Bill Maher On Rachel Maddow

Bill talks about Mormonism and how it stacks up to the other fantasies called religions.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Ledge

This is a new movie coming out that actually has an atheist as the good guy. From one of my favorite blogs, Atheist Revolution:

When was the last time you saw an atheist character depicted positively in a feature film? Yeah, it has been awhile for me too.

Atheist characters have been included in many films, but aside from documentaries, we tend to be depicted either as villains or as overcoming our skepticism and embracing some for of superstition. This latter role has become so overused in horror films that I feel like I can spot it a mile away. Wouldn't it be nice to have a feature film with an atheist main character who got to remain an atheist and didn't have to be a villain?

It sounds like we may finally have such a film, coming in the form of The Ledge. This upcoming film from Matthew Chapman stars Liv Tyler, Patrick Wilson, Charlie Hunnam, and Terrence Howard. It has been nominated for Best U.S. Drama at Sundance, and it could help to launch atheism into public awareness if it does well.

Follow the link to the blog because he has a trailer for the movie there. It looks like it might be pretty good.

New Logo

I got this off of Facebook but really like it, not for regular use but to look at once and laugh a bit.

Steve Martin: Atheists Don't Have No Songs

The title really says it all.

Crazy People

I found this cartoon at The Godless Liberal Social Society on Facebook and had to repost it here. This probably explains why I'm an atheist better than many pages of writing.

A Great Caption

One of my regular blogs that I follow is Atheist Revolution. Yesterday he had a picture on his site that was great, the best part being the caption. Go here to read it. Made me laugh out loud.

Top Ten Creationist Arguments

Found this great video on YouTube thanks to Rick on Atheist Nexus. I thought it was an especially good one:

Christian Billboard

One blog I frequent is The Gaytheist Agenda. the most recent post has me laughing and laughing. Go look at it first them come back here:

“Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow”.

What a weird billboard to put up. It makes me start fantasizing about God's sex life. Hey, he ought to be able to do all kinds of amazing stuff, I wonder if he has an infinite penis?

Atheist Revolution

This is a blog I read regularly but haven't linked to it in a long time but I had to share this post. It's very short and very funny, the name kind of sets the mood:
Religion Should Be Like Your Genitals

Imaginary Man In Sky

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The Onion clearly has at least one atheist working over there. Unfortunately it was very funny but was way too true to be anything but sad:

Even more incomprehensible, sources said, is that hundreds of millions of Americans openly worship the all-knowing invisible man—who apparently observes the world's events from atop his perch in outer space—without fear of mockery, shame, or violent government reprisal.

Ouch - WAY too true indeed.

My Favorite Pharyngula Post

Image via Wikipedia

I'm a regular reader of Pharyngula because PZ Myers is a fun writer. One of those guys who makes a story or idea interesting because he is almost always writing with a sharp, sarcastic wit - a lot like me! Also, I almost always agree with him. But he has written his best post so far, and that is on the subject matter not the style of writing: He compares the incompatability of science and religion! This is the kind of thing I've been ranting about for years, but who reads me?

But in a debate about the compatibility of science and religion, we have to put the argument in an appropriate context and define a specific shared purpose for both science and religion — it's the only legitimate ground for discussion. In this case, what we're trying to do is address big questions (remember, the Templeton Foundation says they're all about those "big questions") about the nature of the universe, about our history, about how we function, and then we encounter a conflict: religion keeps giving us different answers. Very different answers. They can't all be right, and since no two religions give the same answers, but since science can generally converge on similar and consistent answers, I know which one is right. And that makes religion simply wrong.

Ah, that is so satisfying to see someone with READERS say "religion is simply wrong". Stephen Jay Gould tried to be nice to religion and called it nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA). Essentially trying to say that science and religion operated in very different realms and therefore could not be judged the same way. That science was about reality while religion was philosophy. This would be fine if religion stayed over in it's designated territory but it never, ever has, Christianity has even attempted to do science using the bible, which is how we get a 6,000 year old Earth. Gould's idea is so obviously wrong I always thought it was just a desperate attempt to placate the theists. PZ attacks the different methods:

We have to look at what they do to see why. In order to probe the nature of the universe around us, science is a process, a body of tools, that has a long history of success in giving us robust, consistent answers. We use observation, experiment, critical analysis, and repeated reevaluation and confirmation of events in the natural world. It works. We use frequent internal cross-checking of results to get an answer, and we never entirely trust our answers, so we keep pushing harder at them. We also evaluate our success by whether the end results work: it's how we end up with lasers and microwave ovens, and antibiotics and cancer therapies.

