Recently in Atheism Category

I am often presented with an argument for God that is based on the idea that science can not provide an answer to the origin of life.  Creationists would have us believe that the lack of a definitive, scientific explanation of the origin of life is evidence for the existence of God.  This leap of logic is utterly absurd.  Let me explain.

Let's say I don't know how rainbows are formed.  In fact, let's say that NO ONE knows how rainbows are formed.  The lack of knowledge of water droplets and their effects on light does not mean that rainbows are formed by magic.  Lack of understanding of optics does not give any weight to the idea that rainbows are somehow born from leprechaun gold.  That kind of "either/or" logic does not make sense with rainbows and it does not make sense with the origin of life either.  No one has to accept one theory because a competing theory does not exist.  Not only that, but it is also fair and valid to criticize any theory without having an opposing theory to put in its place.

For example, I don't know how massive construction cranes are erected.  I realize it must be a complicated process but I can not explain how it is done.  However, I can say that I am pretty darn sure that it wasn't created by magic.  In fact, I can ridicule anyone who thinks it was created by magic because that theory is ridiculous and completely without any evidence or historical precedent.  Not knowing how cranes are built doesn't lead me to accept magic as the only possible answer to the question. 

It is therefore ludicrous for someone to tell me that God must have created life because I can't explain it otherwise and then get offended when I critique such an opinion.

What follows is something along a similar line.  Ben Stein has taken part in a creationist propaganda film and has taken to the airwaves to defend his opinion.  That's fine, but he makes the same mistakes that many creationists make in using evolution's lack of answers to the origin of life question to back up Christianity's position.  Not only does he fail to understand the theory of evolution, but he applies the theory to all the wrong questions.  Evolution was never intended to explain the origin of life.  It explains why there are so many different species on the planet, why they share similar traits, and how specific lifeforms can adapt to there surroundings.   The following video tries, quite successfully, to refute some of these foolish ideas.

 


Please, if you want to make arguments for God, at least try to be compelling in your discourse. Using God as a "fall back" theory just doesn't cut it.

Look, I know the image below is likely to offend.  I figure since I have pretty much chased away anyone who might comment on my posts over the past few months anyway I might as well start using this space for things I find interesting, funny, etc.  I found the following image on Fark.com this morning.

I post this today because as I sat trying to convince my daughter to go to sleep Monday night because if she didn't a magical elf would not break into her house and leave her gifts I couldn't help but laugh at my own hypocrisy.   I have been subtly trying to deprogram her of all nonsense she learned at her previous school while trying to convince her of the existence of a some arctic circle dwelling benevolent toy maker at the same time.  What kind of weird, twisted message does that send? 

I also find it interesting to see how the young and impressionable will accept what they are told often without question.  Why then is the god myth the only thing that sticks?  Is it because you can't sneak in on your parents playing Jesus like you can Santa and the Easter Bunny?  It is just interesting how by the time someone is about ten they are pretty confident that Santa does not exist even if they have no proof that he is a lie while the same person can believe in God without one solid piece of evidence that he exists.   I suppose one month of Santa can't equal 52 weeks of Jesus indoctrination. 

So yet another school board, this one in Pinellas County Florida, has decided that intelligent design must be taught along with evolution.  Superstition has thus become part of the curriculum.  While I am not surprised that a theory of creation with NO BASIS IN SCIENCE is being forced onto a student body, what does surprise me is a statement from one of the board members.  Board member Peggy O'Shea suggests that discussions on the origin of the universe are just too controversial to be important.  I wonder if she has a doctorate in thinkology. 

From the article at Tampabay.com:

"O'Shea suggested that parents who object to evolution being taught to their children might be able to opt them out of that day's lesson. "I'd probably ideally like to keep it all out of the classroom," she said. "If it's going to create this much controversy, how important is it?""

Not only is the origin of life just too controversial to be important, apparently it is ok for students to "opt out" of parts of their education that they don't agree with.  That sets one hell of a precedent don't you think?   Maybe I don't agree with coaches teaching math...can my child opt out of that?  How about if I really think that faster than light travel is possible?  Can my daughter then opt out of physics?  Wait, what if I am a communist?  Can my children opt out of American Government, Economics, and Civics?  Really Mrs. O' Shea?  Really?

Look, those that want to learn about "Intelligent Design" already have a place to get their fill of such nonsense.  As far as I know, most churches are open 7 days a week.   I am sure someone there would love to teach a class on magic.  Public school, however, is not the place to study superstition as the basis of the universe...unless it is in history or sociology class.  Do you insist on this "evolution is just a theory" argument?  That's fine with me.  Just about everything we know is a theory.   That is a solid, scientific approach to a scientific argument.  We also theorize that the sun will come up every day.  There is no way to PROVE this is true because we can't observe every day both past and future, but all evidence points to the sun rising (it actually doesn't rise...but we won't get into that today) every day and thus we accept it as true.  Let's keep mythology where it belongs...at the church.

And since we are talking about the origin of the universe let me make a point.  Do not try to argue with me that everything has to have a beginning.  That is a regressive argument that only allows me to negate your point.  Usually the argument goes like this:

Theist:  "If you believe matter and energy are the basis of the universe, who created them?"

