Cleveland Freethinkers Blog

One Nation, Under God...

2010-03-13T12:58:00.008-05:00

…But which one???

The 9th District Court of Appeals has ruled that “Under God” and “In God we Trust” do NOT constitute religious language.

On “Under God”:

“…the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect.”

(Huh?)

On “In God We Trust”:

“The language is patriotic and ceremonial, not religious…”

(Erm…)

I figured we could have some fun with this. What god do they mean? There are thousands of gods in human history, and thousands more just waiting to be “made up”.

Unless the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the issue, America is now *officially* “under the god” of your choice!

Nontheistic Philosophies

2009-10-29T23:26:00.009-04:00

ATHEISM & NONRELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHIES: DEFINITIONS

(Courtesy of The Pluralism Project at Harvard University)

The following quotations were collected as a resource to help define some of the terms that are commonly used to describe non-religious peoples, organizations, and movements. The terms include: agnosticism, atheism, brights, freethinkers, humanism, naturalism, rationalism, skepticism, and universism.

Agnosticism:

"Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God is impossible. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism. Understood this way, agnosticism is skepticism regarding all things theological. The agnostic holds that human knowledge is limited to the natural world, that the mind is incapable of knowledge of the supernatural. Understood this way, an agnostic could also be a theist or an atheist. The former is called a fideist, one who believes in God purely on faith. The latter is sometimes accused by theists of having faith in the non-existence of God, but the accusation is absurd and the expression meaningless. The agnostic atheist simply finds no compelling reason to believe in God." - Skeptic's Dictionary

"Agnosticism may simply be the state of not knowing whether any gods exist or not, but people can take this position for different reasons and apply it in different ways. These differences then create variations in the ways in which one can be an agnostic. It is thus possible to separate agnostics in two groups, labeled strong agnosticism and weak agnosticism as analogs to strong atheism and weak atheism. If someone is a weak agnostic, they state only that they do not know if any gods exist or not. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god existing is not excluded. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure if some god exists or not is also not excluded. This is a very simple and general position and it is what people often think of when they think of agnosticism. Strong agnosticism goes just a bit further. If someone is a strong agnostic, they don't merely claim that they don't know if any gods exist; instead, they also claim that no one can or does know if any gods exist. Whereas weak agnosticism is a position that only describes the state of knowledge of one person, strong agnosticism makes a statement about knowledge and reality themselves." - Austin Cline, About.com

Atheism:

"The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived from a, meaning "without," and theos, meaning "deity"." - The Atheist Empire

"An Atheist has no religious belief. An Atheist does not believe in a god or gods, or other supernatural entities...We are not a "religion." The concept of an agency outside of nature with the ability to reach into natural law and control events is supernaturalism, the foundation of any religion. Belief in the existence of that agency is based on faith. An Atheist has no specific belief system. We accept only that which is scientifically verifiable. Since god concepts are unverifiable, we do not accept them. " - American Atheists

"Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods. Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods - no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called "gnostic atheism" because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it - that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist." - Atheism.com

Brights:

"The defining attribute of the person (a Bright)...is this: possessing a worldview that is naturalistic..."Brights" include the many and various types of persons whose perspective, values, ethics, and conduct derive from a naturalistic worldview, free of any supernatural sorts of entities or forces. While they differ in the particulars of their outlook, they have this commonality...The simple noun term, "bright" has the potential to gather under the same umbrella all persons who hold a naturalistic worldview, whether or not they see themselves part of any of the various organizations in the communities of reason." - The Brights' Net

Freethinkers:

"free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief.
Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists. No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth." - Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.

"The concept of freethought refers to the process of making decisions and arriving at beliefs without relying solely upon tradition, dogma, or the opinions of authorities. Usually the context of this is only in religion, although a person can be a freethinker in other areas as well. In place of tradition or dogma, freethinkers insist upon using reason, logic, and evidence as the bases for forming reasonable and justified beliefs. Superstition is rejected in favor of science. Most freethinkers are also atheists, although that is not required. It is possible to be an atheist without also being a freethinker, or to be a freethinker without also being an atheist." - Austin Cline, Glossary of Religion & Philosophy at About.com

Humanism:

"As Kurt Vonnegut succinctly described: being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead. Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity." - American Humanist Association

"Humanism is a philosophy of life inspired by humanity and guided by reason. Humanists think that science and reason provide the best basis for understanding the world around us. Humanists believe that moral values are properly founded on human empathy and scientific understanding. Humanists see no convincing evidence for gods, the supernatural, or life after death. Humanists believe we must live this life on the basis that it is the only life we'll have -- that, therefore, we must make the most of it for ourselves, each other, and our world. Humanist philosophies have arisen separately in many different cultures over many thousands of years. Today, even though most have never assigned a label to their most cherished ideas about life, knowledge, ethics, purpose, and the universe, a significant portion of society shares this non-religious approach to life. Whether or not they use the term humanism, tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of people around the world agree with the humanist philosophy of living a happy and productive life based on reason and compassion." - Institute for Humanist Studies

"Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation." - Council for Secular Humanism

Naturalism:

"Naturalism is a metaphysical theory which holds that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes and laws. Naturalism posits that the universe is a vast machine or organism, devoid of general purpose and indifferent to human needs and desires...naturalism neither denies nor affirms the existence of God, either as transcendent or immanent. However, naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation. Reference to moral or divine purposes has no place in scientific explanations. On the other hand, the scope of science is limited to explanation of empirical phenomena without reference to forces, powers, influences, etc., which are supernatural." - The Skeptic's Dictionary

"The hypothesis that the physical universe is a 'closed system' in the sense that nothing is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it. So naturalism entails the nonexistence of all supernatural beings, including the theistic god." - Paul Draper, as posted on The Secular Web

"Naturalistic - not only do we hold that evidence for the supernatural has not been convincingly demonstrated, but that belief in the supernatural has lead to a great deal of misery for humanity and needs to be rejected and replaced with critical inquiry, accountability, and science." - Secular Student Alliance

Rationalism:

"Rationalism: The mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a system of philosophy and ethics verifiable by experience, independent of all arbitrary assumptions or authority." - American Rationalist

The doctrine of rationalism holds that the source of knowledge is reason and logic. This is usually contrasted with the idea that faith, revelation and religion are also valid sources of knowledge and verification. - Austin Cline, Glossary of Religion & Philosophy at About.com

Skepticism:

"Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece when Socrates observed: "All I know is that I know nothing." But this is not a practical position to take. Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are false. Other claims, such as hypnosis and chaos theory, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion. The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between "know nothing" skepticism and "anything goes" credulity." - Michael Shermer, as posted by the Skeptic Society

"Philosophical Skepticism is a critical attitude which systematically questions the notion that absolute knowledge and certainty are possible, either in general or in particular fields. Philosophical Skepticism is opposed to philosophical dogmatism, which maintains that a certain set of positive statements are authoritative, absolutely certain and true. Philosophical Skepticism should be distinguished from ordinary skepticism, where doubts are raised against certain beliefs or types of beliefs because the evidence for the particular belief or type of belief is weak or lacking. Ordinary skeptics are not credulous or gullible. They don't take things on trust, but must see the evidence before believing. Ordinary skeptics doubt the miraculous claims of religions, the claims of alien abductions, the claims of psychoanalysis, etc. But they do not necessarily doubt that certainty or knowledge is possible. Nor do they doubt these things because of systematic arguments that undermine all knowledge claims." - Skeptic's Dictionary

Universism:

"Universism is the world's first rational religion...We celebrate faith in reason, inspiration in nature, and hope in progress...A Universist is an individual who applies personal reason and experience to the fundamental questions of human existence, derives inspiration from the natural uncertainty of the human state, and denies the validity of revelation, faith and dogma." - United Universists

All contents copyright © 1997–2009President and Fellows of Harvard College and Diana Eck. All rights reserved.

Image courtesy of http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

Scaring Atheists

2009-10-29T23:19:00.002-04:00

The Accommodationist's Dilemma

2009-10-28T00:00:00.000-04:00

The Origin of Life: Abiogenesis

2009-10-27T00:10:00.000-04:00

(courtesy of YouTube's cdk007)

Edward Current- "The PrayerMax 5000"

2009-10-25T00:16:00.000-04:00

Professional smart-aleck Edward Current markets a "prayer amplifier"... too funny!

What About "Little George and the Cherry Tree"?

2009-05-03T16:08:00.007-04:00

From The Library of Congress:

Here is the last paragraph of General George Washington's Circular Letter of Farewell to the Army, June 8, 1783:

I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.

This paragraph has been hijacked by the religious right, who have turned it into the phony "Washington's Prayer"... they have put some phrases of their own into Washington's mouth, therefore corrupting the very words of "the father of our country".

Here is the false "Washington's Prayer" version, which Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) repeated on the U.S. House floor last week. Bachmann's phony prayer recital was part of a speech bashing President Obama for his recent statement: "...we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.":

"Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large. And finally, that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.''

In her House floor speech, the bumbling Ms. Bachmann also stated that the above words were part of George Washington's Inaugural Address (hey, wait... George Washington was not inaugurated as America's 1st President until April 30, 1789!!!)

Such are the ways of "the Liars for Jesus". Didn't Rep. Michelle Bachmann ever hear the one about little George and the cherry tree?

Read more & watch the painful video here.

Mark T.

"Rise of the Godless"

2009-03-11T22:52:00.003-04:00

Here is a brief but wonderful video, courtesy of the National Journal Online.

It was released several days before the recent American Religious Identification Survey—conducted by the Program on Public Values at Trinity College.

10 Reasons to NOT Have a Religion

2009-02-04T12:45:00.004-05:00

The following was written by entreprenuer & self-help author Steve Pavlina. Steve is the author of Personal Development for Smart People (2008).

10 REASONS YOU SHOULD NEVER HAVE A RELIGION

While consciously pursuing your spiritual development is commendable, joining an established religion such as Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism is one of the worst ways to go about it. In this article I’ll share 10 reasons why you must eventually abandon the baggage of organized religion if you wish to pursue conscious living in earnest.

Since Christianity is currently the world’s most popular religion, I’ll slant this article towards Christianity’s ubiquitous failings. However, you’ll find that most of these points apply equally well to other major religions (yes, even Buddhism).

1. Spirituality for dummies.

If you have the awareness level of a snail, and your thinking is mired in shame and guilt (with perhaps a twist of drug abuse or suicidal thinking), then subscribing to a religion can help you climb to a higher level of awareness. Your mindset, however, still remains incredibly dysfunctional; you’ve merely swapped one form of erroneous thinking for another.

For reasonably intelligent people who aren’t suffering from major issues with low self-esteem, religion is ridiculously consciousness-lowering. While some religious beliefs can be empowering, on the whole the decision to formally participate in a religion will merely burden your mind with a hefty load of false notions.

When you subscribe to a religion, you substitute nebulous group-think for focused, independent thought. Instead of learning to discern truth on your own, you’re told what to believe. This doesn’t accelerate your spiritual growth; on the contrary it puts the brakes on your continued conscious development. Religion is the off-switch of the human mind.

Leave the mythology behind, and learn to think for yourself. Your intellect is a better instrument of spiritual growth than any religious teachings.

2. Loss of spiritual depth perception.

One of the worst mistakes you can make in life is to attach your identity to any particular religion or philosophy, such as by saying “I am a Christian” or “I am a Buddhist.” This forces your mind into a fixed perspective, robbing you of spiritual depth perception and savagely curtailing your ability to perceive reality accurately. If that sounds like a good idea to you, you’ll probably want to gouge out one of your eyeballs too. Surely you’ll be better off with a single, fixed perspective instead of having to consider two separate image streams… unless of course you’ve become attached to stereo vision.

Religious “truths” are inherently rooted in a fixed perspective, but real truth is perspective-independent. When you substitute religious teachings for truth, you mistake shadows for light sources. Consequently, you doom yourself to stumble around in the dark, utterly confused. Clarity remains forever elusive, and the best answer you get is that life is one giant mystery. Religious mysteries, however, arise not from what is truly unknowable; they arise from the limitations of trying to understand reality from a fixed frame of reference.

A more intelligent approach is to consider reality through a variety of different perspectives without trying to force your perceptions into an artificial religious framework. If you wish to learn more about this approach, read Spiritual Depth Perception.

3. Engineered obedience training.

Religions are authoritarian hierarchies designed to dominate your free will. They’re power structures that aim to convince you to give away your power for the benefit of those who enjoy dominating people. When you subscribe to a religion, you enroll in a mindless minion training program. Religions don’t market themselves as such, but this is essentially how they operate.

Religions are very effective at turning human beings into sheep. They’re among the most powerful instruments of social conditioning. They operate by eroding your trust in your own intellect, gradually convincing you to put your trust into some external entity, such as a deity, prominent figure, or great book. Of course these instruments are usually controlled by those who administrate the minion training program, but they don’t have to be. Simply by convincing you to give your power away to something outside yourself, religion will condition you to be weaker, more docile, and easier to control. Religions actively promote this weakening process as if it were beneficial, commonly branding it with the word faith. What they’re actually promoting is submission.

Religions strive to fill your head with so much nonsense that your only recourse is to bow your head in submission, often quite literally. Get used to spending a lot of time on your knees because acts of submission such as bowing and kneeling are frequently incorporated into religious practice. Canine obedience training uses similar tactics. Now say, “Yes, Master.”

Have you ever wondered why religious teachings are invariably mysterious, confusing, and internally incongruent? This is no accident by the way — it’s quite intentional.

By putting forth confusing and internally conflicting information, your logical mind (i.e. your neocortex) is overwhelmed. You try in vain to integrate such contradictory beliefs, but it can’t be done. The net effect is that your logical mind disengages because it can’t find a pattern of core truth beneath all the nonsense, so without the help of your neocortex, you devolve to a more primitive (i.e. limbic) mode of thinking. You’re taught that this faith-based approach is a more spiritual and conscious way to live, but in reality it’s precisely the opposite. Getting you to distrust your own cerebral cortex actually makes you dumber and easier to manipulate and control. Karl Marx was right when he said, “Religion is the opiate of the people.”

For example, the Old Testament and the New Testament in the Bible frequently contradict each other with various rules of conduct, yet both are quoted during mass. Church leaders also behave in direct violation of the Church’s teachings, such as by covering up criminal and immoral activities by their own priests. Those who try to mentally process such glaring contradictions as coherent truth invariably suffer for it. A highly conscious person would reject membership in such an organization as patently ridiculous. So-called divine mysteries are engineered to be incomprehensible. You aren’t meant to ever make sense of them since that would defeat the whole purpose. When you finally wake up and realize it’s all B.S., you’ve taken the first step towards freedom from this oppressive system.

The truth is that so-called religious authorities don’t know any more about spirituality than you do. However, they know how to manipulate your fear and uncertainty for their own benefit. How nice of you to let them.

Although the most popular religions are very old, L. Ron Hubbard proved the process can be replicated from scratch in modern times. As long as there are large numbers of people who fear the responsibility of their own power, religions will continue to dominate the landscape of human development.

If you want to talk to God, then communicate directly instead of using third-party intermediaries. Surely God has no need of an interpreter. Don’t fall into the trap of becoming a mindless minion. It’s a mistake to think that turning off your neocortex and practicing mindless “faith” will bring you closer to God. In truth it will only bring you closer to dog.

4. Toilet-bowl time management.

If you devote serious time to the practice of religion, it’s safe to say you practice toilet-bowl time management, flushing much of your precious life down the drain with little or nothing to show for it.

First, you’ll waste a lot of time filling your head with useless nonsense. This includes reading some of the worst fiction ever written. Then there are various rules, laws, and practices to learn.

Seriously, if you have insomnia, try reading religious texts before bedtime. You’ll be asleep faster than you can say Methuselah. Why do you think hotels put Bibles next to the bed? It’s the greatest sedative known to man. I have to give props to the Scientologists for at least incorporating space aliens into their stories. It’s a shame Gene Roddenberry didn’t formally invent his own religion; Stovokor sounds like a lot of fun.

Once you finally realize your head has been filled with utter nonsense, you must then purge such garbage from your mind if you want your brain to be functional again. That can take considerably longer, assuming you succeed at all. It’s like trying to uninstall AOL from your hard drive.

