#atheism Twatheisms

April 13, 2011 1 Comment

#Atheism Twatheism is a collection of the best tweets tagged #atheism from that day or so. If you’d like to see your tweets included, you can get my direct attention by using the hash tag, #ITAS.

 

Filed under #Atheism Twatheisms, atheism, religion, science Tagged with , , , , , ,

Visiting the Creation Museum

April 10, 2011 Leave a comment

Last summer I went with a couple friends to see anti-science at it’s worst. I feel bad about giving them $20, but it was on our way back from Nashville so we couldn’t resist. I never got around to posting the photos, so here they are now. I also took audio and some video that I will hopefully put together soon.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Filed under religion, science Tagged with , , ,

April’s Fools: Tweligionists

April 2, 2011 1 Comment

Yesterday was April Fool’s Day, when many religious folk  like to regurgitate Psalms 14:1 and 53:1, and call it “Atheists Day.” I decided to post a couple with my own commentary. Feel free to tweet back at them right from here.

No shit it’s not a coincidence, you just made it up.

Your pastor sounds like a real hoot! ROFLCOPTER

I feel like you don’t understand the joke.

RT @NebraskaAtheist: Several FB friends posting “April Fool’s – Atheist Holiday!” Yeah, you drink a cosmic Jewish zombie’s blood every week..and WE’RE the fools. #ChewOnJesus

This one I actually replied to, saying something like “I’ve been driving with a McCain/Palin sticker for 3 years. Yours is more embarrassing.” He replied by linking me to Ray Comfort.

 

There has been discussion about whether we should embrace April 1st or not. Sure, why not? You certainly gotta love the irony. @GodlessAtheist gets the last laugh:

Filed under atheism, religion Tagged with , , , , , , ,

FU Friday: Newt Gingrich

March 31, 2011 Leave a comment

Today’s FU Friday comes on a Thursday—deal with it.

Former House Speaker and Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has been saying some awful and just plain strange things about non-Christians lately. Here is John Stewart’s take:

In case you’re outside the U.S. and can’t watch the video, here’s what Newt said:

I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9.  I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.

A week or so before expressing his worries about atheist jihadists, Newt was already barking at the same tree. He conducted an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network to speak about his past indiscretions, the coming presidential race and the threat to “Judeo-Christian society.”

I’m pretty sure you can all see that video. If not, let me know.

I’m not sure why he seems hell bent on associating atheists with Islam. I’m pretty sure the two groups have as much contempt for each other as they do for Christianity. Yet he wants to include Jews in his club with the meaningless term, “Judeo-Christian.”

Let’s be honest here, Newt. If your contention is that America has a “Judeo-Christian civilization” because it was founded that way, you’d be wrong, but you’d also have to drop the “Judeo”; I don’t think there were a whole lot of Jewish founders and, more importantly, our founding documents don’t say anything about Judaism (or Christianity for that matter).

If your contention is that Jews and Christians make up a majority of Americans, fine, but you’re forgetting about the non-religious who make up more than 10% of the population compared with the minuscule 1.7% Jewish, according to Pew Forum statistics.

Or perhaps you include Jews because they have similar values—they share one of your holy books and worship the same god. Well guess what, Newt—those Muslims you hate so much share with you two books and a god!

Bottom line is you can say, “Deio-Christian,” “Atheo-Christian,” or my personal favorite, “Judeo-Christo-Islamic,” and still make some sort of sense, but not, “Judeo-Christian.”

Filed under atheism, FU Friday, politics, religion Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Confession

March 28, 2011 Leave a comment

Last week I was invited onto Thinking Unenslaved, a live podcast hosted by Synthaetica. We had some good discussion. One of my blog posts we discussed as about House MD, which led to a conversation about atheist characters (or lack thereof) on television. Now we have one more.

Kiefer Sutherland’s The Confession is a 10 episode web series, the first three of which debuted today, exclusively on Hulu. Each five-minute webisode stars Sutherland as a hitman relaying his stories to a Catholic preist, portrayed by John Hurt.

Sutherland’s character, listed only as “The Confessor” on IMDB in the credits, expresses an atheistic or agnostic view point in the first webisode. He goes on to paint himself as a sociopath seeking to understand good and evil, and forces the preist to help him through philosophical and theological discussion.

Now, I certainly don’t like that it reinforces the misconception that atheists lack moral integrity, but that’s more in the eye of the beholder. Someone with that belief will see a cause and effect relationship between his behavior an lack of faith. Someone like me will understand that he behaves badly because he lacks empathy—he could just as easily be a Catholic or Muslim sociopath. Though, it would be nice to get an atheist character someday that isn’t narcissistic, malevolent, or a social outcast.

That being said, I find The Confession to be very entertaining. The Confessor can be thought of as the anti-Jack Bauer. It takes a certain type of person to be able to torture and kill people, whether it be for the greater good or for a paycheck. Bauer and the Confessor both have the necessary traits to do similar jobs on opposite sides of the law. They differ completely in terms of empathy and values—Bauer cares deeply for those around him and is ashamed of some things he’s done to protect them, while the Confessor feels no guilt, no remorse—yet they use they same means to achieve their very different goals.