Atheist:  "Why do they have to be created?  Why can't they just be?  Science says matter can neither be created or destroyed so maybe that is all there is?  Even before the big bang all matter and energy existed but just in a very compressed state."

Theist:  "But where did it come from?  Surely some intelligent force created matter and energy."

Atheist:  "No, I don't need to believe that.  I can believe that matter and energy are the beginning and end.  Those things have always existed and always will."

Theist:  "But it all had to start somewhere."

Atheist:  "Ok, you argue that there has to be a beginning.  You also argue that some intelligence, God, created matter, and energy, and the universe.  So, I ask you, if you insist on there being a beginning to EVERYTHING, who created your god?"

Theist:  "Oh no, God is God.  He has always existed and always will."

Atheist:  "Funny how I have to accept your God as a possible beginning with no creator, but you can not accept matter and energy as the beginning.  If you insist on everything having a creator then there is no end to the creator, creation chain."

Theist:  "But I know God created everything."

Atheist:  "Prove it."

Theist:  'Ummm...aahhh...The Bible....umm...personal revelation...umm...ahh....faith or something."

Atheist:  "Stop right there.  I seem to have an urgent appointment to go bang my head against a wall.  We'll talk later."

The whole "Someone must have started the whole thing" bit doesn't work with me.  Don't try it.

Can anyone tell me where the following statement originates?

"Teach children one religion and you indoctrinate them, teach them many religions and you inoculate them."

I'd love to know if this can be attributed to a single source.

I am not really interested in a semantic argument here, I am just not sure that this situation fits the definition of irony.  Nevertheless, on with the show.

I was in line this morning at my favorite drive-thru, Chick-Fil-A, and was struck dumb with an interesting realization.  Here I was, about as big of an atheist as you can find, sitting in the queue line of a restaurant that is so fundamentally Christian that the entire chain does not open on Sundays. In fact, I was even listening to an atheist themed podcast while I was waiting for my turn to order.  I found the situation so comical that I actually laughed out loud.  Now, this is not to say that such things have not happened to me before.  I have been to weddings, funerals, and even worked in churches (part 2 of my "religious experience" is coming by the way for those of you that still bug me about it) and never felt the least bit odd about the environment.  For some reason it just struck me as completely strange that I would be giving a portion of my earnings to a vocally religious institution while sitting on their premises listening to an atheist talk show.   I then realized that it was raining and figured if God was going to strike me down there couldn't be a better opportunity for it to look like an accident.  It was a surreal situation. 

I told you a couple of weeks ago that the movie version of The Golden Compass would stir up the media.  Fox News, of course, seems to be the first to jump on the story.  Please take a look at the following:



You will notice how biased the the news person is while the discussion of the film progresses.  You can hear him huffing and puffing as Mrs. Gaylor explains her position. Fox News is biased exactly like CNN is biased just in the opposite direction. You'll be hearing more about this I assure you.

What is so interesting is that the priest has a HUGE problem with children being exposed to atheist beliefs but obviously does not see anything wrong with indoctrinating children into the Catholic church from birth.  That is my point from yesterday.  I don't think children have the ability to understand ANY of those issues.  My question then becomes, When is it ok to expose children to philosophical ideas through metaphor, allegory, and dramatization?

If you have a child, what do you feel is your moral obligation to raising that child in a way that gives them the ability to make choices for themselves?  In other words, is it more important to indoctrinate them into your way of life or is it a moral imperative to give them the critical thinking tools that will then allow them to make life's choices on their own?  I am constantly reviewing both my own parenting theories and comparing them to what other people are doing and I see two different approaches to raising children.  On one hand I see very strong tendencies to tell children something is right because an adult says it is right.  Religion often falls into this category.  Other things, more practical things, also fall here.  A child may not understand why pointing out that someone is missing a leg is wrong but we try hard to be sure they know not to do it anyway.  There are some things a child must learn to do before they understand why they must do them.  However, I personally feel very strongly that there are some things a child should not be forced to experience because there is no way they can understand why these things are important.  This is my view of children and religion.

Our culture does not give a child a chance to understand religion and make an informed choice.  For most people, the indoctrination begins so young that by the time they have the mental ability to critically evaluate the arguments for and against faith they can not exercise this ability because the power of the indoctrination is too strong.  It becomes such a part of who they are and how they view their world that questioning their faith is impossible.  My daughter has been in a preschool program that has some faith content (I didn't know it would be like that when we enrolled her) and I see the brain-washing beginning first hand.   My daughter has told me on several occasions that "God made me that way" but when I ask her what that means she looks at me confused and then says "Dad, it's just something you say".  Do you see the wrongness in that statement?  She is being taught to believe and say things that she can't understand.  This is one of the many reasons why religion is so powerful and so utterly wrong.  As a parent I feel I have a moral obligation to get her out out this environment and have already taken action to do so.  She will be out of the program no later than the end of December, but it is very possible she will be out before then.  It is taking some planning and rearranging of schedules, but it is imperative that I stop what is happening to her as quickly as I can. 