Next, you can expect to waste even more time on repetitive ritual and ceremony, such as attending mass, learning prayers, and practicing unproductive meditations.

If I add up the time I attended mass and Sunday school, studied religion in school as if it were a serious subject, and memorized various prayers, I count thousands of hours of my life I’d love to have back. I did, however, learn some important lessons, many of which are being shared in this article.

I especially remember listening to a lot of bad sermons; most priests are hideously poor speakers. Maybe it’s because they drink alcohol while on duty.

Now if you really go overboard and throw in learning a dead language for good measure, you can kiss years of your life goodbye.

The more time you devote to religious practice, the more you waste your life on pointless, dead-end pursuits… and the more you’ll want to delude yourself with a phony “Hehe, I meant to do that” attitude.

5. Support your local pedophile.

In addition to being a serious waste of time, religious practice can also be a huge waste of money.

For starters... when you donate to a major religion, you support its expansion, which means you’re facilitating the enslavement of your fellow humans. That isn’t very nice, now is it? If you feel the urge to donate money, give it to a real and honorable cause, not a fabricated one. Better yet, go outside and do something that really helps people. If you can’t think of anything better, grab a can of paint and clean up some local graffiti.

Your religious donations fund freeloaders who mooch off society but who generally provide little or no value in return. Sure there are some religious people who perform valuable public services, but for the most part, that isn’t their bailiwick. These freeloaders typically operate tax-free, meaning they’re effectively subsidized by taxpayers. That’s a great racket if you’re on the receiving side… not so great if you’re funding it though.

Religions offer a suite of special services to generate additional income. They’ll spout some gibberish while feeding you a crusty wafer, pronounce you bonded to a fellow human being, snip some of your excess skin, pour water on your head, proclaim your manhood, cast out your demons, pronounce your transgressions forgiven, and so on. When they can’t think of anything else, they make up some drivel like confirming you’re still loyal to them. The bill may read “suggested donation,” but it’s still a bill.

When you donate money to a religious organization, you’re doing much worse than throwing your money away. You’re actively funding evil. If you think that spending a billion dollars to defend pedophiles and rapists is a good use of your hard-earned cash, perhaps you should run for Pope. You could hardly do worse. At least Wall Street is honest about its greed and lust.

One of my Catholic high school teachers was later revealed to be a repeat child molester… written up in the newspaper and everything. I didn’t see any suspicious behavior at the time, and to be totally honest, I actually liked that teacher and was shocked to learn of his extracurricular activities. He was shuffled from one location to another by those who knew about his appetite for young flesh. I’m glad I wasn’t on the menu, but I feel sad for those who were. Methinks God should raise his standards… just a tad.

Why aren’t Catholic priests allowed to marry? This has nothing to do with what’s written in the Bible or with any benefits of celibacy. This rule was invented by the Church to prevent their priests from producing heirs. When the priests died, their property would go back to the Church, thereby enriching the rich even more. Apparently God needed more cash. It was a very effective policy, as the Church is now among the richest and most powerful organizations on earth. It’s hard to fail when you have a loyal force of lifetime indentured servants who work cheaply and then yield their life savings to you when they die.

Lay religious people (i.e. non-clergy), on the other hand, are encouraged to have lots of babies because that means more people are born into the religion, which means more money and a bigger power base. Condoms are a big no-no; they’re bad for business. Marriage is a big yes; it means more brainwashed babies will be made.

Would you seriously consider this sort of structure a “good cause” worthy of your hard-earned cash?

I have got to get me one of these…

6. Incest is best.

Religions frequently promote inbred social networks. You’re encouraged to spend more time with people who share the same belief system while disengaging from those with incompatible beliefs. Sometimes this is done subtly; other times it’s more obvious.

If you’re one of the saved, blessed, or otherwise enlightened individuals who stumbled upon the one true belief system, then supposedly everyone else remains in the dark. Certain religions are overtly intolerant of outsiders, but to one degree or another, all major religions cast non-subscribers in a negative light. This helps to discourage members from abandoning the religion while still enabling them to proselytize. The main idea is to maintain social structures that reward loyalty and punish freedom of thought.

This us-vs-them prejudice is totally incongruent with conscious living. It’s also downright moronic from a global perspective. But it remains a favored practice of those who pull the strings. When you’re taught to distrust other human beings, fear gets a foothold in your consciousness, and you become much easier to control.

When you join a religion, your fellow mind-slaves will help to keep you in line, socially rewarding your continued obedience while punishing your disloyalty. Why do they do this? It’s what they’ve been conditioned to do. Tell your religious friends that you’re abandoning their religion because you want to think for yourself for a while, and watch the sparks fly. Suddenly you’ve gone from best friend to evil demon. There’s no greater threat to religious people than to profess your desire to think for yourself.

There are better ways to enjoy a sense of community than joining a slavery club. Try making friends with conscious, free-thinking people for a change — people who are willing to connect with you regardless of how silly your beliefs are. You may find it intimidating at first, but it’s quite refreshing once you get used to it.

Since I get asked this question all the time, I might as well answer it publicly. Do I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior? No more than I’d accept a credit card from Crapital One. Either way I’d be worried about the fine print. Does this mean we can’t be friends anymore? Please don’t hate me because I’m doomed.

7. Idiocy or hypocrisy - pick one.

When you subscribe to an established religion, you have only two options. You can become an idiot, or you can become a hypocrite. If you’ve already chosen the former, I’ll explain why, and I’ll use small words so that you’re sure to understand.

First, there’s the idiocy route. You can willingly swallow all of the contrived, man-made drivel that’s fed to you. Accept that the earth is only 10,000 years old. Believe stories about dead bodies coming back to life. Learn about various deities and such. Put your trust in someone who thinks they know what they’re talking about. Eat your dogma. Good boy!

Congratulations! You’re a (moron) believer. You’ll be saved, enlightened, and greeted with tremendous fanfare when you die… unless of course all the stuff you were taught turns out not to be true. Nah… if the guy in the robe says it’s true, it must be true. Ya gotta have faith, right?

Next, we have the hypocrisy option. In this case your neocortex is strong enough to identify various bits of utter nonsense in the religious teachings that others are trying to ram down your throat. You have a working B.S. detector, but it’s slightly damaged. You’re smart enough to realize that earth is probably a lot older than 10,000 years and that pre-marital (or non-marital) sex is a lot of fun, but some B.S. still gets through. You don’t swallow all the bull, but you still identify yourself as a follower of a particular religion, most likely because you were raised in it and never actually chose it to begin with.

To you it’s just a casual pursuit. You’re certainly not a die-hard fundamentalist, but you figure that if you drink the wine and chew the wafer now and then, it’s good enough to get you a free ride into a half-decent afterlife. You belong to the pro-God club. Surely there’s safety in numbers. Two people people can’t be wrong… although 4-1/2 billion supposedly can.

In this case you become an apologist for your own religion. You don’t want to be identified with the extreme fanatics, nor do you want to be associated with the non-believers. You figure you can straddle both sides. On earth you’ll basically live as a non-practitioner (or a very sloppy and inconsistent practitioner), but when you eventually die, you’ve still got the membership card to show God.

Do you realize how deluded you are?

Perhaps if you have to throw out so much of the nonsense to make your chosen belief system palatable, you shouldn’t be drinking the Kool Aid in the first place. Free yourself from the mental baggage, stop looking to others for permission to live, and start thinking on your own. If your God exists, he’s smart enough to see through your fake ID.

From time to time, some of my readers take a stab at converting me to their religion. Most of them come across as total loons, but I can at least respect their consistency. I’ve no idea why they bother to read my site (which is about raising, not lowering, consciousness). Perhaps some of them are getting ready to convert from fundamentalism to common sense.

You’d think I’d be quite a prize for any serious religion. With 2.4 million monthly readers, that’s a lot of people I could potentially (enslave) convert, not to mention how much I could fill the Church coffers by soliciting (indulgences) donations on their behalf. Henceforth I expect a much better conversion effort. If you won’t do it for the money, then do it for the souls. You can’t let so many of us go to hell without trying in earnest to save us, can you?

Just keep those conversion emails below 10,000 words if possible, with no more than 9,000 of them quoted from your favorite great book.

8. Inherited falsehood.

Please tell me you aren’t still practicing the religion you happened to be born into? Surely you’ve outgrown your baby clothes by now. Isn’t it time you also outgrew your baby religion?

What if you were born into a different culture? Would you have been conscious enough to find your way back to your current belief system? Or are your current beliefs merely a product of your environment and not the result of conscious choice?

Many religions are just a mish-mash of what came before. For example, Christianity is largely based on pagan rituals. If those pagan beliefs and rituals had been protected by copyright, Christianity wouldn’t even exist. If you take the time to dig into the roots of Christianity, you’ll encounter various theories that Christianity’s teachings were largely assembled from pre-Christian myths and that Jesus himself was merely a fictional character pieced together from earlier mythical figures. You go, Horus!

Many religious teachers (i.e. priests, rabbis, ministers, etc.) are just brainwashed slaves themselves. They don’t have any real authority and aren’t even aware of the agenda being set by their superiors. This makes them better minions because they actually believe the B.S. they’re spouting and don’t know the truth behind it. A priest, a rabbi, and a minister walk into a bar, but that’s as far as they get. They may interact with the bartender, but they never get to know the guy who owns the bar. They suffer from inherited falsehood just like everyone else.

Is your religion based on the inspired word of God? No more than this article. Just because someone says their text is divinely inspired doesn’t mean it is. Anyone can claim divine inspiration. The top religions are decided by popularity, not by truth.

Even the central figures in major religions didn’t follow the religions that were spawned in their names. If they didn’t swallow the prevailing “wisdom” about gods and spiritual leaders and such, why should you? If you want to be more like the people you worship, then follow their lead by striking out on your own.

Move beyond your baby religion. Consider maturity as a reasonable alternative.

9. Compassion in chains.

Religious rules and laws invariably hamper the development of conscience. This causes all sorts of problems like pointless violence and warfare. Those who preach nonviolence as a rule or law tend to be the most violent of all. Such people cannot be trusted because they’ll violate their proclaimed values with the weakest of excuses.

When you externalize compassion into a set of rules and laws, what you’re left with isn’t compassion at all. True compassion is a matter of conscious choice, and that requires the absence of force-backed rules and laws.

The more religious a person becomes, the less compassionate s/he is. The illusion of compassion substitutes for the real thing. Religious people tend to be the most bigoted and non-accepting people on earth. They’re the least trustworthy and suffer from the grossest character defects. They pretend they’re doing good, but they’re really collaborators in a system designed to push people into unconscious slavery to a “higher” authority. They are slaves promoting slavery.

Historically speaking, religious people loved to fight each other. Instead of unconditional love, they practice conditional loyalty. The only unconditional aspect is their thirst for blood. If you disagree with them, you’re a target… either for conversion or destruction (both of which are really the same thing).

If you value the ideal of unconditional love, you won’t find it in the practice of religion. Real compassion doesn’t arise from believing in God, from practicing various rituals, or from studying the concept of karma. Compassion can only result from conscious choice, and this requires the freedom to choose without the threat of punishment or the promise of reward. If you’re obedient to your faith, it’s a safe bet that compassion is absent from your life. You probably don’t even know what real compassion feels like.

The more we collectively abandon all religion, the better off this planet will be. This doesn’t mean we have to abandon all spiritual pursuits. It just means we must stop turning spirituality into something it isn’t.

10. Faith is fear.

Religion is the systematic marketing of fear.

Blessed are the poor (donate heavily). Blessed are the meek (obey). Blessed are the humble (don’t question authority). Blessed are the hungry (make us rich until it hurts). Blessed are the merciful (if you catch us doing something wrong, let it go). Blessed are the pure of heart (because your brains are switched off). Blessed are the timid, the cowardly, the fearful. Blessed are those who give us their power and become our slaves. Muahahaha!

That’s the kind of nonsense religion pushes on people. They train you to turn your back on courage, strength, and conscious living. This is stupidity, not divinity.

Religion will teach you to fear being different, to fear standing up for yourself, and to fear being an independent thinker. It will erode your self-trust by explaining why you’re unable to successfully manage life on your own terms: You are unworthy. You’re a sinner. You’re unclean. You belong to a lesser caste. Of course the solution is always the same — submit to the will of an external authority. Give away your power. Live in fear for the rest of your life, and hope it will all turn out okay in the end.

When you practice faith instead of conscious living, you live under a cloak of fear. Eventually that cloak becomes so habitual you forget it’s even there. It’s very sad when you reach the point where you can’t even remember what it feels like to wield creative freedom over your own life, independent of what you’ve been conditioned to believe.

Faith is the coward’s substitute for courage. It’s also really good marketing if you’re the one who controls the faith. If you’re afraid or unwilling to assume total responsibility for your life, you’re a perfect match for religion.

Fear in one part of your life invariably spreads to all other parts — you can’t comparmentalize it. If you find yourself frustrated because you’re too afraid to follow your dreams, to talk to members of the oppposite sex, to speak up for yourself, etc., then a good place to start is to rid your life of all religious nonsense. Don’t let fear get a foothold in your consciousness.

Stop trying to comfort yourself by swallowing religious rubbish. If you really need something to believe in, then believe in your own potential. Put your trust in your own intellect.

Dump the safety-in-numbers silliness. Just because a lot of people believe stupid stuff doesn’t mean it isn’t stupid. It just means that stupidity is popular on this planet. When people are in a state of fear, they’ll swallow just about anything to comfort themselves, including the bastion of stupidity known as religion.

***
Religion is spiritual immaturity. That’s a compliment.

It’s entirely possible to enjoy your life without spending so much of it bent over in submission. Pull your head out of your rear, and look around with your own two eyes. If you need something to worship, then feel grateful for your own conscious mind. Pull it out of the cobwebs, and boot it up.

Besides… if some popular religious version of God does exist, there’s a good chance he’s a complete and total idiot. He made us in his image, right? So perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to worship an entity so lacking in intelligence. We’re better off on our own.

God isn’t going to smite you for not formally worshipping him. If he didn’t smite me by now, it’s a safe bet you’ll slide beneath the radar as well. And if that doesn’t work, you can borrow my fake ID. I’ve been baptized and confirmed, and I’m the son of an altar boy and the nephew of a priest, so I’m sure I’ll be fine.

Praise Hestia!

May 27th, 2008 by Steve Pavlina

A Funny (From LOL God)

2009-01-08T00:50:00.001-05:00

Atheistic Rights & Responsibilities

2008-12-29T12:12:00.003-05:00

Courtesy of iamanatheist.com:

As a moral atheist you have a number of rights and responsibilities. These include (but are not limited to):

1) Have no gods.
2) Don't worship stuff.
3) Be polite.
4) Take a day off once in a while.
5) Be nice to folks.
6) Don't kill people.
7) Don't cheat on your significant other.
8) Don't steal stuff.
9) Don't lie about stuff.
10) Don't be greedy.

Remember, theists may condemn you for living by this code because you are doing it of your own free will instead of because you're afraid that if you don't a supreme being will set you on fire.

Cool! All of the world's Holy Books have been rendered obsolete.

Diagoras- the 1st Confirmed Atheist?

2008-12-23T23:59:00.009-05:00

The ancient Greek poet/philosopher Diagoras of Melos (5th Century B.C.E.) might be regarded as history's earliest known confirmed Atheist. Historical evidence shows that Diagoras wasn't afraid to speak his mind regarding his atheism.

Though information on Diagoras is somewhat scanty, he was documented by Aristophanes, Cicero, and others. In fact, Diagoras' giving offense to others by rejecting "the Gods" is the one point about him that historians can be certain on. According to Athenagoras, "he made the downright assertion that god does not exist at all."