Well, that’s my take. You can watch the first three chapters right here if you’d like:

Filed under atheism, fun stuff, religion Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

‘A’ Week: Getting Out

March 26, 2011 Leave a comment

As ‘A’ Week 2011 comes to a close, I thought this would be a good time to stop procrastinating. I’ve been and out atheist for over a decade now, though I wasn’t always as “out” as I am today. So I decided this year I should get out of something other than the closet—the Mormon church.

For many years I didn’t give it much thought, but in recent years I’ve decided I don’t want my name associated with Mormonism any longer—even if it is nothing more than a procedural matter from my perspective.

I spent some time today drafting my letter of resignation, which the LDS Church requires before name removal. Parts of my letter were taken from samples at ExMormon.org and MormonResignation.com with more than a little of my own input. Here is the full text of my letter, which you can feel free to use as a template if you’d like:

[YOUR FULL NAME]

Membership Record No.: [xxx-xxx-xxxx]

DOB: [YOUR DATE OF BIRTH]

Date of baptism: [YOUR DATE OF LDS BAPTISM]

[CURRENT ADDRESS]

[TODAY'S DATE]

Member Records Division, LDS Church

50 E North Temple Rm 1372

SLC UT 84150-5310

This letter is my formal resignation from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it is effective immediately. I hereby withdraw my consent to being treated as a member and I withdraw my consent to being subject to church rules, policies, beliefs, and “discipline.” As I am no longer a member, please remove the name “[YOUR FULL NAME]” ([MEMBERSHIP RECORD NUMBER]; [DOB]; [DATE OF BAPTISM]) from the records of the LDS Church immediately.

I understand fully the “consequences” of name removal as outlined in Handbook 1: “it cancels the effects of baptism and confirmation, withdraws the priesthood held by a male member, and revokes temple blessings … a person can be readmitted to the Church by baptism and confirmation only after a thorough interview.” (6.14, 2010). I will not be dissuaded and demand that my name be removed immediately, without announcement, and with the 30-day waiting period waived, as required by section 6.14 of Handbook 1.

I find the bulk of theistic doctrine and teachings, including LDS, to be morally repugnant and intellectually bankrupt. I no longer wish to be associated with the LDS Church or any other religion for these and other reasons.

Furthermore, I object to having ever been considered a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on the grounds that membership forced upon me as a child at the age of eight—well before a person is able to competently make decisions of this nature and well before the legal age of adulthood (18) in the U.S. This letter is written out of necessity due to the unfortunate procedures and policies set forth by the LDS Church, therefore I expect this matter to be handled promptly, with respect and with full confidentiality. This matter is not to be discussed with members of my family, friends, or anyone inside or outside the LDS Church who is not crucial to the process of name removal.

Sincerely,

[NAME SIGNED]

[NAME PRINTED]

You’d probably fine with only name and DOB, but the member number and date of baptism might help avoid hiccups if you have that info.

Also, thanks to some message board, I was able to download a pdf of the church’s updated handbook here (password: martin).

Now I’m off to mail this thing!

Filed under atheism, my life, religion Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Dr. Jihad

March 7, 2011 Leave a comment

So I’m sitting here at the doctor’s office waiting to find out if I have the flu, bronchitis, whooping cough, or if I’m just a baby with a cold (probably the latter). My doctor is some sort of Middle Eastern, as are many patients. I haven’t quite been able to pin down a nationality, but I normally pass the time by reading a newspaper that is half English half Arabic. Besides, my knowledge of that region’s nations, ethnicities, races, and religions is confused at best.
It normally doesn’t take much effort to avoid seeing all these patients as terrorists when they are mostly families with kids and just generally non-threatning.
But today is a challenge. I was just on Twitter completely ignoring the Arabic conversations going on around me, whe a certain word jumped out and slapped me in the face–”jihad.”
Perhaps I misheard, and the context is completely unknown to me anyway, but it was enough to freak me out a bit.
Does that make me some kind of -ist?
Anyway, I thought I would make my first mobile post.

Filed under religion Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

A Logical Proof of God

February 27, 2011 2 Comments

Much has been said and written concerning the existence of God. Theist and atheist alike have spent countless hours debating this topic, desperately attempting to prove their case with enough solid evidence to convince the other, and the world. I believe that lost in the crossfire is a simple answer that will once and for all prove the existence of God.

Before I elaborate, it is important to define the word “God” as it will be used in this essay. I do not speak just of the existence of any higher being. Three key characteristics make up God:

Omnipotence—God is all-powerful

Omniscience—God is all-knowing

Omnibenevolence—God is all-good

Furthermore, I intend to logically prove not only the existence of God in the aforementioned sense, but the existence of the God of the Bible.

The foundation of this proof can be laid using the follow argument:

1. If the Bible is true, God exists.

2. The Bible is true.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Of course, the conclusion only holds true if all of its premises are true. So let’s examine each of the stated premises.