What is important to understand here is that I am not saying that my child can not be religious.  When she is able to make that choice for herself I will support any decision she makes.  At 4, however, she can not understand the complexities of the issues and it is unfair for us or other people to make up her mind about religion before she has an opportunity to make the choice herself.

It is my moral duty as a father to give my daughter the ability to think critically about her world.  I wish more parents felt this way.  I know it is a difference between what is easy and what is hard but how often is doing what is right the easy path?

It appears that I have found a purpose for this blog after all these years.  Although I never intended for this site to have a free thought focus, it seems like that topic is all I feel like talking about lately.  Maybe that will change, maybe it won't.  For all of you readers taking me off your RSS list or whatever, yes, I am talking to both of you, please take comfort in knowing that I'll still be here for you whenever you need me.  Now, on with the show.

So another southern city announces a prayer vigil for rain.

Atlanta Governor Sonny Perdue has asked Georgians to pray for rain.

How many years have you guys been praying for the Falcons to not suck?  How's that turned out for you?  Let me check....Ohhhh, not too good.  Looks like the Falcons still suck.  Keep trying though ok?

Governor Perdue:  Do you think you might be better off by asking all of those people to skip a shower once a week instead of praying?  Just a thought.

I love this quote from Ed Buckner from the Atlanta Free Thought Society:

"Does the God that Sonny Perdue believes in have to be informed about the drought?" Buckner asked. "Doesn't he know? Or have the important people not appealed to him yet?"

Imagine this scenario...God is sitting in his big King of Kings throne in heaven chilling out and watching some TV.  Probably the latest Heroes episode and all of a sudden he gets a ring on the big, red prayer phone on the table.  His worldwide prayer status monitor lights up and shows that there is a sudden increase in requests for rain in the southeastern United States.   God jumps up out of the chair and declares "OH SHIT!" Those people are in danger of running out of water!  I better help them!"  As though he somehow managed to overlook the crisis in his omnipotence.  In this situation, God is either lazy or just doesn't care.   Kind of a tough pill for his followers to swallow isn't it?

Go ahead and pray for rain if it makes you feel better.  While you're at it, can you please ask your God to protect all the innocent children of the world from starvation, disease, molestation, and abuse?  Seems like the almighty could do a little something about that problem too while working on that water issue.

Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a Magical Tree.


Makes perfect sense to me.  Where do I sign up?

Some of you may have noticed the large, red letter "A" on the sidebar. A few of you may have even clicked on it in curiosity. If you haven't noticed it or it hasn't piqued your interest, please allow me a moment to explain the significance of the Scarlet Letter.

The idea sprang from inspiration provided by Nathaniel Hawthorne's book "The Scarlet Letter" which deals with the consequences of being singled out for the sin of adultery. Today, however, the letter is taking on a whole new meaning. The letter is the symbol of "The OUT Campaign" started by atheist Richard Dawkins. The idea behind the movement is to get more atheists to "come out" and be public with their beliefs. Atheists are encouraged to wear their "sin" with pride by displaying the "A" logo on websites, clothing, etc. It is a symbol to other atheists that they are not along and to the rest of the world that we shall not go quietly into the night.

There are a lot of people out there who share such thoughts but are afraid of the consequences that might come with being vocal about their beliefs. The OUT campaign's mission is to provide support for free thinkers and allow their voices to be heard. It encourages the closet atheist to come out and experience the liberation that comes with no longer hiding your beliefs. The movement is also a way to develop a network of like minded individuals. Speaking from experience, atheists often feel alone in their beliefs and isolated in their communities. The OUT campaign seeks to change those feelings as well as the destroy the negative stereotypes that seem to surround the atheist community.

I am excited to see such a public figure take a stand and call out the rest of the atheist community. So often we allow our beliefs to take a back seat to the forces of conformity. It is high time that we stop letting the religious element control our society. They have had a couple of millennia and can't seem to get it right so why look the other way and allow it to continue? We owe it to our children and all future generations to stop the misguided belief in the supernatural and the inherent moral weakness of man and start working toward helping humanity reach its fullest potential. This is why I support the OUT campaign and why I choose to display the Scarlet Letter on this website and soon on my person as well.

I know I have been a bit outspoken about this issue recently both here and in other forums, but I have decided that I can no longer allow myself to remain quiet because I am afraid of what others may say. Keeping quiet never solved anything. It has not been an easy decision. I am fully aware that I might lose friends over my beliefs. I have come to the conclusion, however, that if I am going to teach my daughter to stand up for what she believes in, no matter what that might be, then I have to practice what I preach. I have to lead by example and not by words alone. It may not be easy, but it is right and that is the lesson I want to teach.

Over the next few days, months, years, I will be talking about my experiences as an atheist both in my past, my present, and my future. It has taken me about 15 years to fully become comfortable with being an atheist and I still have a long way to go before I can speak fluently on the subject. I hope during this time to share my learning process and to hear thoughts from both religious and non-religious readers along the way. I would also like to hear from the closet atheists. I know you are out there. You can post here in anonymity. Tell us why you stay quiet and what has to change before you can come OUT. I'm sure it will prove an interesting point of discussion.