Diagoras appears to have been very bold, witty, and unapologetic about his lack of belief in deities. From historian Jennifer Michael Hecht:

"The poet Diagoras of Melos was perhaps the most famous atheist of the fifth century. Although he did not write about atheism, anecdotes about his unbelief suggest he was self-confident, almost teasing, and very public. He revealed the secret rituals of the Eleusinian mystery religion to everyone and "thus made them ordinary," that is, he purposefully demystified a cherished secret rite, apparently to provoke his contemporaries into thought. In another famous story, a friend pointed out an expensive display of votive gifts and said, "You think the gods have no care for man? Why, you can see from all these votive pictures here how many people have escaped the fury of storms at sea by praying to the gods who have brought them safe to harbor." To which Diagoras replied, "Yes, indeed, but where are the pictures of all those who suffered shipwreck and perished in the waves?" A good question. Diagoras was indicted for profaning the mysteries, but escaped."

According to the Swedish historian Stefan Stenuud, Diagoras was expelled from Athens in 411 B.C.E. for attacking religion. Stenuud also documents events that may have led to Diagoras' atheism:

"According to Sextus Empiricus, Diagoras became an atheist when an enemy of his perjured himself in court and got away with it. There are some variations in other sources to this anecdote, though not changing its moral content – immorality seems to go unpunished, so how can there be any gods in the sense of watchers over human virtue?"

None of Diagoras' writings seem to have survived, unfortunately for us infidels...

Mark Tiborsky, the Cleveland Freethinkers

Inspirational Quip #3

2008-12-23T01:13:00.007-05:00

"The history of religion can be compared to a layer cake... a mountain of layers of stale dogma, interspaced with the congealed blood of its victims, and overlaid with a sweetened opiate to make itself appealing to the gullible."

---Donald Henry Gudehus (U.S. Astronomer/Composer)

Inspirational Quip #2

2008-12-21T02:36:00.005-05:00

Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing,

"Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!"

If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it...

--- Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist

Inspirational Quip #1

2008-12-20T02:27:00.008-05:00

"I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy nailed to two pieces of wood."

--- George Carlin

Letter to the U.S. Republican Party

2008-10-28T16:45:00.010-04:00

Republicans, meet your evil spawn.

I don't know who this fellow is, nor would I want to. He appears to be exercising his First Amendment rights- the rights of free speech & free expression, along with freedom of belief; rights which are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to each & every citizen of the United States of America.

He is also a deluded ignoramus.

Shame on the McCain/Palin campaign, along with many others in the GOP... shame on the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Drudge, and all their minions... shame on all of you who perpetrated & disseminated the millions of noxious emails, chock full of distorted, misleading, and downright false information.

Last, but not least- shame on the millions of "mainstream" conservatives who stand idly by while their party moves to the fringe. You, mainstream Republicans, have let your party become anti-educated and anti-idea.

I am positive that millions of Americans would join me in the sentiment, "SPREADING FEAR AND IGNORANCE IS NOT MY IDEA OF PATRIOTISM."

People like the man pictured above are YOUR wayward children... and they will be YOURS to deal with.

We, the remainder of America, hereby wash our hands of them!

Mark Tiborsky, the Cleveland Freethinkers

The Cleveland Unfree Thinkers

2008-10-22T10:26:00.002-04:00

Scary stuff. A reporter confronts an agry, ignorant mob outside a McCain-Palin rally in the Cleveland suburb of Strongsville last week. I know there are pockets of ignorant people around here - but this? How do we stop such ignorance and hate?

Trainspotter's Guide to Election '08

2008-10-05T01:32:00.002-04:00

Easy Answers

2008-09-14T00:34:00.002-04:00

Ah yes... the default answer for all of humankind's toughest, most perplexing questions!

Even an atheist would find the miracle in a pregnant woman dying

2008-08-17T23:34:00.002-04:00

Thank you Mr. Daly for speaking for me.

The article starts, "Even and atheist would say some sort of higher power was at work..." and then describes a crowd of strangers who came together to lift a school bus off of a pregnant woman. And even a Jew would say Jesus were at work. Here we have the classic, flip side of the "no atheists in foxholes," cliche.

"From where?" the local man speculates about the origin of the ability of these people to all come together in an act of compassion. "We all know where, but we don't always speak of it." From the set up of this article, the quote implies that the man on the street is referring to God, but the rest of the quote casts ambiguity upon that conclusion; " Goodness, goodness and love." Goodness and love, two characteristics of human beings at their best, no higher power required, but sold separately to those convinced they need it.

This story appears to be the typical, "something bad happened, then people worked really hard and something good happened, sha-zam, a miracle occurred story but it's not.

First the rescue of the mother is not the actual miracle. She died! The actual miracle is that hard-working and skilled medical professionals saved the unborn baby, just like another baby of a killed pregnant woman had been saved 14 years ago. Is it really unusual for a baby to be rescued from a critically injured woman late in her pregnancy?

What an insult to the people who tried to rescue this woman and to the doctors who saved the baby. They deserve the credit. It's no "miracle" that the average person would be decent enough to help lift a bus off a pregnant woman. That is, unless you really think mankind is fundamentally evil, as many religious traditions do. (Or that you can't expect people in on "this corner" to be decent people.) As one of the commenters said, "No Mr. Daly, an atheist like me would say that someone's mom wouldn't end up under a bus, if a God ruled over the planet."

ETA- Read this article that argues how lucky this baby is because he wasn't one of the millions of babies whose mother isn't crushed to death by a bus before it was even born.

Against Ignorance: Science Education in the 21st Century

2008-08-09T10:46:00.002-04:00

Moderated by Mark A. Kay of the Stanford School of Medicine

Cosponsored with the Stanford School of Medicine

Sunday, March 9, 2008
2:00-4:00pm

Memorial Auditorium

The rise of religiously motivated threats to scientific practice and instruction in American schools has motivated biologist Richard Dawkins and physicist Lawrence Krauss to engage in a public dialogue on strategies for science education in the twenty-first century. Their open conversation concerning science literacy and related issues began in the July 2007 Scientific American and continues at this Aurora Forum event moderated by Mark Kay of the Stanford School of Medicine.

.

RICHARD DAWKINS

Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor in the Public Understanding of Science, at the University of Oxford, is an ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and popular science writer who first came to prominence with his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, which popularized the gene-centered view of evolution and introduced the term meme into the lexicon, helping found memetics. In 1982, he made a widely cited contribution to the science of evolution with the theory presented in The Extended Phenotype that phenotypic effects are not limited to an organism's body but can stretch far into the environment, including into the bodies of other organisms. He has since written several best-selling popular books, and appeared in a number of television and radio programs, concerning evolutionary biology, creationism, and religion. He is a Fellow of both the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Literature. His many prizes include the International Cosmos Prize, the Nakayama Prize for Human Science and the Shakespeare Prize for Distinguished Contributions to British Culture. The author of The God Delusion, he is an outspoken atheist, secular humanist, and sceptic. In 2006 he created the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

http://richarddawkins.net/

LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS

Lawrence Krauss, the Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics, Professor of Astronomy, and Director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University, received his PhD from MIT in 1982 and then joined the Society of Fellows at Harvard University. Author of seven popular books, including The Physics of Star Trek, and dozens of commentaries for national publications, radio and television, he also lectures widely on science and public policy. Among his many scientific honors, he has the unique distinction of having received the highest awards from all three U.S. physics societies. A Fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he has been particularly active in issues of science and society, leading the effort by scientists to defend the teaching of science in public schools, and to help define the proper limits of both science and religion, as well as defending scientific integrity in government. An open letter he sent to Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, urging the pontiff not to build new walls between science and faith, led the Vatican to reaffirm the Roman Catholic Church’s acceptance of natural selection as a valid scientific theory. Most recently he has led the call for a presidential debate on science and technology.

http://www.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss

MARK A. KAY (MODERATOR)

Mark Kay, the Director of the Program in Human Gene Therapy and the Dennis Farrey Family Professor in the Departments of Pediatrics and Genetics at Stanford University, received a PhD in Developmental Genetics and MD from Case Western Reserve University. Before coming to Stanford, he was at the University of Washington as Associate Professor in the Departments of Medicine, with adjuncts in Pediatrics, Biochemistry and Pathology. His research has lead to over 175 scientific publications in various leading journals. He is currently oversees a laboratory focused on gene therapy for hemophilia and viral hepatitis. His work has been recognized by many awards. He was on the founding board of directors of the American Society for Gene Therapy and served as the Society’s President in 2005-2006.

http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/Mark_Kay

pat condell~The tyranny of scripture

2008-08-07T20:09:00.002-04:00

Scenes from an Atheist De-Baptism Ceremony

2008-08-06T05:44:00.012-04:00

Scenes from an Atheist De-Baptism Ceremony
Posted in Friendly Atheist at 7:00 am by Hemant Mehta
How does one actually go about having an atheist de-baptism ceremony?
I attended one in Westerville, Ohio over the weekend and I can now tell you about all the ceremonial details.
It begins with some words from Acting President of American Atheists, Frank Zindler:
“Do you agree that the magical potency of today’s ceremony is exactly equal to the magical efficacy of ceremonial baptism with dihydrogen monoxide, and do you agree that the power of all magical ceremonies is nonexistent?”
Then, everyone responds with a booming, “Amen!”
There is no Baptismal pool here.
All that is needed is a blow dryer — in this case, the Blow Dryer of Reason — held by AA’s Legal Director Edwin Kagin:

Then, the masses form a line to take part in this joyous occasion:

One by one, they go underneath the Dryer…

And sometimes, the non-religious emotion overcomes you and you just fall (via jenigray2000):

Some people just can’t get enough!

Even President George W. Bush wants to get in on this action:

It’s not just for adults. This little girl can now see the light!

What do you get after you’ve gone through the whole process?
A nifty certificate.
This woman is positively thrilled:

What does that certificate say…?

And no de-baptism service is complete without stopping by the de-communion table, which holds the holy A&W Root Beer and peanut butter and honey de-communion crackers.

This raises an interesting question… what happens if you desecrate an atheist communion wafer?!
One brave soul wants to find out and is surely seeking the wrath of the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue…

His inbox is going to have *so* much crazy hate mail…
…
The media had a good time with this ceremony as well. Here’s a great article by Sarah Pulliam of The Columbus Dispatch.
…
Special thanks to event organizer (and good friend) Ashley Paramore for putting together a really kickass event.

Decency Deficit

2008-08-04T01:19:00.001-04:00

The Roman Philosopher Seneca observed that the great source of anger within his realm was unrealistically high expectations. He noted that the nobility of Rome, with all their pomp and wealth, held unrealistically high expectations of others and of life; and were in turn destined to suffer in fury when things did not work out the way they wanted. His proposal was for us to adapt to our surroundings; that we should not expect precision and promptness in every event; rather, that we should expect delays, omissions, mistakes, accidents, and any other unintended occurrence that may or may not be avoidable. To spend one's time harping at every slight, every mistake, every little thing that one dislikes is not only a complete waste of energy; It has the opposite effect than intended. Pointing out the minor and insignificant occurrences we all make irritates; I often catch my mistakes as I make them, often correcting them, but I don't obsess over them.

Workplaces can be difficult to conduct oneself in a pleasant manner; Using retail as as example: It is expected that customers will bring whatever moods or problems they have into the store with them. The assumption that any employee of a store is required to behave as a subordinate to the customer is a mindset that too many people possess. I have had far too many exchanges with people who assume my job is to placate their every whim to pass it off as a few bad eggs. A simple search online of blogs by people in the service industry will tell you everything you need to know. I don't often make sweeping generalizations, but I will now; the American consumer is a pretentious asshole.

The solution, is easy to put in writing. Be forgiving. Be understanding. Allow for mistakes. Laugh off any nuisance. Don't harp on someone the second the mess up. I do these things. I haven't always, but I can say with complete honesty that for the last year I have made my surroundings a more pleasant place because of my commitment to this ideal.

What have I observed? Well, that I am for the most part alone. Women tend to be nicer. Younger people in general have better attitudes. Minorities tend to be one, or the other. Economic status plays a role; If you have a lot of money, or a little, you are more likely to be a jerk. The one politician I assisted was a very nice individual, although his daughter was quite unappreciative of the money he was spending on her.

What is my point? It's easy. Why should we not behave with decency towards other human beings? And why shouldn't that apply everywhere? Why do we not treat one another with respect, all the time? Why did I have to be told time and time again from the age of ten just how nice and polite I was? It has been clear to me for a long time that people simply do not expect much from one another.

I am starting a new tactic today. From now on, I will continue to be kind, helpful, courteous, and friendly to every single person I meet. And if they do not respond in kind, provided I am not at work, I will point this out. I hear all the time how unhappy people are with one another. Isn't it time to do something about it?

Michael

Join the Cleveland Freethinkers! (?)

2008-07-28T16:28:00.009-04:00

Hello to anyone who may have seen our little blurb in today's (7/28) Cleveland Plain Dealer!

Do you think the sentiment expressed above is utterly absurd?

Then join us! It's as easy as clicking on the wording below the Cleveland Freethinkers meetup.com tag on the upper right, and signing up. Membership is free, of course.

Yes, quite a few atheists & agnostics lurk within the Cleveland Freethinkers- and our membership also includes open-minded believers & spiritual folk. Our statement of purpose, in a nutshell, can be found on the right-hand side of this blog. You can find more info by simply clicking on the wording below the meetup.com tag.

Join us! It'll be fun and informative.

But if, perchance, you happen to think that the sentiment in the church sign pictured above makes perfect sense...

Then RUN! FLEE! Click on the li'l "x" in the upper right corner of your screen!

There is content here that may curl the pages of Holy books... this group is not for you. Run!

Mark T. (Asst. Organizer, the Cleveland Freethinkers)

An Atheist Meets God

2008-07-15T22:51:00.001-04:00

Here's a healthy dose of comic relief from EdwardCurrent! (4m52s)

MT

Dennett on Memes

2008-07-15T22:25:00.001-04:00

From TED: Ideas Worth Spreading
http://www.ted.com/index.php/

This 17-minute presentation by Daniel Dennett is good food for freethought... enjoy!

MT

Green Revolution

2008-07-05T00:30:00.002-04:00

Thomas Friedman Calls For Green Revolution

Hindsight is 20/20. Foresight; Well, it depends on your perspective. Take the war in Iraq, for example. 30% of us had the foresight to see the travesty coming; Yet we invaded, and arrogantly pronounced our "mission accomplished". Just look at how things turned out.

Now everyone is concerned about something which, to my admittedly biased eyes, is obvious. In the very near future, we are going to need to shift away from fossil fuels and start utilizing renewable energy sources. This is not a new line of thinking. Unfortunately, we are slow to adapt. Why only now do we strive to create a sustainable economy? Why only now are we, as a whole, asking ourselves the questions that the few asked earlier and were mocked for? Why have we allowed our culture to deteriorate to the point that we are unable adapt without usurping our status quo?

Thomas Friedman is asking the same question that I am, but from a different perspective. He is thinking in economic terms. He is thinking of solving our problems the same way we have for the last hundred years. The problem with his line of thinking is that it is constrained by his disillusion with the free market system we have in place. He wants the system to work for us, and he believes that the system is in place for us. He is wrong, because he fails to include in his calculations things like greed, fear, corruption, and bigotry. He wants something to happen within a system designed to trample over new ideas, allowing only the most connected and expedient to survive. He wants a revolution of thinking, but he's talking to the wrong crowd.

Still, he has a hell of a good point.

Michael

In Memory of George Carlin

2008-06-23T11:05:00.001-04:00

One of the great freethinking voices silenced

Links

2008-06-16T03:21:00.003-04:00

Things I think you will like.

Teach the Controversy

Outgrow the Controversy

French Muslims rapped

Lord Petro

Impeachment Strategy

Michael

Atheist or Non-Theist: Is There a Difference?

2008-05-29T23:27:00.002-04:00

ATHEISM: a disbelief in the existence of deity

Many people who do not believe in the existence any sort of supreme being(s) are very reluctant to label themselves as Atheists. This is somewhat understandable- considering the stigma which has always been, and still is, attached to that particular term.

While I personally have no problem calling myself an Atheist, I actually prefer the broader term of Freethinker- which, as per the definition atop this blog, encompasses not only Atheists & Agnostics & the like but also certain types of Theists. It is my personal belief that Atheists alone will have a hard time making Earth a better place- but a true conglomeration of Freethinkers might have a pretty good shot at it...