To put it simply, science is self-correcting. There are a number of excellent methodologies (which PZ outlines briefly above) that are employed in the self-correcting process. Over time various hypothesizes converge in the closest thing we humans have to truth. I've often said this is the difference between science and religion; over time science converges from splinters to solidity, while religion is the opposite, it simply keeps splintering more and more. Look at all the sects of any one religion, this is because all that is needed in religion is a charismatic leader and you have a whole new set of answers and there is no way at all to check anyone's answers.

Religion, on the other hand, uses a different body of techniques to explain the nature of the universe. It uses tradition and dogma and authority and revelation, and a detailed legalistic analysis of source texts, to dictate what the nature of reality should be. It's always wrong, from an empirical perspective, although I do have to credit theologians with some of the most amazingly intricate logical exercises as they try to justify their conclusions. The end result of all of this kind of clever wankery, though, is that some people say the world is 6000 years old, that it was inundated with a global flood 4000 years ago, and other people say something completely different, and there is no way within the body of theology to resolve which answers are right.

"Religion uses a different body of techniques" - oh the depth of meaning over that one. Their methodologies are crap and never yeild any accurate answers about the nature of reality. They end up with ridiculous conclusions, the Earth being 6,000 years old is a favorite to look at because it is SO absurd and so easily demolished. But the hard core fundies can't say that their religion is wrong and science is right so they start making up things to make it seem like science is crap, the end result of this is an American society that is frightfully ignorant of even the basic scientific answers about the world. Or about the basics on how science finds answers.

I love that PZ talked about this in detail - and I highly recommend following the link and reading the entire posting - because he has a lot of readers and this message will reach many people. Unfortunately he is probably preaching to the choir for the most part, but I'm sure there is a fair number sitting on the fence, trying to make up their minds. PZ gives them some tools to work with for judging things.

If religion stayed in it's own territory along the lines of Gould's NOMA I would have no complaints about it. But when it ventures into sciences realm it needs to be prepare to defend itself.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Skepchick: Did the Boston Globe Trade Science for Religion? (bostonist.com)
• Dawkins and the culture of contempt (guardian.co.uk)
• Religion and Evolution (prep4md.blogspot.com)
• Let's Talk About God (samharris.org)

Religion 101: Final Exam

Someone has come up with a pretty good religious test, here's a sample:

5- You are the incarnated Son of the all-powerful and all-loving Creator of the universe. What would be a good way to demonstrate your compassion and power?

1. Cure cancer forever
2. Cause all the earth's deserts to bloom with food crops
3. Unite the world with a common language and an end to poverty
4. Conjure up a jug of wine and follow it up by walking on water


6-Since we can never "know" whether or not a God exists - it is fundamentally a matter of "faith" - it's best to be a believer since you have nothing to lose, but everything to lose if your

Image via Wikipedia

disbelief is incorrect. Keeping in mind that the fate of your soul depends on the right choice, in which God should you place your belief? For extra credit, include a brief essay justifying your choice, along with the reasons why you reject the other three.

1. Zeus
2. Quetzalcoatl
3. Vishnu
4. The Holy Trinity


(*Note: Choice D assumes you were born around 400 A.D. or later, after the invention of the Trinity)

7-You are the Creator of the universe. Your chosen people are a tribe of nomadic herdsmen, presently in bondage on one of the millions of your planets. Their ruler is being quite obstinate. Keeping in mind that you possess not only infinite power but also infinite love, your best course of action would be to:

1. Cause the ruler to drop dead of a heart attack
2. Cause the ruler to fall off a cliff
3. Visit the ruler in a dream and persuade him to let your people go
4. Slaughter a great number of innocent babies who had nothing to do with the ruler's policies

My quess would be that the writer of this is an atheist, heh heh. Check out the rest of the exam via the link.

Atheist Advetising

Atheist ads are being put on buses all over the place - but not in Australia:

My second-best laugh recently was at the news that Australia's largest outdoor advertising agency, APN Outdoor, rejected an attempt by the Atheist Foundation of Australia to put slogans on buses.

British atheists have 800 buses around Ol' Blighty emblazoned with: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." So the Little Aussie Atheists decided to do their bit for the cause. The cause being freedom of speech, rational thought, intelligent discussion and consciousness-raising. In the same way religious groups try to spread the good news to help ease people's existential pain, so too are the atheists. One man's good news is another man's harmful propaganda defacing public spaces.

This was written by Catherine Deveny down under.

Aren't we a multicultural, multifaith country that prides itself on diversity and tolerance? So APN, what gives?

APN has cracked open a can of "No Comment" on this one. As you would, considering Spain and Canada are all running the British slogan, America's going with "Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness' sake" and Italy, home of The Grand Poobah of The Roman Catholics, is going with, "The bad news is God doesn't exist. The good news is we don't need him." Ireland will run something similar.

