question on a chemistry mid-term.

For those of you religious types out there (and any religion will do, so unfortunately, that's most of you), you're likely to not find this funny.

So this is for everyone else:

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat), or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.

With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.

The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is, therefore, extinct... leaving only Heaven --- thereby proving the existence of a divine being --- which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting, "Oh my God!""

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"

Labels: atheism

I mean, can I call it or what? The pope is actually dead!

I know, I sound a little like the boy who cried wolf (or yippee in this case), but the old guy bought the farm just this afternoon.

I only found out because a friend who came down with a bad case of Nascar Interuptus called to tell me about it when the network he was watching pre-empted the race for a shot of some wailing catholics getting the bad news.

Superwife and I were purposely not watching network tv, because we were sick of hearing about how sick the old guy was. On every network channel on cable. If you were anywhere near a tv today, you know how much worse that got.

Anyway, I'm giving this guy way too much exposure here, so I'll stop.

But I just wanted it on record that I called the whole thing. And that's why I bought a lottery ticket when I got the impulse to do so. Figured if that precognitive ability that my Mom always told me ran in the family (I shit you not) finally kicked in, maybe it might be time to go for the big score.

I'll keep you posted on that one.

Labels: atheism

Oh, that's Giusseppe. My bad.

Well then I guess the April Fool's joke is on you.

But it looks like the old guy is finally on his way out. And man oh man, are the holies coming out in droves to show their support now. Apparently, the Pope's ill health is the only item newsworthy enough to make the noon, the six and the eleven o'clock editions. Guess not much else happened today. Anywhere.

Man, as I write this, I just heard 'We'll have the latest on a special weekend edition tomorrow, starting at 7 o'clock.' Whatever.

Superwife put it very succinctly today. She has a very good habit of cutting through all the bullshit and getting right to the point. She asked me since Catholics in particular and Christians in general think that they get to go to heaven when they die, why exactly is it such a bad thing when the big guy decides its time to call his star quarterback into retirement?

Ok, the football analogy was mine, but the ruminations on death were hers. And she's right on the money.

If this guy is the head honcho's main man as Catholics believe, then isn't it a good thing that he's getting rewarded for a life of praying, not enjoying any of life's joys to excess, and completely staying away from the only thing that's really any fun - sex?

This is the part where I opt to shy away from the obligatory altar boy crack.

But this whole circus that's starting just serves as another reminder, as if I needed one, of how far away we are from living in a society free of religious dogma everywhere you turn.

Anyone know of a nice quiet island that only atheists are allowed on? If you find one, don't worry about the ticket price, just sign the three of us up. One for me, one for Superwife and one for the baby coming that I can only hope has the freedom to think whatever the hell he/she wants without being constantly brainwashed by christian fundamentalism.

And that is all I have to say about that. For tonight.

Labels: atheism

I saw a crazy news clip tonight whilst trying to massage my pregnant wife's calves in a rather inspired attempt to lull those same calves (and the rest of her) to sleep.

Leg cramps now.

Man, nothing to make a guy feel thankful that he's a guy than to watch a woman going through pregnancy every day. End result is great for me, but holy shit what a drag for my wife. Pregnancy apparently agrees with her though; she looks awesome and because of that, she's at least smiling through most of it. I'm starting to think she actually really likes being pregnant.

Oh crap.

Does she like it too much perhaps?

I'm getting worried that the whole 'Let's just have one baby ever' agreement we had just went out the fucking window.

What was I on?

Oh yeah, the news.

So the news clip in question was about a find (didn't catch where) of a large leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus Rex. Not that strange you say? They've been digging up bones of this guy for years?

Well, this particular bone from an animal who is believed to have been walking around and playing bully over 70 million years ago had to be split in half for transport, and what was found inside made me turn the news up. Apparently, there is a small amount of organic material left inside the fossil.

I shit you not.

Scientists believe it likely that they will be able to process a complete DNA profile of the animal from this sample. Now, the last thing I want to do is suggest that this dinosaur has been in the ground for only the 7000 or so years that the Creationists will claim the Earth's age to be. But, I mean how the fuck can DNA be preserved for 70 million years? Seriously. How is that even possible?

And maybe I'm ignorant of the processes mother earth is involved in whilst fossilizing a bone (and quite frankly, I am), but that just doesn't seem right to me. So if it's not, what then? Throw the whole scientific community on its ass and go back to the church telling us the earth is flat?

Think I'm over-reacting? Ok, maybe a little. But, this could really be a coup for the Thumpers of the world. They can say that if we were wrong about something as 'big' as the dinosaurs, what else have we been wrong about? I say we because I'm a rational human being and have happily (maybe a little militantly) rejected any kind of spiritual answer to our creation and subsequent omnipotent observation and occasional interference, and instead embraced a scientific stance.

Not that I'm saying that it isn't at least possible that some entity or energy or whatever had something to do with the creation of the universe, or the big bang or whatever. I can't know that for sure. No one can. What I'm saying is that if there was something before the universe existed, then perhaps that something did create the universe. But I think that any assistance we received in development ended with that big bang. I think we've been on our own ever since. I know, sounds agnostic, but believe me I am not. I am an atheist in every sense, but I'm just allowing that I could be wrong. Just like I wish that Christians could admit that they could be wrong. Just could be. And then when they admit that they could be wrong, I could tell them that once they understand why they do not believe in other religion's gods, they'll understand why I don't believe in theirs.

Ha.

Half the time I subscribe to the Minbari philosophy that because we are all made up of the same basic elements (people, animals, this planet, this star system, this cosmos) each of us may be in a very small way a tiny part of the universe that has divided in an effort to explain itself. Sounds cool anyway.

Of course, the other half of the time I think it's very likely that we're all in some kind of Matrix-ian virtual environment and maybe nothing we know is real at all. Maybe not even ourselves. Read 'Are We Living in The Matrix' by Nick Bostrom in a book called 'Taking the Red Pill' if you get the chance. He gives a very convincing argument that we are in fact living in a simulation. I just took a few minutes out of blogging to re-read it. What a mind fucker.

But maybe I'm just ranting about some old bones.

Maybe, if given the chance, Arthur Dent would just tell me that when the Magratheans were putting the skeletons in the earth's crust just to fuck with us, they decided to throw in some DNA just to up the ante.

Or, maybe I should stop watching the news when I'm high.

Either way, I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this one.

Labels: atheism, philosophy