Some terms for the philosophies of nonbelief have definitions that are markedly different than the term atheism- humanism & secular humanism, for example:

HUMANISM: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason

SECULAR HUMANISM: humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion

For the most part, the definition of atheism still applies to the above terms?

Lately I have come across the term non-theist somewhat frequently- I have to admit that this one confuses me a bit. "I do not consider myself an Atheist, I prefer to think of myself as a Non-Theist", or so they say...

NON-THEIST: one not having or involving a belief in God, especially as a being who reveals himself to humanity

Aw, c'mon... well, in truth, the term non-theist could be applied to adherents of Buddhism & other religions that do not involve a deity. But the beautifully simple definition of atheism still applies here, does it not?

Mark T.

God's Location?

2008-05-21T23:27:00.002-04:00

A freethought poem written by a member of the Cleveland Freethinkers, Don Boos...

Where is God?
by Don Boos

"Is there really a god?" you ask yourself,
As you take your bible off the shelf.

This is alleged to be God's word,
Written by scribes who claim to have heard...

The voice of God, or so they said,
But the voice was only within their head.

When people hear voices others cannot hear,
They are mentally ill is what we fear...

But when they claim the voice is God,
They're viewed as holy rather than odd!

So in your search for God you find,
God exists in one place... and thats in men's mind!

Cross Carrying Chuck

2008-05-08T09:42:00.001-04:00

Looks like this guy just wants attention, and if he doesn't get it? Then a disaster will strike your town! I'm also pretty sure that when Jesus had to carry his cross in the bible, that it didn't have training wheels...

Child Abuse

2008-05-02T00:47:00.002-04:00

Now children, we are going to take you through a museum, a building designed with the intent of imparting knowledge upon the masses through displays, representations, recreations, and rendered media, all of which have been exhaustingly researched and critiqued by millions of dedicated and well-meaning scientists, archaeologists, paleontologists, etc.; what we want you to do, is to look at everything you see, and whatever clashes with what we have told you actually happened, because we have a book that tells us so, we want you to reject it, and to laugh at it, because it is stupid!

Michael

Conversations in Ellwood City, PA

2008-04-22T09:36:00.005-04:00

The following is a description of my experience canvassing for Barack Obama last weekend. While I can't say that the sequence of events is exact, the descriptions of the people and places and the words they said to me are.

To be fair to Ellwood, the whole city is not in such a poor condition. I arrive early morning at our staging area, a picturesque home in a quaint, clean, and quiet neighborhood. A few hundred feet down the road at the local park, a city Earth Day festival is unfolding. The house I walk into is owned by a lovely woman, the wife of a local pastor, who has volunteered her home for the weekend and taken time out of her busy day caring for her young children to help the Obama campaign. But a short trip across the bridge to the West reveals a completely different world. It is a world mentioned in the news and in political speeches, but quickly forgotten by city folk. It is a world often passed by on a long drive, but never entered. It is a world where American dreams go to die.

As the early morning chill gives way to the warmth of the sun, the smell of burning trash is in the air. I have a list of Democratic households to visit, and my goal is to get a feel for Obama's support in the area. I set out to meet the people of West Elwood City. The roads are unkempt, many of the houses in disrepair, and the lawns littered with debris. The stickers and signs on the homes reveal a love for Jesus and country that is rivaled only by a love for Pittsburgh Steeler football. My morning optimism quickly fades as a man stops me on the road. He is middle aged and shoddily dressed with gray hair, a thick mustache, and a half smoked cigarette hanging from his mouth. He asks me what I'm doing. "I'm volunteering for the Barack Obama campaign, " I reply. He says condescendingly, "What do you want to work for him for? He's not going to do anything but raise your taxes." I briefly explain Obama's plan to lower taxes for the middle class, to which he simply replies, "I don't believe you." It is clear he has already made up his mind, even without knowing the facts. I move on to the homes on my list.

After knocking on the doors of a few vacant houses, I walk up to a small home with a large "This home is protected by Jesus" sticker on door. I knock. A tall woman with messy hair and a dirty white t-shirt answers the door with a hint of a smile on her face. "Can I help you?" she says. I tell her I am volunteer from the Obama campaign and her semblance of a smile quickly disappears. "I'm a Hillary supporter, " she snaps. "I would never vote for him. I would even for McCain before I'd vote for him." She slams the door in my face. I trudge on, trying not to be discouraged.

A few streets over I approach a dilapidated bungalow that sits below street level. There are no stairs. I hop down to reach the front door and knock. A large, well built man answers the door wearing a bright red union t-shirt. He carries a toddler in his right arm and a large wad of chewing tobacco in his mouth. I ask him who he is supporting in the upcoming election. The man tells me that he likes Obama, but that he has to vote with his union, and they have yet to endorse a candidate. I thank him for his time and move on.

After a few hours with little success, I step onto the porch of the left side of small duplex and ring the bell. A young African American man answers. When I tell him I am working for Obama, a large smile inches across his face. He tells me he is undecided but would like to talk. We sit on the porch and talk for about five minutes. He says he is a local pastor, and that he is surprised to see me in his area. While he does not say it outright, he hints at a strong sentiment of racism in his town and I tell him that I've noticed. As we conclude he admits he is leaning toward Obama and gives me a wink. I leave the house with a lifted spirit.

Down the street I creep up to a tattered home where the door is open and country music is blaring. I knock on the side. A hairy, heavy set white man in a dirty wifebeater walks up the hallway. "Hi, I'm a volunteer with the Barack Obam--." He quickly interrupts me by moving his hand in a shooing motion as he barks, "No, no! You get out of here!". As I scuttle away, he shouts from the door, " And tell your friends not to come back neither!"

Dejected, I walk up a long steep hillside to reach the final houses on my list. The summit provides a view over the whole side of town - the worn houses, the crumbling infrastructure, the failing commercial area, and the decrepit factories in the distance - the remnants of a once booming steel town. I come upon the last home on my list. It's no bigger than a trailer, and set a distance from the road. On the front lawn an oil drum filled with trash is burning. Two girls in their early twenties sit on lawn chairs smoking while six or seven children and a small dog chase each other excitedly around the house. One of the girls gets up to greet me and I ask for the name on my list. "She doesn't live here anymore, " replies the young girl. I thank her and ask who she might be supporting. She blows a plume of smoke and smiles as she says, "Oh, I don't really pay attention to that stuff." As I head back down the hill toward my car, a pickup truck passes by with a confederate flag in place of a front license plate.

Back at my staging area, I report my grim numbers to the woman in charge. "I'm not surprised, " she says, "at least we have more information now." I notice a pile of Obama lawn signs that were dropped off while I was out, and I ask here why she has not put one up. She sighs as she tells me that it wouldn't be appropriate due to her husband's position as pastor. I sigh in return, and thank her for being such a gracious host.

My heart is heavy on the PA Turnpike as the tiny town of Ellwood City, Pennsylvania fades in the distance. In my head I hear the words of Obama himself, words that have been replayed time and time again on the news, words about the bitterness in small town America, words that have been turned against him to paint him as "disconnected" and "elitist". But I see now that he is only honest. The bitterness is real, and those who ignore it are disconnected. There is little hope for a better America in the people of West Ellwood City.

The Devil's Handiwork

2008-04-20T12:48:00.001-04:00

A funny dose of reality from comedian Lewis Black!

New Rules- The Catholic Church

2008-04-15T18:47:00.000-04:00

Musings On Adaptation

2008-04-14T21:49:00.005-04:00

Giant Amazon Water Lily
by omurap666

I did not expect to find this clip of a water lily so fascinating, yet once again the internets, this time courtesy of i-am-bored.com, have surprised me. Here you have a clear example of a plant engaging in strategic behavior in order to ensure it's own survival. I don't mean to equate adaptive characteristics to thought-out planning; what fascinates me is how something as unremarkable as a floating leaf can devise methods of survival that captivate the imagination.

Last night, the National Geographic channel premiered a much-hyped special called The Human Footprint, in which they laid out visually much of the materials the average American goes through in their 77.75 year lifespan. While some of the numbers were mundane and expected, (5,054 newspapers in a lifetime, 31,350 gallons of gas) others were surprising (to me) and troubling. Take diapers, for instance The average toddler goes through 3,796 diapers; the materials used in creating those diapers include 1,898 pints of crude oil, 715 pounds of plastic, and the pulp of 4 1/2 trees; washing reusable diapers requires 22,455 gallons of water. And this is just the beginning.

Watch the show- I recommend it, solely for the value of knowing just how much we consume in our lives. I have to make an observation, though. Trust me, I know this is a leap, but just compare how efficient natural selection can be, like in the case of the water lily, when contrasted with the machinations of the Human species. With the lily, every element of the plant has a purpose. Spikes on the bottoms to ward off fish, curled edges to push aways competitors, flowers large enough to ensnare the required insects for pollenation; there is little waste, little frivolity when the issue at hand is survival.

Do we not have the same motives in life? Are we not driven by natural impulse to procreate, to leave our mark on this earth, to entrust our genetic survival to our offspring? Then why the hell are we at such a great level so inept at grasping such a simple concept; My well being is dependent on the fitness of that which surrounds me. Why do people think that there is no consequence for their actions? I have been a member of the environmental movement since I was eleven, and I have watched with much anger as people clung to the old way of doing things, then consider changing, then talk about changing, and then really seriously talk about changing (all the while going about their daily lives as though nothing were wrong); and doing nothing.

Well, now things are happening. Corporations have exploited the complacency of our government, and have flaunted regulations that were put in place decades ago with the specific intention of protecting people. NAFTA has enabled corporations to file suit against the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican government, suing them for money lost because of legislation enacted to curb environmental damage and social problems. And this is just the beginning. How much do you think it's going to cost us just to reduce U.S. material consumption by a paltry 10%? Doing so would be a great boon for our species and our planet, but the measures that need to be taken would usurp our entire way of life, were it to be done immediately.

What we need is compromise. What we needed long ago was compromise; unfortunately, those people responsible for building our great economic empire did so with great success mostly because they unfailingly, and often deliberately, ignored the consequences of their actions. Waste was produced and disposed of with no consideration for its effect on anyone or anything it came in contact with; working conditions were designed to maximize productivity with little, (and in some cases, in spite of) regard for the well being of those doing the work; products were designed to be profitable- efficiency and quality were secondary considerations; any additions to the infrastructure of the company or the area around it were implemented with zero consideration for the environmental effect it had; just to name a few problems.

I don't mean to condemn past generations for their ignorance. I do condemn them for their lack of effort and consideration. The reason we have the problems we do today is because of a pandemic of the mind; people have little reverence for life.

Michael

The Bigger, the Gooder

2008-04-12T11:47:00.006-04:00

Marnster & I just got back from a wonderful trip to Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
On the way home, we took a little side excursion to visit the world's largest PLUS SIGN!!!

This huge plus sign, which dwarfs Marnster at over 100 ft. high, is located in Caryville, TN. We saw another giant plus sign in the cheesy tourist hole of Pigeon Forge, TN (the home of Dollywood).

Here is the lowdown on the immense plus signs- courtesy of Jill McNeal, WATE-TV, Knoxville...

--- A local pastor wants to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Knox County by having a giant cross erected on the horizon. The cross will be visible near the exits for Washington Pike and Millertown Pike on Interstate 640.

You may already be familiar with Jim Potter's work. If you've driven on Interstate 75 in Campbell County, you've seen Potter's huge steel and concrete cross in Caryville off exit 141.
Now Potter is looking for help to continue his crusade in Knox County.

"It's an area that needs a cross. It'd be a shame for Knox County and the city of Knoxville not to have cross, wouldn't it? Ain't that what the Lord would say?" Potter asks.

Since Potter became a born again Christian at age 50, he's has been doing everything he can to share his story. "The cross is the most outward appearance of our inward faith."

Valley View Pastor Justin Pratt says from the ridge behind the church, the cross could be seen for miles. "I think it would just serve as a wonderful monument to our community that we in this area still want to lift the name of Christ and show people we're not ashamed of who we've put our trust and confidence in," Pastor Pratt says.

Jim Potter hopes the cross would inspire all who see it, like a woman he heard from in the past.
"She said, 'Are you the one who put up this big cross down here in Loudon County? Said the hair's still standing up on my arms where I went by that cross.' She said, 'I had to turn around and find out more about it,'" Potter recalls.

Potter sometimes encounters resistance to his towering monuments. Several years ago, he had to take down a similar cross in Anderson County, due to zoning laws. Potter hopes his next plan will be smooth sailing as he tries to put up a cross to Knoxville.---

Each cross stands over 100 feet tall and costs about $60,000. Potter has put up 10 giant crosses from Indiana to Virginia.

Mark T.

A Reminder

2008-04-09T21:00:00.002-04:00

A reminder that, though we often associate religious extremists with the fringes of society, stereotyping them as nothing more than the ignorant and close-minded base of the Republican party, you will find that this mentality crosses many boundaries. What would make a supposedly progressive-minded state legislator spew this kind of bile? Religion. Her statement that, "It's dangerous for our children to even know your philosophy exists!" sums up the problem that we Freethinkers face in this society. We are not hated just for disagreeing. We are loathed and feared because we exist.

Michael

Top Ten Books

2008-04-09T13:29:00.006-04:00

From my copy of Publishers Lunch today:

Harris Interactive surveyed American adults to find out "What is your favorite book of all time?" The answers:

1. The Bible
2. Gone with the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell
3. Lord of the Rings (series), by J.R.R. Tolkien
4. Harry Potter (series), by J.K. Rowling
5. The Stand, by Stephen King
6. The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown
7. To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
8. Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown
9. Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
10. Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger

That number one book is still wielding far too much influence for my taste. Do you think a majority would still claim it as their favorite, if they concluded that it was a complete fiction? Or almost completely fiction with a tiny bit of nonfiction now and then in reference to people's names or the occasional true event?

I don't see The God Delusion on the list. Or, The Pale Blue Eye, a stunning crime novel that came out in the last 2 years. Or Toni Morrison's masterpiece, Beloved. Or Richard Wright's Native Son. Or Cormac McCarthy's The Road. I love them all, and more, and cannot choose between them.

If anyone had asked me, my favorite book is the dictionary. After that there are too many to narrow it down, but none are on the above list. I choose the dictionary because all the other books are inside it, they're just jumbled up. (When I say dictionary I mean to include all dictionaries, accounting for different versions and different languages.)

What's your favorite book? Is it on the above list? Are you surprised by the titles on the list? Pleased by them? Disappointed?

Three Things That Define A Freethinker, According To Michael

2008-04-06T02:51:00.005-04:00

One- Rejection of dogma
So long as there shall exist, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation, which, in the face of civilisation, artificially creates hells on earth, and complicates a destiny that is divine, with human fatality; so long as the three problems of the age — the degradation of man by poverty, the ruin of woman by starvation, and the dwarfing of childhood by physical and spiritual night — are not solved; so long as, in certain regions, social asphyxia shall be possible; in other words, and from a yet more extended point of view, so long as ignorance and misery remain on earth, books like this cannot be useless. - Preface to Les Misérables

Dogma is, to sum its intent and consequence equally, the end of thought. A truly insidious idea; that one source provides the answers to all questions, the justification for all action, and the motive for all desire. While not exclusively a religious element, it is embraced most forcefully and most consistently by the faithful. Once a person commits themself to dogma, their world-view becomes corrupted by the necessity of maintaining their belief. I do not mean to say we should avoid any commitment to an ideal; rather, it is important for a Freethinker to vet any and all ideas that come to them, so as to ascertain the truth, and to commit themselves to that which proves itself worthy of devotion. Love, peace, happiness, enterprise, personal achievement; friendship, family, sex, art, humor, skill, exercise; striving to have fun, striving to try new things, striving to experience new ideas and new ways of living, striving to better ourselves, our family, our friends, our community, our country, and our planet, and our earth, and our environment; striving to achieve the closest thing to utopia (while recognizing that a true utopia is unachievable); I challenge anyone to tell me how this ideal is unrealistic. And, I challenge anyone to tell me how wanting to experience the most out of life, as I believe any true Freethinker should, is dogma.