It’s funny but I never pictured Australia as a particularly religious place. I remember when Bill Clinton was having all of his problems with Monica Lewinsky a famous quote from an anonymous Australian was making the rounds: “I’m glad they got all the Puritans and we got the convicts.” So why all this hooha over a bus ad?

The number of churchgoers in Australia is about 9% and dwindling, the diversity of spiritual belief is flourishing and atheism is going off like a frog in a sock.

Apparently they aren’t very religious, so what’s the deal? The ad company, APN Outdoor is issuing no comment.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Atheist Bus Adverts- Has Australia lost its sense of humor? (seantheblogonaut.com)
• Atheist bus: 'Sleep in on Sunday morning' adverts banned (telegraph.co.uk)

Rationally Speaking

I’m an occasional reader of Rationally Speaking, a blog by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci. He and Richard Dawkins are my favorite scientists/atheists. In this post he publishes an argument with Christian evolutionist Ken Miller. He is an evolutionary scientist and has said that it is not incompatible with evolution. They mostly agree and the argument is mostly picking of nits, but I like that kind of stuff.

I posted a comment that I thought deserved it’s own blog post, and I couldn’t resist expanding on it:
__________________________

Image via Wikipedia

I have long been annoyed that when an atheist suggests that an omni-benevolent god could not have created this world filled with the tremendous suffering of humans and animals, nature red in tooth and claw, they claim that God would then have to make a boring world where nothing can change and nothing can be achieved and free will does not exist.

There are 2 major flaws with this argument, the first is - isn't that exactly what Heaven is supposed to be? Why is Heaven so desirable for after we die but would be a terrible thing to have in this world, here and now?

The second is that there are many degrees in between this world and one with no suffering at all. Imagine a world with no illness, where humans healed as quickly as Wolverine, no earthquakes either. Humans would still be capable of good and evil, cowardice and courage, and the seeking and creation of beauty and science. It would just eliminate the very worst things that can happen in life.

And an all powerful god could easily create such a universe, or any one of an infinite number of such universes that are better than this one, including ones that no human mind could ever think of.

The answer is this world could only come from a god who was either not all powerful or else not all loving. Or, if this really was the best he could do then Heaven has to be just like this.

Image via Wikipedia

The obvious answer, of course, is that this universe appears exactly the way one that grew on it’s own through cause and effect would look, not one that is created. My favorite analogy is to compare a forest untouched by man and a Zen garden. It’s incredibly clear which one has had careful maintenance and which one grew wild.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Dawkins on the Truth of Evolution (littlegreenfootballs.com)

Texas Teacher suspended for being "Liberal" and an "atheist"

Image via Wikipedia

This is a blog written by Brad Watkins about Richard Mullens a school teacher in Brookeland Tx. I only visited Texas once, 20 years ago I managed to make a business trip into Austin. I loved Austin and the people I met and loved the food, as a snooty Southern Californian I expected to meet only cowboy hicks and instead was pleasantly surprised. I’ve never been back because it was mid August and it was in the 90’s, both the temperature and the humidity.

But, apparently, there are places in Texas that will fit my stereotypes perfectly:

Mullens has been the victim of a smear campaign and a slew of unethical practices, based solely on his religious and political beliefs. I have received numerous calls today from area parents, and concerned local residents who feel that Mr. Mullens is a good teacher, who has encouraged and inspired his students to think critically, and independently and is innocent of all charges, both spoken and written. In fact the administration of Brookeland High School made attempts to urge students to sign a list of alleged chargers against Mr. Mullens of which over 100 students out of 103 refused to sign.The students attempted to present to the Board of education a petition in support of Mr. Mullens and refuting any charges of inappropriate language made against him. The Principal of Brookeland High School, not only refused to take this petition to the board but forbade the students from such actions. Mr. Mullins is being railroaded by a School board of which all of those who support his removal are members of the same church.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Texas moves closer to new science standards (msnbc.msn.com)
• Texas Governor Perry Reappoints Creationist As Head of Education (littlegreenfootballs.com)

Obama and Non-believer

In his inauguration speech Obama mentioned all of America:

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers.

I wrote about this in an earlier post. Many of us atheists were quite pleased that we would be included as Americans, we usually aren't.
However, there are still a lot of people who think we aren't part of America: Non-believers

Earlier this week, Jackson was a guest on the popular conservative Christian radio show 'Janet Parshall's America,' where a succession of callers, many of whom identified themselves as African-American, said they shared the concern, and were perplexed and put off by the president’s shout-out to nonbelievers.

Gee, what a terrible thing for Obama to acknowledge that we exist and are actually citizens. I wonder what Rev. Jackson wants to do, round us all up and put us in ghettos? Maybe just shot on sight? Fortunately, in a poll on the same site 73% say they weren't offended by Obama's remarks.