Premise 1: If the Bible is true, God exists.

I don’t believe anyone with any knowledge of the Bible would contest this premise. The Bible clearly asserts that God, in His omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence, does indeed exist. Any further discussion on this premise would only prove to be tiresome and non-enlightening, considering the overwhelming consensus of its truthfulness. I’ll give one example:

Psalms 14:1

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God …

Premise 2: The Bible is true.

This is where dissenters might look to for a flaw in the argument and so, I will go into greater detail in providing credence to this premise. By laying out a separate argument specific to this premise, a proof of its truthfulness can be provided:

A. If God says the Bible is true, the Bible is true.

B. God said the Bible is true.

C. Therefore the Bible is true.

Again, examination of each of these premises is necessary in order to thoroughly eliminate any doubt of its credibility.

Premise A: If God says the Bible is true, the Bible is true.

Again, a lengthy explanation is not needed here. Remember that God, by definition, is omniscient and omnibenevolent. By being all-knowing, He surely knows whether or not the Bible is true. As an all-good being, God cannot lie about this, or anything else. So, what God states concerning anything is necessarily the Truth.

Premise B: God said the Bible is true.

God’s own words appear in the Bible making those parts inherently true based on the explanation of premise A. Furthermore, many examples can be found of God saying in His own word that the Bible is His Word. Again, God, by definition, cannot lie. Here is one of many examples of God stating the Truth of the Bible:

Proverbs 30:5

Every word of God is pure …

Conclusion (C): The Bible is true.

We’ve just proven that premises A and B are true and therefore premise C, the Bible is True, logically follows.

Note that the verse from Proverbs not only supports premise B, but also denies the potential (though silly) contention that being all-good may not necessarily mean He cannot lie. We’ve proven the Bible to be true, so this statement of the purity of God’s Word is necessarily true.

Conclusion (3): God Exists.

By proving that (1) if the Bible is true, God exists, and (2) the Bible is true, we can conclude with confidence the (3) God (as defined by the Bible) exists.

What I’ve provided here is a simple, logical proof to answer the question that has sparked debates for centuries. I hope that with this the issue can finally be put to rest.

Although it was necessary to spell out this proof in some detail, the main point was first eloquently stated by Stephen Colbert on The Daily Show:

It’s God’s logic, as written in the Bible, every word of which is true, and we know every word is true because the Bible says that the Bible is true and, if you remember from earlier in this sentence, every word of the Bible is true.

Filed under philosophy, religion, satire Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FU Friday: Ahmadinejad

February 25, 2011 Leave a comment

Today’s FU goes to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, after having the gall to criticize Gaddafi for using violence against protesters in Libya. I can’t say enough words about this one, so I just made a video instead:

This coming from the guy who had protesters in Iran killed, then made their families pay for bullets.

Fuck you, Ahmadinejad.

Here’s what he said:

It’s hard to imagine there’s a person who can kill his own people or bombard them. That’s really ugly. I advise strongly that everyone should allow their people to talk, and reply to their demands. They lead these people. How can a ruler bombard his own people then say, “if anyone speaks out, I’ll kill them”? This is not acceptable. People should have freedom and decision making powers in their own future. This is their right. I think everyone in the world is very shocked at what’s happening in Libya. It’s really bad. I think they should heed the demands of their people. But of course, as we know, anyone who doesn’t respect the will of their people—well, their fate is written.

Filed under politics, religion Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dear Red Cross,

February 21, 2011 2 Comments

Here is a short article from the Associated Press, found on this website:

Red Cross seeks to provide kosher meals for disaster victims

When the next disaster strikes, whether you are religious, atheist or just a vegetarian, the Red Cross will have a meal for you.

By The Associated Press

The American Red Cross has been looking at ways it can improve its response to the next disaster and it’s found some surprising answers. Joel Sullivan, CEO of the Middle Tennessee chapter of the American Red Cross, said changing demographics have led to a demand for food that meets the specific cultural and religious needs. The Red Cross is looking for vendors that can supply vegetarian, kosher and halal meals.

The Tennessean reports that Muslim leaders have also asked the charity to look into providing separate spaces for men and women at their shelters.

Dear Red Cross,

I commend you for your efforts to provide appropriate meals for victims with “specific cultural and religious needs.” I hope you will consider accommodating my beliefs as well, should I be in the unfortunate position of requiring your aide.

As a follower of the religion of Atheism, I require that my meals contain only meat that comes from tortured baby humans. Torturing is essential in preparing my meals. There are also very important rituals that must be performed, including the dancing of the Macarena by all those involved in the raising of the mini humans or the preparation and handling of the tiny baby human meat. Oh, and I require ice cream cake with every meal.

And see if you can’t make separate spaces for old, white, male intellectuals and those who are not old, white, male intellectuals in your shelters—we wouldn’t want any mixing of ideas going on.

Thank you for your time,

Concerned Atheist

Filed under atheism, Humanism, religion, satire Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 451 other followers