Two- Acknowledgement of Human Progress
There is the past and its continuing horrors: violence, war, prejudices against those who are different, outrageous monopolization of the good earth's wealth by a few, political power in the hands of liars and murderers, the building of prisons instead of schools, the poisoning of the press and the entire culture by money. It is easy to become discouraged observing this, especially since this is what the press and television insist that we look at, and nothing more.
But there is also the bubbling of change under the surface of obedience: the growing revulsion against endless wars, the insistence of women all over the world that they will no longer tolerate abuse and subordination... There is civil disobedience against the military machine, protest against police brutality directed especially at people of color. - Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States

We hear constantly how violent and obscene our society is, how nobody looks out for one another and how good things used to be. I have heard many times from people much older than me about how communities used to look out for one another, and how they and the church helped to keep children under control and violence at a minimum. It's a nice thought. But it is a idea that has absolutely no basis on reality. I could explain why a person is likely to feel that things were better when they were young, but I'd rather offer a single historical perspective. I think it gets my point across well enough.

Violence has decreased dramatically in the last century. I was unaware of this until last summer. It was a revelation that helped make me aware of just how far we had come in the last few centuries. What I learned was that, if you were to tabulate the number of people killed by human hands in each century, starting with the earliest centuries we can accurately draw information from, all the way to the end of the twentieth century, you would notice two things. One, for the most part, there was a steady rate at which people slaughtered each other from year to year. The second thing, is that approximately 500 million people died in the twentieth century at the hands of another person; that number is half of what should have been expected, if you were to assume that the rate of killing from one century to another were remain consistent.

Think about it. In the century in which we saw a dramatic population rise, a drastic increase in our ability to sow destruction across the earth, via jets and missiles and nukes, with more people competing for the same amount of land and resources, we had less killing. I must also point out that the religiosity of the human race is arguably at its lowest, having declined over the same time period. Whatever explanation you may offer at the micro level, the macro truth is the one I am stating here: education, communication, and greater awareness of the plights of other people has improved the quality of life for everyone, and there is no reason to suspect that that trend will change.

Three- Quest For Wisdom & Knowledge
It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty. To the contrary, I believe it would be possible to rob even a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness, if it were possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to devour continuously, even when not hungry, especially if the food, handed out under such coercion, were to be selected accordingly. - Albert Einstein, "Autobiographical Notes"

The truth shall set you free; a mantra I both deplore and accept; far too many long-winded and empty sermons have preached the greatness of "truth". The corruption of an idea that should be impervious to misuse is by far the greatest offense the masses of small minds have forced upon us. Ask someone to tell you their name, their age, their gender, their hair color, their occupation, and you will get a response with little or no hesitation, without the need to think too carefully. Now ask them to make a true statement. I've tried it. Nearly everyone I posed this question to was confounded by the very concept. Why? Say something that is true: my name is Michael, I am a man, as I type this sentence, the sun is facing the opposite side of the earth. It shouldn't be difficult to ascertain truth in life. We are bombarded with things that are true every second we are awake, from birth until death. Yet, thanks to the actions of no one and nothing but our fellow Human beings, we have contrived to live in a world where anything, and everything, is subject to irrational and illogical interpretation. People define reality as it relates to their own existence; every action, every sense, every event, every intent, every single thing they become aware of is subject to interpretation as they see fit.

It is easy to ignore or diminish the difficulties in life; it is hard, and often dangerous to confront them; it is impossible to eradicate them. But, we all need to find a purpose in this life. It is the universal question everyone asks; why? Each one of us has a different answer. I do not feel as though I am being unfair when I say that not all answers are created equal. To declare that your purpose in life is to sow destruction and malice upon the earth is deplorable, just as it is to believe that your only reason for existing is to prepare yourself for the "next" stage; there are many ways to squander the only thing we know for certain we will ever have. It is my absolute conviction that our greatest challenge in life is our effort to find meaning in it. I believe that identifying what it is we want to achieve, be it something great or something benign, is the crucial first step in finding happiness from life.

So what do truth and purpose have in common? The absence of one corrupts the other. Ignorance, perpetuated falsehoods, and out right lies have affected Humanity's existence greatly, and not for the better. We are still emerging from an intellectual coma that non-reason and dogma had put us in. There is still much that needs to be done in terms of progress; whether it be our system of education or health, our government, our infrastructure, our social and economic and foreign relations, our culture, our technological advancement, our ecological impact; these things are still in their infancy in terms of what we can achieve, but already we have done much to set our species off course. We must assert control, both within our own minds and as a collective society, if we wish to thrive. We cannot let the trials and travails of past generations hold us back. We must learn to utilize the lessons of the past to guide us. We must not let fables and ignorance dictate where science and reason have already spoken. We must accept that in life, there are some lines that should, and must be drawn. In short, I believe we should all commit ourselves to discovering what really is "true", and through that, what is right.

Michael

A Christian Skewers ID

2008-03-29T13:38:00.008-04:00

A recent exchange on the subject of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution/"Expelled", courtesy of the ABC News "Science & Society" blog...

TOM said;
"Anyone who believes we evolved from apes without a single transitional species to be found (and there should be "countless" millions of them in the fossil record) is clearly operating on blind faith.

There are SO many gaps in evolutionary theory, how it is so widely accepted is miraculous. This movie will expose alot of truth that has been withheld for too long."

To which my hero, RAYMOND, replied;
"Of course there are transitional fossils found! Any student of the subject would know this. And we really are beginning to collect an impression collection of human/hominid fossils stretching way back. Of course, every time a new fossil is found we create another "gap." So the abundance of gaps in the fossil record is a testimony to the abundance of fossils we have found, a huge amount of evidence. The evidence is not only in the fossil record itself, but also in our own DNA.

I am a former creationist. I have not lost faith in God one little bit, but I have lost faith in creationism and the pseudo-science that is done in the name of God. None of it is real science, none of it follows the evidence to come to a conclusion, but all of it, all of the evidence and interpretation of it in creationism is bent to a predetermined conclusion. Lying is pretty much an all-the-time event, including lying about what science says, what science is, what science does, and why it does it. These lies are blatant and fill their literature. They take what scientists say and remove the context and twist the words to make it appear that they are saying something else or admitting to something they are not. They easily ignore anything that does not agree with their predetermined position, and continue to repeat arguments or claim as evidence things which have been conclusively shown to be false.

Dawkins was absolutely right to be incensed by the trickery of these hypocrites. True Christians would have been straightforward and honest in their dealings. The interviews in the picture were stolen by lies.

So please, fellow Christians, forgive me when I say that no good thing can come from this. Any philosophy or position which must be supported by lying is corrupt, and creationism is about as corrupt as it is possible to get. Hmmm. Now what punishment did Christ say would be handed out to "workers of iniquity" who claimed to follow him?"

A thousand tips of the hat to you, Raymond!!!

Mark T.

Intelligent Design 1:2

2008-03-25T23:24:00.007-04:00

Intelligent Design proponents are twistin' and spinnin'!

Premise Media, which is planning to release Ben Stein's "Expelled" on April 18th, had this to say about the PZ Myers affair:

“It is amazing to see the reaction of PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and their cohorts when one of them is simply expelled from a movie. Yet these men applaud when professors throughout the nation are fired from their jobs and permanently excluded from their profession for mentioning Intelligent Design,” said producer Mark Mathis. Mathis was at the event that has raised this controversy.

Mathis continued, “I hope PZ’s experience has helped him see the light. He is distraught because he could not see a movie. What if he wasn’t allowed to teach on a college campus or was denied tenure? Maybe he will think twice before he starts demanding more professors be blacklisted and expelled simply because they question the adequacy of Darwin's theory.”

"...simply because they question the adequacy of Darwin's theory"... sounds rather scientific. But wouldn't "simply because they want to teach religion as science" be closer to the truth?

The truth comes out when one digs a bit deeper... here is an excerpt from the official "Expelled" blog:

"The proponents of evolutionism are so fanatical in promoting their belief system, and in forcing it in EVERYBODY, they just give no chance for any other explanation to be heard.

But here is the way it really is. It is called the Gap Theory, and it comports both with the Genesis account and the physical evidence:

Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2... the most common variety of “gap theory” assumes that a chronological gap occurs between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, during which vast spans of geologic time are presumed to have elapsed. It is thus postulated that the Earth was initially created in the distant past, and that all geologic events pointing to an old Earth transpired before some event that reduced the Earth to a state of formlessness or chaos as described in Genesis 1:2."

STOP!!! It's THAT "ridiculous book" again...

Mark T.

Cleveland's Freethinking Past

2008-03-19T00:00:00.003-04:00

The Cleveland area was a hotbed of freethought in the late 1800's/early 1900's.

Here is an excerpt from "The School and the Immigrant" by Herbert Adolphus Miller (1916).

BOHEMIANS

It is impossible to understand the Bohemians in America without some knowledge of Bohemian history. They are one of the national divisions of the Slavs. The Bohemians who dwell in the northwestern part of Austria, directly between Dresden and Vienna, have been the subject of more German influence than any other Slavic people, and in many respects are indistinguishable from the Germans. In 1415 the church and the state burned at the stake John Huss, a Bohemian priest, the first martyr to religious freedom. A revolt took place which made Bohemia Protestant until the Thirty Years War, which began in 1618. After that Catholicism was re-established, and to this day embraces nearly all the inhabitants of Bohemia.

In America, beginning more than 50 years ago, a reaction was organized until at the present time approximately two-thirds of an estimated million are aggressive free-thinkers. In Cleveland about half are Catholics and the rest free-thinkers, with only a few hundred Protestants. Both parties have many organizations and, while the feeling between the two is very strong, the common Slavic feeling manifests itself most strongly in antipathy for the German language. The free-thinkers are the more nationalistic, and fortunately so, for with the loss of the control of the church there is a tendency to materialism which can be counteracted only by devotion to some social cause. There is no group to which the mother tongue and national history can have more moral value. This is in part because their history is peculiarly rich. Commemus, one of the world's greatest educators, was a Bohemian, exiled during the Thirty Years War. The influence of Bohemian history has been such that the people refuse to accept dogma, and even the children argue theology.

Even the children? Must've been nice! Many Czechs who settled in this area were Freethinkers also.

May the Cleveland area be a hotbed of freethought once again! (eventually...)

MT

Recent CFT Ruminations

2008-03-11T21:48:00.008-04:00

Here are some excerpts from the Cleveland Freethinkers' recent email threads...

JOSH, on a common misinterpretation of atheism:

I think atheism (as most I know define it) is misunderstood. It's not the belief in no god, but rather the lack of a belief in god. There is a big difference. I don't say "there is no god". I say "whether there is god or not, I've seen nothing to make think he has any effect on my life, so I choose to live as if he does not exist". Does that make sense? I'm through and through a skeptic, so I'll always leave open the possibility that I'm wrong, but I don't let it affect the way I live.

RICHARD, on the value of an Atheist speaking his/her mind to a Theist:

It does much to speak words of reality to those that try to live outside of it in their own minds. It takes more work to protect their religious minds than it takes for us to simply live. The majority of religious people do not work very hard to protect their dogma... they become vulnerable to glimpses of reality.

CLOUDBERRY, on the "atheist's burden" (the challenge to "prove" that God doesn't exist):

The thing about the God dilemma is that it seems to be hinging on this: If I say I believe in God, and I don't consider myself stupid enough to believe in something unless it exists, then I believe God exists... and it is an insult to me to say that God doesn't exist. So, if I say God exists, and someone questions that, I begin to revert to the methods of childhood. I get mad, and then I say, "all right- you think I'm so wrong, prove it. I bet you can't."

The trouble is, there is no way I know of to prove that something does not exist- even something simple, like an apple. If I am holding an apple and I say I believe this apple exists, because I can see it and touch it and smell it and eat it, then almost everyone will agree that the apple is real. Very few people will argue the apple does not exist. They might call it by another name, but they will agree there is such a thing as an apple. But, if I have no apple, and no one has ever seen or touched or eaten an apple, and I insist that I have a vision of an apple in my head and I believe it exists, does that mean it is real?

GORDON, in response to the following statement: "Agnosticism leads to truth and investigation without limitations."

Just for clarity, when one arrives at truth, does it have to be taken on faith?

Zinger! More to follow.

MT

Three Points of Atheism

2008-03-02T19:37:00.010-05:00

In a recent Cleveland Freethinkers discussion thread, I attempted to present three points of evidence on which I base my atheism.

Joining me in this part of the discussion (which has not concluded as of yet) are Paul, an Agnostic (as far as I know)- and Michael (CFT's Blogmaster), an Atheist like myself. Both Paul and Michael gave their analysis on each of the three points.

Here is what ensued... (Mark blue, Paul red, Michael black)

1) The distinct and obvious lack of ANY empirical evidence for the existence of a Supreme Being (all hearsay & manipulated science are ruled out).

1) I agree with the above because it is true. However if we flip the coin we have: The distinct and obvious lack of ANY empirical evidence for the non-existence of a Supreme Being etc....

1) The argument of evidence, or lack thereof, in defense or critique of god, is one that I feel very strongly about, and on that I personally believe best illustrates the nature of the debate. A person who claims that the lack of evidence of non existence can be construed as possible evidence of existence is revealing them self to be guilty of wanting that existence to be true, to the extent that they are willing to reject any argument that conflicts with that desire. Desire does not have any influence over reality, and as such cannot be used in defense of a position.

2) Being human myself, I know of the human mind's propensity for falling prey to both fear of the unknown and wishful thinking.

2) We can wish there is a God and we can wish there isn't a God. This statement proves nothing other than human beings can wish. It doesn't add anything credible to whether or not God does or does not exist. It simply levels the conversation to one of choice!

2) As I said previously, desire does not have any influence over reality. You clearly recognize that thinking along these lines reduces the argument to one of choice- I have to ask, why then should we dismiss the significance of choice in defense of the the god hypothesis? I think we can all agree that we are, by nature, atheist at birth, needing to be influenced by our environments and families in order to embrace any understanding of a higher power. Why cannot it be argued that those who believe in a higher power are doing out of no more compelling motivation than their own selfish desires? Why is the natural position, one of atheistic agnosticism, the position that must do all the intellectual heavy lifting?

3) The observable, measurable natural universe is capable of self-organization, self-regulation, and self-replication within the framework of nature itself- no "intelligent designer" needed!

3) Says who? You! A person can say: The observable ............of nature itself needs an intelligent designer. Your statement is faith based because you can't prove it. There are colors the human eye cannot see and sounds we can't hear. Because we can't see or hear a thing with our five senses does not mean it doesn't exist! Therefore something could be standing next to us made of a color we can't see, speaking to us in a range we can't hear! I'm a philosopher but I'm also a realist and admit what I can't prove to be true or false.

3) I have to point out that you have not addressed Mark's statement with your comment, but rather suggested that he makes it out of faith. I agree with Mark's position that the natural world functions without intervention, and that there is no omnipotent, invisible hand manipulating things in our absence. I disagree with your assessment of that position being a faith claim. As I understand it, a faith claim has it's origins in the human mind, not in the observable natural world. We can, and have, and do, and will, for our entire lives, be able to observe and interpret and manipulate with great effect the machinations of the natural world. This is no faith claim. I can plant a seed, give it water and light, and in time it will grow into a adult specimen of a plant. If I planted a sunflower seed, I could have faith that it would grow into a pear tree, but the reality of nature dictates that things operate independently of our thoughts and desires, and that I would be disappointed with the outcome, as every person is who bases their faith outside of what is real, determined through observation, reason, and experimentation. god is not obervable, his existence cannot be proved through experimentation (I will argue that is have been disproved through experimentation), and the very notion of it's existence is unreasonable (though understandable). Therefore, god cannot be real.

MT

Washin' Some Brain

2008-02-17T22:48:00.001-05:00

Behold the genius of Kent Hovind!
In today's sermon, Kent "sheds some light" on Atheism/Agnosticism...

Nice Guys Finish First

2008-02-13T06:39:00.003-05:00

This is a short film Richard Dawkins did for the BBC in 1987. Considering the era in which it was filmed, I find the argument he makes compelling.

Michael

Free Market Capitalism as Religion?