Everyone seems to be having a problem with Obama's desire to include everyone in his America. Including atheists is going too far for some. Did they not understand what Obama meant or did they think he was just kidding?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Non-Believers Are Americans, Too
• Jean Lipman-Blumen: Four Reasons Why Obama is the Connective Leader for a New Era

Atheist Bigotry

This is something that really upsets vjack over at Atheist Revolution:

- Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) launched a bigoted tirade against atheist activist Rob Sherman, telling him that it was dangerous for children to even know of the existence of atheism. Despite the public nature of her outburst (during the General Assembly), some media attention, and calls for her resignation, Rep. Davis faced no consequences. She merely delivered the sort of non-apologetic apology to Sherman that we have become used to seeing from bigots and resumed business as usual. Calls for a pubic apology were ignored.
- Christian schools were given free reign to discriminate against students suspected of being lesbians. In fact, it was deemed acceptable for such schools to remove students at will for "immoral or scandalous behavior that contradicts Christian values."
- Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina) utilized blatant anti-atheist bigotry during her campaign against opponent Kay Hagan. Although Dole was ultimately defeated, the mainstream media largely ignored the bigoted nature of her strategy of painting Hagan as an atheist. In short, the whole debacle provided other politicians with little reason not to make anti-atheist bigotry a campaign strategy.
- California passed Proposition 8, rolling back previously granted civil rights to GLBT residents. They were able to do this because of a highly organized and well-funded effort by Christian extremist communities. Once again, media coverage largely ignored the religiously-motivated bigotry.

I made a comment but it ended up being long enough and good enough I wanted to turn it into my own blog post:
Don't get discouraged, vjack. Look at the reactions to the things you mentioned. Monique Davis was thoroughly condemned by everyone, which means her bigotry was clear and made even Christians uncomfortable. The Christian school thing I hadn't heard of so can't comment but with Elizabeth Dole the key point is that she lost. In a southern, conservative state her attack on atheism went completely unheeded.

The worst of them is Prop 8 here in California. That hits me personally since I live here and voted against it. But after all the demonstrations by gays who weren't going to take it any more someone did another survey and found that 8% of those who voted for Prop 8 would now vote differently, which is more than enough to change things if the vote were held today.

The ads from the Mormons were confusing and the Prop itself was confusing, I think a lot of people didn't truly understand what they were voting for. Many thought it was about protecting children and didn't even know it was about gay marriage. And I have not heard anyone on TV come down in favor of the Mormons actions in spending $20 million to support Prop 8. I think a lot of people, even those not willing to support gay marriage, were shocked at the level of bigotry that represented and the unabashed mixing of church and state. And there are now a lot of left wing TV and radio people who all made negative comments about the passing of Prop 8. Used to be only a right wing voice was heard across the airwaves, but that has changed, thanks to Keith Olbermann and Air America.

So it hasn't been all negative, change takes time but I see a change happening in the zeitgeist.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Liddy Dole's "'Godless Americans" ad is blowing up in her face"
• Atheist bus: 'Sleep in on Sunday morning' adverts banned

Obama Mentions Non-believers

In his inauguration speech yesterday Obama mentioned us:

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers.Image via Wikipedia

Not a big mention but I did point it out when I reviewed his speech. I liked it but didn't think it was any big deal. IsThatLatin over on Wrong In Their Mind Tanks has a very different take on it:

Obama listed the big religions, and ones emerging, in our country, and then, after the briefest of pauses, he added us. I prefer not to read that pause as a hesitation. That pause seemed added so as to prepare the nation for what he was about to add--that he knew it was the first time, that it meant a lot. To my ear, it read like poety--not in some deep, sentimental way, but in it's construct. We were at the end, and maybe some cynics would prefer we were at the start, or mixed in the middle. But that pause, and that final word--"non-believers"--acted as punctuation. To my ear, that word became bigger and louder than the others. Maybe Muslims and Hindus feel the same way, but, as polls show, America hates us most.

I'm not really sure it's that big a deal but I got a real kick out of how excited she was over it, had me smiling for over an hour. And that is something that is always good for me these days.

Now, maybe she will pop over here and explain the name of her blog.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Non-Believers Are Americans, Too
• Barack Obama greeted with hatred and quiet hope in Iran
• Obama's soundbyte failure

Jesus and Mo

Here is another great God cartoon that I also found out about on Pharyngula. Unfortunately, I can't find a name for the cartoonist so I can give him credit, but go ahead and check out his site for yourself and see if you do any better.

God Cartoon

I love this cartoon. I've written long paragraphs and pages using these same arguments but cartoonist Matt Bors says it even better in four little panels. Check out his web site for more cartoons, as well as his blog and portfolio, all good stuff. I'm an artist and I should know.

And a special thanks to PZ Myers for having this cartoon on his site which let me know about Matt.