2008-02-05T11:41:00.001-05:00

Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of
the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Okay, this passage from the founding father of Capitalism, Adam Smith, may be taken out of context. Smith's invisible hand is really a metaphor for his prediction that self-interest will drive the market to a relative balance. He admits later in his landmark work, The Wealth of Nations, that the system would not be perfect and would require some regulation to prevent corruption, collusion, and monopoly.

250 years later, the substance of Smith's work has been forgotten, and the invisible hand has suddenly become a god in itself. Many on the Christian right have taken the hand literally to mean that of their own god. Contemporarychristianity.org writes:

If one holds to a strong theology of Providence and common grace it is possible to believe that God uses the market mechanism (Smith’s “invisible hand”) to achieve “least worst outcomes” in a Fallen world.

But more so, even the non-religious have assumed the belief that the market will always just correct itself, and that any regulation or intervention is harmful. When a leading hedge fund lost billions and shocked the market, and people cried for regulation, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan testified before congress that the market should stay self-regulated and that regulation would make things worse. Greenspan said this about the famous Sherman Anti-Trust Act passed to break up corrupt monopolies at the turn of the 20th century:

No one will ever know what new products, processes, machines, and cost-saving mergers failed to come into existence, killed by the Sherman Act before they were born. No one can ever compute the price that all of us have paid for that Act which, by inducing less effective use of capital, has kept our standard of living lower than would otherwise have been possible.

This kind of absolute faith is harmful whether in religion or economy. In the last decade, broadband internet in the US has slowly been falling behind Europe and Asia in speed and access. Just a few days ago, the Bush administration released it's strategy for pulling America back to the forefront. What was that plan? Do nothing. Rather than providing steps for better broadband, the report simply regurgitates the arguments that regulation is bad, government intervention is bad, and if we leave the market alone it will catch itself up. Here's a sample from the "plan" Network Nation: Broadband in America 2007:

Experience teaches that when government tries to substitute its
judgment for that of the free market, or otherwise anticipate consumer
demand by favoring one product or vendor over another, it can easily
distort the market place

The free market has many positives. It is fairly stable, it fosters innovation, and it allows a lot of personal freedom, but we would be no different from religious zealots if we believed absolutely that the market will perfect itself without human intervention. Smith's invisible hand was just a metaphor for people's tendency to make society better through self interest. People drive the market, and people need to fix it. There is no invisible hand. It's a shame Smith has been taken so out of context.

On a side note - interesting that those who believe in the invisible hand of god and those who believe in the invisible hand of the market both tend to be in the same political party...

Federalism

2008-02-02T19:15:00.000-05:00

This is something I have been thinking about quite a bit recently, and I am working on a essay I will post on our blog/forum, but first I wanted to see what the group as a whole has to say on this subject.

As someone who is very much interested in all things related to Human interaction, and as someone who invests a great deal of their time in politics and government, I have been considering the role and possible future evolution of Federalism within our society. To clarify the topic, I offer the initial paragraph from Wikipedia's entry on the subject: Political federalism is a political philosophy in which a group of members are bound together (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term federalism is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is the system in which the power to govern is shared between the national & state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists. The United States is the second largest and oldest Federation, with India being the most populous; Germany,Russia, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands,Switzerland, Bosnia and Herzegovina being European Federations; Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia being the only African Federations; Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico and Canada joining the U.S. in the New World; Australia, Malaysia, Iraq, Nepal, and the United Arab Emirates from Asia.

You can see the diversity here. It seems to me that Federalism is the governmental system of choice for nations with a tenacity for change. The African countries aside (as, sadly, they always seem to be), the countries that have adopted Federalism as their government structure appear to have three traits in common: they lack long-term historical and cultural independence, (in the way the French, Chinese, British, Iranians and Spanish have had, for example); they have all seen significant changes as far as their wealth and security are concerned; and, thanks to innumerable factors that cannot be listed here, have a great deal of exposure to outside influences that are reflected in their modern day culture.

So, my questions for you are: Do you feel, as I do, that the Federalist structure of Nation->State->Individual is effective and beneficial to our well being? What role should each element play within this system, and what power and rights should each posses? Where do corporations, churches, organizations (ours, the NRA, MADD, the many guilds and groups of Hollywood, etc.), hospitals, colleges and universities fit in, and how should they function within the Federal system, and what authority should each of them posses on their own?

I will post this on our blog, and in our forum, as well as with several other groups that I am a part of. My intent is to clarify for myself specifically, and those around me who are interested, just what direction our government should be heading in. I appreciate everyone's input, and look forward to reading what you have to say.

Michael

Absence

2008-02-02T12:55:00.000-05:00

All right, you guys know the rest of the saying about absence: Does not make the heart grow fonder. And I'll bet you've already guessed that I'm not talking about intimate relationships. No, I'm referring to the lack of public presence for people who think freely outside the dictates of religion. Fox TV is a prime example. And where are the counterparts to Contemporary Christian radio? Even Sirius has a Catholic channel. Damn!

Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe there is something good and great and ungodly that I am not aware of. I hope so. But for now, my question is: Where are the Atheist radio stations? Where is the media that speaks for the atheist or skeptic or agnostic or freethinker?

It's no wonder people fear us. They don't know who the hell we are, so we trigger the ancient reptile section of the brain that says look out! There's a monster hiding under the bed. Hey, we know we're not monsters. We know we're nice, normal, law abiding people. We know we don't eat babies for brunch. The trouble is, they don't.

I used to be in radio (before engineering, before writing, before art) and had what most people would consider my own show. But it wasn't a show of my own choosing. I hosted a show based on the Program Director's ideas, and while I came up with my own interview questions, and chose who to invite to be on the air, the theme of the program was outside my control. OK then, not OK now.

How does a new show get started? How do people convince hostile or reluctant station owners to give them a chance? This is the great unknown, and I'm hoping someone out there will have answers. If I have faith in anything, it is the brilliance, resourcefulness, skill, and talent of the members of this group and similar groups.

So here's my thought for the day: We need to establish a media presence, in concert with the wonderful books being written by our atheist stars (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) and the sooner the better. Any ideas?

MySpace Atheists

2008-02-01T00:07:00.001-05:00

Once again, Rupert Murdoch has unsheaved his claws, digging deep into our cultural wounds he has already drawn to rend yet another piece of flesh off our backs. He, and his conservative ilk, like hyenas, tore off another piece from the carcass that is the corporate-controlled internet; MySpace has deleted a group, the Atheist and Agnostic Group, a group 35,000 strong, doing no harm to anyone, for allegedly offending theists.

No specific offense, no particular event justified this act. Just the mere idea that a group of, *gasp*, ATHEISTS!, would attempt such a callous and undignified spectacle; to organize, communicate, and meet each other! Why, what must those scurrilous scoundrels be attempting? They want to meet each other? *Eeech* They want to talk, and discuss ideas? *Blech* They, for the love of god, want to help people improve their lives? *Retch* My god, they even want to consume FOOD while they commit such sins! *Turn it off! Turn it off! I cant take any more!*

What is this world coming to?

Michael

In Govt. We Trust

2008-01-27T20:03:00.000-05:00

Well, I guess no one should be surprised that when the U.S. Mint released their plans for the new Predisdential one dollar coins the babies on the christian right would be in an uproar over how they took "In God We Trust" off of our coins!

Except they didn't. They just moved the saying and our other motto, "E pluribus unum", the mint mark, and the year the coin was minted, to the edge of the coin. When they initially released the coins, there was an error at the mint, and 50,000 coins got out without their edge inscriptions. Anyone who wants to see an anti-christian bias here will find it, but the rest of us intelligent, reasonable, rational, thinking adults can see how this was just a simple mistake, easily fixed, and that we can all go on not using these coins except when they are forced upon us.

Michael

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

2008-01-23T00:08:00.000-05:00

A change in topic here, but one that I feel falls into the category of freethought. What this post is about is art, the most subjective and disputed of all of man's creations.

The list of nominees for the 80th Academy Awards was released today, and once again, the majority of the movie going public was struck sharply across the face by the elitist cabal of self-congratulating pricks that make up the voting members of the academy.

When you hear the words Best Cinemetography, do you not assume as I do that they are pointing out the fine achievement in visual exposition that one or few persons managed to capture; a feat requiring incredible skill to produce the desired effect shot after shot for an entire feature length film; a measured collaboration of light, shadow, color, motion, energy, temperature, atmosphere; a thoroughly calculated series of decisions as to what angle and speed and focus with hundreds of cameras, dozens of mediums, and millions of minute details that could through the whole shot off as per the director's specifications? Sit down and watch a film like 300, Transformers, Rescue Dawn, I am legend, The Bourne Ultimatum, Bridge To Terabithia, The Astronaut Farmer, Zodiac, Reign Over Me, Shooter, Grindhouse, Disturbia, Next, Spiderman 3, 28 Weeks Later, Fantastic 4, 1408, Live Free Or Die Hard, Stardust, The Invasion, War, Halloween, Into The Wild, Resident Evil Extinction, Michael Clayton, 30 Days Of Night, Rendition, Saw IV, American Gangster, The Mist, The Golden Compass, and Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem, just to name a few; ask yourself, "Did No Country For Old Men really have superior cinematography, with regards to the complexity, creativity, knowledge and ingenuity required to obtain those shots desired?" Personally, having seen many of those movies and having watched the behind the scenes footage, and by nature studying the screen for minor flaws and inconsistencies in a film, I absolutely refuse to accept the choices for the award this year.

What movies would I have chosen for that particular award? Transformers, Rescue Dawn, 1408, Sunshine, and 300. I haven't seen every movie that came out this year, but I can tell you that holding a camera and filming terrific acting, excellent directing, beautiful scenery bound together with an spectacular plot does not merit an award. The Academy's voters are rewarding the cinematographers of five very good movies for being a part of that movie and capturing all of it's elements; that is not all that is cinematography. A video camera today is capable of capturing a film and its elements and making a great movie (Blair Witch Project); so what is cinematography? Get rid of everything except the camera, the people operating it, and the scene that is supposed to be captured. A good cinematographer is an artist. Their muse is the director, telling him what is expected and what is wanted; their tool is the camera; their medium is the electromagnetic spectrum, both visible and invisible to the naked eye. We should reward the effort, not the product.

Why are the Academy Awards losing viewer ship? Because people are catching on to this crap. Last year the best movie to be released was V for Vendetta. It had action, drama, romance, comedy, a message (hundreds of them, in fact), it was relevant to the times, it was filmed beautifully, it was adapted quite well from a terrific source, and every person involved with the film had passion for it. It wasn't even nominated for best picture. And why not? What does Best Picture really mean? It means the best fucking movie to come out all year, the movie that touched the most hearts, inspired the most minds, drew in the most crowds, motivated the most discussions, had the most viral videos made about it. Hollywood has more power on earth than any other force. When a movie comes out that makes a significant impact upon Human Culture, it deserves to be honored. Last year The Departed won Best Picture. That was the first time in a long time that I have agreed with the academy's choice.

Right now, I have lost complete faith in them. They truly are a group of pretentious assholes, reveling in their ability to piss people off. Well, they succeeded with me.

Michael

Quote of the Day

2008-01-21T20:39:00.000-05:00

"The mind is such a strange and curious beast, capable of self-deception... and we rarely see everything around us, even when we have our eyes open."

--- (our very own) Cloudberry

The Eyes Have It

2008-01-20T17:54:00.001-05:00

Sorry all... I was thinking we could use a bit of comic relief following two death-posts!

This image is courtesy of Landover Baptist Church. They sell T-shirts & mugs & lots of other fun stuff, with sentiments such as this.

http://www.cafepress.com/landoverbaptist

They also have some highly irreverent reading material, etc.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

My Supernatural Experience

2008-01-18T18:50:00.001-05:00

She lay dying on the bed; weak, frail, her already soft voice cut from her heart by her life of disappointment. The window was open; it was December, everyone was cold except her. Her petite form was skeletal now; a stroke, lungs destroyed by her husbands decades of smoking, and her current inability to move without help left her practically immobile. Every time you looked at her you wanted to cry for her. It was uncomfortable to the extreme to be in her home. I always hated going there. She was cold, through and through. The only thing she and I ever did together was to go see the movie "Alaska".

When she died, she said she saw angels come into the room. She wanted the window left open so they could get in. She wanted to feel cold so she could enjoy the warmth of heaven. She "saw" angels on her shoulder.

My Father, and my Uncles, who were witness to her death, saw the truth. They saw curtains blowing the drapes into the room, light reflecting off of them, giving the illusion of an angels wings. It was a sunny December day that she died.

My Uncle Rob, the richest of her sons, saw in her death the confirmation of his religious beliefs. He saw a woman who had struggled and sacrificed her entire life to bring up three boys, always wanting the best for them, never caring for herself. Her death confirmed gods existence for him.

My Uncle Pat, the black sheep of the family, a selfish, evil man, had his belief that god created us and then abandoned us, taking love with him, confirmed. That's all I have to say about him.

My Father, on the other hand, an Atheist, saw what I saw. He saw that there is no god. He saw three people desperately trying to find evidence for a delusion. That is why he told me what happened in that room. And that is why I am telling you this now.

god exists only because you want him to

Michael

My Supernatural Experience?

2008-01-14T23:10:00.000-05:00

My Mother was very special. She was a Freethinker, an Animal lover, not prejudiced, very stubborn, and a slacker (in a very good way!). I am proud to take after her in these respects, as best I can.

In late 1993, my mom was diagnosed with cancer- Squamous Cell Carcinoma to be exact. She had the cancer removed in early '94- supposedly, the operation was a success...

Cut to late June of 1995- my dear ol' mom was on her deathbed. The cancer had returned of course- with a vengeance! She was in & out of a coma-like state for the last 2 weeks of her life- prior to that, she was suffering horribly...

Early in her last week, she alarmed everyone at the house by waking up & calling out desperately for her Mother & Father. My sister went to her and said, "You were only dreaming, mom." My mother then said, "No... they were HERE!!!" She WAS on lots of morphine...

Cut to July 6th, 1995- it was my turn to stay with mom while my sister & father checked out a hospice. The whole experience had taken a huge toll on the family- especially my dear ol' dad.

At approximately 8:30 pm, I looked down at my mother, and thought about all the pain & suffering... and then I prayed...

If you can call it that. It was more like, "Now see here, You! Either I want to see a miracle, right this very moment, or you take her! Enough is enough!!!

Mom died at about noon the next day.

That night, my mother appeared to me in a dream. She was standing in the kitchen, straight & healthy. I remember saying, "But mom, you're...." All she said back to me was, "Don't worry... I'm fine."

Both of these events made me stop & think, but were they supernatural? Nah.

My mother was cremated- I was the one who spread her ashes. It all seemed so NATURAL.

Strangely, losing my mother (& father 3 years later) caused me to become MORE atheistic... not because I was angry at God or anything. It was the naturalness of it- all that lives will eventually die, and the afterlife is most likely a lie?

Mark T.

Dawkins/Brigstocke on BBC

2008-01-13T16:09:00.001-05:00

Origin of Life Made Easy

2008-01-12T02:08:00.001-05:00

Could the origins of life on Earth have been this simple? I think so...

This video is credited to Potholer54 on YouTube. He has a whole series of videos there- very informative stuff!

MT

Quote of the Day

2008-01-10T20:54:00.001-05:00

Leon Trotsky

As long as I breathe I hope. As long as I breathe I shall fight for the future, that radiant future, in which man, strong and beautiful, will become master of the drifting stream of his history and will direct it towards the boundless horizons of beauty, joy and happiness!

Pimping for Jesus

2008-01-08T23:42:00.001-05:00

Thanks to Richard for turning us on to Pat Condell!

"Door To Heaven"

2008-01-08T00:43:00.001-05:00

For your enjoyment(?), here's a neat little Christian propaganda piece from the year 1941.

One Youtube comment reads, "The Japanese saw this film, and that is the reason they decided to bomb Pearl Harbor".

Another Youtube comment says, "The stupid...it burns..."

All in all, the basic religious message in this film is pretty much the same as it ever was (and still is).

MT

Quote Of The Day

2008-01-06T00:10:00.000-05:00

Rep. Pete Stark

What is most unconscionable is that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the certain loss of life. Do the generalized threats and half-truths of this administration give any one of us in Congress the confidence to tell a mother or father or family that the loss of their child or loved one was in the name of a just cause?

Natural Design

2008-01-03T21:34:00.001-05:00

The "natural order of things" appears to be everywhere. We can observe order in the behavior of subatomic particles; in the characteristics of all things on this Earth, both living & non-living; and in the physical attributes of the known universe.

But why? And how? Why does nature seem to favor order and symmetry? Where does "the order" for order come from?

I can't even come close to answering these questions- maybe your friendly neighborhood physicist or molecular biologist could provide some decent answers.

"The key to the universe may lie in the full understanding of self-organizing, self-replicating, interlocking patterns of nature." Sorry, that's the best I can do at this point in time!

I can, however, say with all confidence that the answer to any of the above questions is NOT "intelligent design".

In a sense, ID is conventional religion's last great hope. Intelligent design appears to be the only method of attempting to "prove" the existence of a creator/designer God using science- regardless of non-existent evidence and illogical reasoning.

Evidence of nature's self-perpetuation and, dare I say, self-design, is readily apparent... all one needs to do is take a good look around. On the other hand, evidence of a Creator God/Grand Designer/Universal Mind is the same as it's always been, which is none/zilch/nada/zero/missing.

ID proponents resort to anti-science when attempting to validate their theory. We have this, from the "Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center" (I.D.E.A.):

"It's pretty simple: intelligent design theory works by looking for the tell-tale signs of intelligent design in biology. We know and understand the sort of information produced by intelligent agents. We can then look for that sort of information in biology. These tell-tale signs include high levels of specified complexity, which we know is always the product of intelligent design. Thus, when we find evidence for specified complexity, we have evidence that there was intelligent designer! Intelligent design theory need not provide some sort of external evidence for an intelligent designer because the theory itself is a legitimate rationale for concluding that the cause of intelligent design was at work."

Sorry, religious-apologetic-masquerading-as-science-person, you'll have to do a lot better than that!

Mark T.

Gospel of Brigstocke

2007-12-27T00:28:00.001-05:00

British satirist/comedian Marcus Brigstocke tells it like it is!

Quote Of The Day

2007-12-25T02:39:00.000-05:00

John Lennon

"God" by John Lennon:

God is a concept,
By which we can measure,
Our pain,
I'll say it again,
God is a concept,
By which we can measure,
Our pain,
I don't believe in magic,
I don't believe in I-ching,
I don't believe in bible,
I don't believe in tarot,
I don't believe in Hitler,
I don't believe in Jesus,
I don't believe in Kennedy,
I don't believe in Buddha,
I don't believe in mantra,
I don't believe in Gita,
I don't believe in yoga,
I don't believe in kings,
I don't believe in Elvis,
I don't believe in Zimmerman,
I don't believe in Beatles,
I just believe in me,
Yoko and me,
And that's reality.
The dream is over,
What can I say?
The dream is over,
Yesterday,
I was dreamweaver,
But now I'm reborn,
I was the walrus,
But now I'm John,
And so dear friends,
You just have to carry on,
The dream is over.

Quote Of The Day

2007-12-23T04:11:00.000-05:00

Baron d'Holbach

If we look back at the begining we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them; and that custom, respect and tyranny support them, in order to make the blindness of man serve their own interest. If the ignorance of nature gave birth to Gods, the knowledge of nature is calculated to destroy them.

Quote Of The Day

2007-12-21T21:43:00.000-05:00

Richard Dawkins

Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them. Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for a moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infection by mind viruses.

God Under The Microscope

2007-12-21T21:23:00.000-05:00

Watch this excellent discussion on religion presented by the BBC, featuring Richard Dawkins; do you get the impression (as I did) that none of these people believe in god, but rather they believe in religion?

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Michael

The Four Horsemen

2007-12-18T03:03:00.000-05:00

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. Four brilliant minds, they have helped shape my understanding of the world and done the same for countless others. Watch this discussion, and listen. Much of what we have talked about is mentioned here. I laughed after I watched this film. Their discussion fully encompasses the movement we are a part of. Enjoy.

Hour 1

Hour 2

Michael

Top Ten Signs You're A Fundamentalist Christian

2007-12-18T01:11:00.001-05:00

Eric from our Meetup group sent us this, and I think that it's hilariously dead on!

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Gospel of Monty

2007-12-17T00:12:00.001-05:00

Here's a sublime slice of irreverence from the inimitable Monty Python. It's an excerpt from "The Meaning of Life" (1983).
The funniest part (to me) is the hymn near the end of the clip.

MT

Holiday Spirit

2007-12-14T23:53:00.000-05:00

To all my fellow Atheists...

Don't do stuff like this. When Bill O'Reilly and the other self-absorbed blow hards on Faux News rail against the War On Christmas, don't give them fodder. Bill O'Reilly is a bigot, a racist, an ignorant, pompous, jingoistic, pig-headed, conceited, sexual deviant who shouts much but says little; in his dogmatic little brain anything that dares to impose upon the sanctity of his precious holiday is automatically going to be suspect of nefarious intent to disrupt, deprive, destroy, rape and pillage the very spirit of Christmas. A holiday of which he does not know or understand its history (I know this because I have watched the man many, many times, and have noticed his insistence on not acknowledging anything remotely resembling that which we call reality, so far as it it contradicts what he already believes...)

These a-holes in Vermont thought it would be funny to piss off every civil minded person by posting this sign in the city park near the traditional nativity scene. Well, congrats. You took a perfectly good holiday tradition and turned it to crap. For us. What does the sign (depicting an image of the burning World Trade Center Towers accompanied by the words "Imagine no religion" from John Lennon's song) tell people about Atheists? Well, my interpretation of the sign is, "Hey, we're Atheist's, and we're assholes too, so fuck you and your family, and enjoy your holiday, but, while you do, don't forget about the horrible atrocities that people doped up on your stupidity have committed!" I'm an Atheist, and that's what I take from that image. Guess what every Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, Hindi, etc. is going to think? Wow, Atheists really are assholes!

We are the least trusted minority group in America. This is because people do not understand us. They are told things about Atheists that are at best untrue, and at worst hateful, fear inspired, and ignorant. So, when we are given a chance to express our beliefs, at a time of the year when everyone is frustrated from shopping and stressed out by their travels, just wanting to make it home, bake their cookies with the kids, put on a movie and drift asleep in the warm comfort of tradition; they see that sign and think, "Wow, whoever put that there really is an asshole." They go home, forget about the sign as soon as the dog tracks muddy paw prints into the kitchen, but the damage is done. Things like that stay in our minds. A powerful image like 9/11, a well known lyric of John Lennon's, seen while already annoyed with people you don't know, against a background of the birth of the savior of man in many minds; that is precisely the type of meme we must never imbue upon the consciousness of our society.

You want to put something up this Christmas? How about something we value? Something we love? That's what they do. That's the whole point behind this commercialized, politicized aberration of a holiday season we celebrate. Its about unity, about love, compassion, about celebrating what we have accomplished and what we have to look forward to. Do you know why we put up the gaudy decorations, spend billions and travel vast distances to be with the ones we love? Because 11 months of the year life is violent, difficult, stressful, strenuous, demeaning, demoralizing, demanding, painful and bitter; for a month we try to let go of everything, embrace the merriment and cheer, revel in what we have achieved, rejoice in each others company. We enjoy ourselves, shake off the stress of the year, and prime ourselves for a new one.

On Christmas Day, 1914, the western front fell silent for the day, as the Germans stopped fighting and shared food and goods with their British enemies. It happened the next year with the French, all in spite of orders from higher up. The reason they did it is simple. They had had enough of killing and living in squalid conditions; they wanted to regain some of their humanity.

I think this is why we all like this time of year (even though we say we hate it). It gives us a chance to let go of things, to ease our burdens, to forget about our troubles for a while. Sure, its hectic, and sometimes can be a pain in the ass; but I feel that we all recognize that we need some time in our lives to let go of things. The coming of winter is the perfect opportunity for this. The pagans recognized this; so did the early Christians; so should we. I think that it is foolish to abandon such a terrific time of year over such a petty difference as faith. I say, Happy Holidays everyone. Just enjoy it. Don't be selfish and demand the day all to yourself (War on Christmas), or mock it (Festivus), or rub peoples faces in the bad things (Imagine no Religion). Just enjoy the season, and save the hate and spite for after new years.

Michael

Quote Of The Day

2007-12-14T21:43:00.000-05:00

Abraham Lincoln

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

Quote Of The Day

2007-12-13T20:52:00.001-05:00

Joss Whedon

I believe we are the only sentient beings in the universe, and I believe that 500 years from now, we will still be the only sentient beings around.

Life Elsewhere...a No-Brainer?

2007-12-11T22:43:00.000-05:00

This image might look like a painting or a digital graphic, but it's not...

So... is the existence of life common in the Universe? Can an assertion that life probably does exist elsewhere be construed as a valid scientific theory, or can it be viewed as an assumption only?

The answers seem to be: probably; and such an assertion might be viewed as a valid, but borderline scientific theory- based on probability, which in turn may be based on observational evidence.

Anyone reading this post knows that our Earth is a mere speck in the vastness of the known universe. The Sun is a very average yellow dwarf star. According to the latest estimates, there are between 200 and 400 billion stars in the galaxy we reside in (the exact number will most likely never be known because of the gargantuan amount of gas and dust obscuring our view). How many of these stars have planetary companions? It's safe to say that a large percentage of them do.

How many galaxies are in the known universe? Recent estimates are as high as 500 billion. The Hubble Deep-Sky camera photographed a small area of the sky a few years back- an area 1/150th the apparent size of the moon. 3,000 galaxies were counted in that small area alone!

As far as we know, the universe elsewhere is composed of the same elements that we, our Earth, our sun, and our galaxy are composed of. The physical laws of nature, as we know them, seem to apply everywhere in the observable universe, as far as we have seen.

It happened here... why not elsewhere? It doesn't even have to be carbon-based... but we'll save that for a future post.

And what about the probability that some "supreme being" created the whole universe just for us? One can't help but be purely subjective on this, but I say... ZERO.

Mark T.

All About Mormonism?

2007-12-09T02:39:00.001-05:00

In honor of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's grade "D-minus" speech on religious freedom (12/6/07)...

Here's a cartoon made by a mainstream Christian sect in denunciation of the Mormon faith. It must have been produced sometime circa the early '70s- it has that "Scooby-Doo-ish" sort of feel.

While I'm sure that the Church of Latter-Day Saints' detractors went a TAD overboard with this, most of the cartoon seems to follow the church's teachings, which current LDS adherents seem to be squirming to whitewash.

Apparently, this cartoon was indeed banned by the Mormons- there is at least one major jaw-dropper in it... enjoy!

Mark T.

Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot

2007-11-23T23:46:00.001-05:00

Quote Of The Day

2007-11-21T21:25:00.000-05:00

Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Intelligent design, while real in the history of science, while real in the presence of sort of philosophical drivers, is none the less a philosophy of ignorance. And so, regardless of what our political agenda is, all you have to say is, science is a philosophy of discovery, intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance.

2007-11-19T21:30:00.000-05:00

George Carlin

The difference between left and right of center...originated in the French parliament. The people left of center were liberals; the people right of center were conservatives. Broadly speaking. And generally speaking, people on...the right of center, are interested in property values, property, property rights. The rights and the rights of property. And generally speaking again – it's all generalized – the left-of-center people are more concerned with humans and human beings and human concerns; to the care of humans, not the care and worry about property rights. That's generally been true. And Bush is pushing this country farther down the hill, faster than anyone has before.

What Is Freethought?

2007-11-19T19:57:00.000-05:00

How do I define freethought?

To be a freethinker, one must be open to new ideas. Ideas that can be both exciting and terrifying, ideas that are unpleasant, unwanted, and downright ghastly to behold, albeit necessary. To be a freethinker is to accept that there is no black and white, nothing concrete, nothing to be broken down into this or that. Black and white are merely extremes of color; we do not live in a world that is black and white. Besides, reducing existence into such simplistic terms neglects the broad spectrum that we deal with every second of every day.

Freethought crushes dogma, undermines prejudice, vanquishes ignorance. There is no absolute to a freethinker. Any assertion is analyzed, interpreted, it's background checked, it's genesis traced, it's theory tested and, if found to be be true, accepted for what it is and no more. A lightning bolt is an atmospheric discharge of built up electricity, not a weapon thrown by a god, not an alien inspecting a new planet, not a direct consequence of global warming. Freethinkers do not assume the cheap and easy explanation for things.

Religion is an empire built by people who have had fear instilled upon them; the rulers live well, fed by the generosity exploited from below. Ignorance holds this institution together; dogma plays the role of sentinel. Religion opposes education and reason for the same reasons slave owners opposed education and healthcare for their "flock"; give the oppressed the instruments they need to break free, and they will. The religious fight science, reason, education, solely because they know that freethought will be the end of their reign.

The mind is the key. Control how people think, and you control how they behave. Religion has used this idea for millenia; I for one will say that much good has come from this. There has also been much evil. We no longer have any need or use for religion. There is so much more to be found in the world when you break yourself free of the mental restraints religion impresses upon us. Freethinking is freedom to see the world as it is; not as someone else tells you.

Michael

Quote Of The Day

2007-11-18T21:10:00.000-05:00

Daniel Dennett

We alone can be wracked with doubt, and we alone have been provoked by that epistemic itch to seek a remedy: better truth-seeking methods. Wanting to keep better track of our food supplies, our territories, our families, our enemies, we discovered the benefits of talking it over with others, asking questions, passing on lore. We invented culture. Then we invented measuring, and arithmetic, and maps, and writing. These communicative and recording innovations come with a built-in ideal: truth. The point of asking questions is to find true answers; the point of measuring is to measure accurately; the point of making maps is to find your way to your destination. ... In short, the goal of truth goes without saying, in every human culture.

Quote Of The Day

2007-11-17T22:11:00.000-05:00

Isaac Asimov

Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
"Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."

The Rise of the McChristians

2007-11-16T23:58:00.000-05:00

The following is an excerpt from an article by R.W. Dellinger, taken from "Tidings"- a Catholic e-zine out of southern California...

--How did Jesus become pro-war, pro-American and pro-rich?
That's what novelist, journalist and screenwriter Dan Wakefield wanted to know when he began his newest book, "The Hijacking of Jesus."

"The Jesus of the Gospels ministered to the poor and to the outcasts, had no property or possessions, and famously told a wealthy young man that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven," the popular writer told members of the Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace July 7 at Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles.

Curious about this drastic shift, Wakefield began researching the troubling query and was surprised at how far back the religious right's roots went.

The search led him to Senator Barry Goldwater's defeat for the presidency in 1964. Realizing they needed a wider base, he said Republican strategists saw that fundamentalists and evangelicals were a "virgin timber" voting block.

And soon a partnership was forged. "The religious right started with the Republican right," Wakefield reported, adding that along with this partnership, religious conservatives also forged a media empire, which today adds up to some 1,600 TV stations. Just one, "Focus on the Family," has 200 million watchers in 99 countries.

"One of the marks of the religious right I find is a kind of real nastiness," the former staff writer at The Nation said. "Pat Robertson asked, 'Why do I have to be nice to Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists? They are the Antichrist.' So tolerance has become a bad word on the religious right."

An official from the Christian Coalition told him that they were only intolerant of sinners, said Wakefield. But the author observed that it seemed a "very odd creed" for the group to call itself Christian, when it was Jesus who told a crowd that he who was without sin should cast the first stone.

He also talked about the divisiveness of the movement, whose faithful often attempt --- and succeed --- at driving deeper religious and political wedges between themselves and mainline Protestant congregations.

And he pointed out that religious right rhetoric is often filled with statements about war. It was no accident, he said, that born-again President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq and his administration's entire Middle East policy "smells of Christian Jihad."

"That pro-war message hardly seems to fit with Jesus' teaching to love your enemy, bless them that curse you and be good to them who hate you, and pray for them who persecute you," he observed.--

Quote Of The Day

2007-11-12T19:52:00.000-05:00

Friedrich Nietzsche

The liar is a person who uses the valid designations, the words, in order to make something which is unreal appear to be real. He says, for example, "I am rich," when the proper designation for his condition would be "poor." He misuses fixed conventions by means of arbitrary substitutions or even reversals of names. If he does this in a selfish and moreover harmful manner, society will cease to trust him and will thereby exclude him. What men avoid by excluding the liar is not so much being defrauded as it is being harmed by means of fraud. Thus, even at this stage, what they hate is basically not deception itself, but rather the unpleasant, hated consequences of certain sorts of deception. It is in a similarly restricted sense that man now wants nothing but truth: he desires the pleasant, life-preserving consequences of truth. He is indifferent toward pure knowledge which has no consequences; toward those truths which are possibly harmful and destructive he is even hostilely inclined.

Thomas Jefferson, Freethinker

2007-11-10T16:50:00.000-05:00

"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the spot of every wind. With such persons, gullability, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck."---Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Smith, December 8, 1822

*************************

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences.... If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you."--- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

*************************

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence."--- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, August 15, 1820

*************************

"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God."--- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814, using the term atheist to mean one who lacks a god belief, not one who is without morals, as was a common use of the term in Jefferson's day...

God Threw a Snowball at Us

2007-11-06T22:51:00.000-05:00

God threw a snowball at us, but he missed! Or it ricocheted off an asteroid.

--KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A comet that unexpectedly brightened in the last couple of weeks and is now visible to the naked eye is attracting professional and amateur interest.

Paul Lewis, director of astronomy outreach at the University of Tennessee, is drawing students to the roof of the Nielsen Physics Building for special viewings of Comet 17P/Holmes. The comet is exploding and its coma, a cloud of gas and dust illuminated by the sun, has grown to be bigger than the planet Jupiter. The comet lacks the tail usually associated with such celestial bodies but can be seen in the northern sky, in the constellation Perseus, as a fuzzy spot of light about as bright as the stars in the Big Dipper. "This is truly a celestial surprise," Lewis said. "Absolutely amazing."

Until Oct. 23, the comet had been visible to modern astronomers only with a telescope, but that night it suddenly erupted and expanded. A similar burst in 1892 led to the comet's discovery by Edwin Holmes. "This is a once-in-a-lifetime event to witness, along the lines of when Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 smashed into Jupiter back in 1994," Lewis said.

Scientists speculate the comet has exploded because there are sinkholes in its nucleus, giving it a honeycomb-like structure. The collapse exposed comet ice to the sun, which transformed the ice into gas."What comets do when they are near the sun is very unpredictable," Lewis said. "We expect to see a coma cloud and a tail, but this is more like an explosion, and we are seeing the bubble of gas and dust as it expands away from the center of the blast."

Experts aren't sure how long the comet's show will last but estimate it could be weeks if not months. Using a telescope or binoculars help bring the comet's details into view, they said.--

It is interesting to note that the presence of organic matter has been confirmed both in comets and in carbonaceous chondrite meteorites!

MT

Quote(s) Of The Day

2007-11-04T20:16:00.000-05:00

Voltaire

Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.

It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.

Opinions have caused more ills than the plague or earthquakes on this little globe of ours.

The United States was founded as a Secular Nation

2007-10-27T18:22:00.000-04:00

From Bob Sesca:
"America was founded by men of the Enlightenment: a movement which emphasized reason, rationality, liberalism, anti-authoritarianism and political equality. The founders were revolutionary liberals who believed strongly in secular government. This is nowhere near "right of center" or indicative of a Judeo-Christian Nation.

Many of the founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, while claiming to believe in God, were deists and didn't believe in the resurrection or the divinity of Jesus Christ; they didn't believe in Christ's miracles or the holy trinity. Bill O'Reilly would've poked their eyes out with his pointy fingers.

Thomas Paine, whose writing inspired the Declaration of Independence, rejected all religions: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." (The Age of Reason, 1794)

John Adams, as president, signed a treaty in 1796 which stated unequivocally: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." There's no gray area there.

And, naturally, we have the First Amendment which includes that pesky Establishment Clause which separates church and state. That, and Article VI which forbids a religious test for holding public office. Clearly a section of the Constitution the Republican candidates have overlooked.

Make no mistake, the founders absolutely believed in the existence of a God or a Creator. George Washington often spoke of "Providence." But they were fighting and dying to escape the tyranny of a theocratic government. Why would they risk everything only to establish -- hell, to establish exactly what today's Republican Party wants: an imperial, conquering superpower fronted by a strong executive who legislates Judeo-Christian dogma?

The founders knew that theocracy and authoritarianism were the weapons of tyrants. Likewise, in establishing a constitutional democracy, they knew that if they sanctioned a national religion, then government would be able to tax and regulate religion -- suppressing religious expression. So the founders created a secular nation in which any and all religions would be free to prosper without government intrusion -- and vice versa.

As for the political and ideological views of the founders, you can't get much more liberal than instigating a rebellion and engaging in revolutionary warfare against a standing imperial army, a monarch (unitary executive) and a monopolistic mega-corporation (the East India Company, which received the most infamous corporate tax cut of all time -- triggering the Boston Tea Party). Sorry Republicans. The founding fathers were secular liberals. And so are a majority of Americans right here and now."

(Exerpt) Of The Day

2007-10-23T23:29:00.000-04:00

One of the best passages from one of the best books ever written, The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. (A Babel fish is a small fish one puts in their ear that translates any language in the galaxy for the user.)

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument isn't worth a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Celluphid from making a fortune with his book Who is this God Person Anyway?"

Jesus Christ Action Figure

2007-10-21T01:36:00.001-04:00

Sorry... but this little ditty is far too hilarious to remain unseen!
A hearty laugh is good for the "soul"...

Quote Of The Day

2007-10-20T21:47:00.000-04:00

Penn Jillette

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Quote Of The Day

2007-10-19T22:23:00.000-04:00

A Bill Maher trifecta today.

Let's make a law that gay people can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake — you know, to send the right message to kids.

Well, the American public always wanted to vote for a guy — and Bush was the perfect guy — who they'd want to have over for pot-roast. And George Bush is that guy. He does that well. You'd like to have him over for pot-roast. He reminds you of yourself. Okay. Well, now he's been over, he's had the pot-roast. But he's getting drunk and now he's talking about stem cells and Terri Schiavo and gay marriage. And now he's the guest that won't leave.

Now if you're just out of the mainstream, if you don't have blind Bush love, you are somehow suspect. Don't ever let them tell you that. Be out of the mainstream. I'm out of the mainstream. I enjoy it, who wants to be in the mainstream? When Ronald Reagan was running, he would always say 'it's morning in America' and everybody would smile and I would think 'yeah but, I'm not a morning person'. I'm the guy who thinks religion is bad and drugs are good. I think children aren't innocent, god doesn't write books, and Jesus wasn't a republican. I think girls hate each other, no doesn't mean no and drunk is funny. I'm for mad cow disease, how am I gonna win that? I'm against suing tobacco companies. I think abstinence is a perversion. I think Bush's lies are worse than Clinton's. I think Vegas was better when it was run by the mob. I think men are only as loyal as their options. I think stereotypes are true and rehab is for quitters.

Quote Of The Day

2007-10-18T16:53:00.002-04:00

Theodore Roosevelt

"Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures."

Question Of The Week

2007-10-18T16:40:00.000-04:00

I figured starting a response-oriented post would be a good way to stimulate discussion on our blog, (it's been lacking a bit). So, I'll give this a try. If it works out maybe we can turn it into a Question of the Day post, but I'd like to see how this goes down first.

Question Of The Week (this one is a two-parter): What issue gets you most interested this primary season? Is it education, the environment, the war, taxes, civil rights, gay right? (If you were to vote in the primaries, what issue would you consider most when choosing a candidate?) My second question goes a bit deeper. Is there any single item, however small, that gets you the most worked up, the most vociferous, and the most eager to see something done about it?

My answers: My personal issue is education. I have a number of reasons and thoughts on this issue, but my main reason is my personal conviction that an improved, efficient, effective, and religion-free education will lead to the elimination of a great number of the problems we face today. Ignorance is the great demon of civilization; reason is the great liberator of the oppressed and restrained mind.

My one item I want to see changed more than anything? ANWR. I will not vote for any single candidate who will not commit to pulling those drills out as early into their administration as they can.

Michael

Pickin' On the Bible (Pt. 1)

2007-10-18T00:24:00.000-04:00

In my opinion, two of the most destructive passages in the Holy Bible are Genesis 1:26 and 1:28.

1:26... "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

1:28... "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

These are two of the biggest "Bible Boogers". They have directly or indirectly contributed to some of Humankind's worst attitudes.

Worst of all is the attitude that we humans are somehow above and beyond the rest of nature.

I believe this assumption to be very false. It is true that we have the most advanced brains of all the Earth's beings, with the possible exception of Cetaceans. Humans also possess superlative dexterity and mobility. Beyond this, all the tangible evidence points to Homo Sapiens being nothing more than an advanced mammal.

We are conceived as all mammals are, through the union of egg & sperm (except for J.C.!) We develop as all mammals do, in our Mother's wombs. I could go on & on... but the point is, one of the most simple forms of life on Earth, the bacterium, can kill us all! The mere fact that we humans have to poo & pee is enough to prove that we, too, are what we'd call 'animals'.

Genesis 1:26 and 1:28 have made it easy to justify despicable human behavior- they're ONLY animals, right? I have heard these words far too often; "God put the animals here to use as we see fit." How vain.

We all know about things like loss of habitat due to Humankind's "progress"... and the deplorable treatment of animals on our "factory" farms... or the raising of birds & mammals for the sole purpose of being shot by some "mighty outdoorsman" on a "canned" hunting reserve... or the millions of dogs & cats that have to be destroyed each year, because the animal shelters cannot shelter them all... not to mention the despicable fur trade, Canada being a huge offender with their baby seal slaughter (they allow up to 300,000 pelts to be "harvested"). Sad to say, these are all a given. For the most part, they are accepted by mainstream society.

There has been some good news in recent years- like the re-emergence of the Bald Eagle in the lower 48. Organizations such as The Nature Conservancy are doing their share by helping to preserve "wild" land for habitat. Local animal organizations such as P.A.W.S. are trying their best to help stray & abandoned dogs & cats. And the number of people who are Vegetarians and Vegans has been steadily increasing.

Many conservation efforts are too little, too late. A particularly sad example is the plight of the Bengal Tiger. Just 5 years ago, they numbered about 3,500- in 2007 there are estimated to be only 1,500 individuals left, despite the luke-warm efforts of the Indian government to save them. The primary cause has been (of course) habitat loss. Damned "progress"...

I have been accused, several times in my life, of caring more about animals than people. I'm sure my "accusers" never took it into account that people ARE animals- no matter what the "good" book says!

MT

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

2007-10-15T14:30:00.000-04:00

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former member of the Dutch Lower House, a Somali born feminist and a political refugee from Kenya. She grew up within the oppressive Islamic community of Somalia, where she was witness to the suppression of women within the clan heirachy, as well as the political oppression carried out by the government which her father opposed and was jailed for his activities. After escaping prison, he moved his family to Saudi Arabia, where they lived until they were expelled three years later. Moving from there to Ethiopia, then finally Kenya, Ayaan was exposed to the views of the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest Sunni organization in the world and a supported of the establishment of a new Caliphate in the Muslim world. She sympathized with these views, choosing to wear a hijab and supporting the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. Forced to maintain a low profile due to her father's status as a political refugee, Ayaan took up reading as a hobby, where she was exposed to western culture through book series such as Nancy Drew.

In 1992, at the age of twenty three, Ayaan found herself subject to an arranged marriage to a distant cousin living in Canada. Traveling to Germany initially to transfer flights, she applied for and was granted (although she had to falsely exaggerate her story) refugee status within the Netherlands. It was there that she found herself captivated by the freedom's and opportunities offered by the west, and where she began her transformation into a fully westernized feminist, an Atheist, and after obtaining her master's degree in political science, eventually an MP in the Tweede Kamer, the Dutch Lower House.

Her story is easily one of the most fascinating and insightful narratives on the subject of Islamic culture and the conflict between the west and Islam. Marked by tragedy at times (she was working with Theo van Gogh when he was brutally slain while filming a documentary on the abuses against Muslim women), by difficulty, and by hope; her story stands out in this time of great conflict as an example of how reason can and does prevail. I'm posting a two part video so you can hear her tell her story, and answer questions from the audience in part two. Watch it all the way through, it's really a fascinating experience.

Michael

A necessary Evil?

2007-10-11T18:25:00.001-04:00

I have been reading Christopher Hitchens book "God is Not Great" over the last week, and I must concede that he has raised for me a great question concerning religion: Is it useful? That is, does religion provide us with something impermeable and necessary for our well being? Hitchens seems to think so. Arguably, there is no greater critic of religion in the Western World. He speaks and writes with a terrific force of assurance and expertise, utilizing his eloquent comfort and familiarity of the English language, his fanatical devotion to the truth and accuracy in his reporting; citing from his veritable menagerie of experiences and sources to finely illustrate his observations, his words cutting through prejudiced and preconditioned assurances like the moon piercing an overcast night to illuminate a path in the darkness for a ship far adrift in the icy seas of the North Atlantic. It is difficult to ignore his words, and harder still to reject their validity. He strikes at the most intimate of relationships we all posses; that of our fear and apprehension facing our own mortality.

Never one to minimize these thoughts, he graciously argues in the Humanistic value of religious tradition. While not making concessions, he does revel in the beauty of religious art and music; he stands in awe at the great monuments of religious architecture; embraces the richness of the religious community, and respects the value of religious traditions in our lives. I agree with him on all these points. I challenge anyone not to be soothed by the rhythmic and uplifting chants of medieval monks, or the divinely inspired masterpieces of greatest classical composers. There are few greater images of strength and beauty than the images of angels, clad in flowing white, wings stretched out, their swords and words serving to guide us out of danger and misery into the light of compassion, faith and love. What greater totem exists to embody all that is wrong with the world than Satan- a dark figure, who takes the form of our weakness to earn our trust, only to lead us to destruction in the end? Even the staunchest Atheists, such as myself, Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Samuel Clemens, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Hawkings, Albert Einstein, and Voltaire soundly reject everything that Satan represents, and with good reason. All people wish to be good. While the details of good are not always clear, evil is much easier to define. It is the reason why there is so vast a sea of difference between what the religions of man consider good, but so much in common when it comes to what we call bad. Our struggle to reach the heights of justice in our lives is a long and weary one, mired with pitfalls and temptations, figurative demons intending to lead us astray with offers of instant gratification and power.

What greater sin is there than the lust for power? Grey area permeates every action and choice we make, yet the consequences of our worst acts are noticeably clear. There is no good to be derived from rape, torture, murder, abuse, humiliation, degradation, wanton destruction, betrayal, greed, theft, pestilence, selfishness or slobishness. Even the most twisted, imbalanced mind must alter it's own definition of good just to cope with these atrocities. No lucid mind has ever looked at there sins with reason and concluded that they are right. There is, then, one universal in a world built without them; that there can be no good where there is evil, and there is no evil that can ever be good.

This brings me back to Hitchens and the point he makes early in his book. Paraphrasing it as best I can (I most certainly will succeed better in the future), I take his meaning as this; our society, and nearly every aspect of it owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to religion, both for better and for worse. There is not a single aspect of our lives that is not imbued with the ideas and acts of faith. It would be remiss of us to cast aside our torch when it has guided us this far. Our journey, both in our physical realm; but also in our spiritual realm, our scientific and cultural and artistic realms; indeed in every realm we have come across, and every realm we have yet to come across; our path is not fully illuminated and as we move on, as we examine our surroundings, as as we look nostalgically and mournfully back, our path can and should still be aided by religion. We do not need it as fully as we once did, but I can come to no other conclusion that we have much to gain through keeping religion in our lives in every place that it works. I am an Atheist, but I will celebrate Christmas and the holiday season as I once did; I will share our traditions with my children as my non-religious parents did with me. I will teach them to respect and embrace the traditions of others as readily as our own. I will revel in religion's language, art, culture, and wisdom as fully as I do that of my Atheistic beliefs. Taking the best of an imperfect entity is the best anyone can do. And I will strive to teach the religious to do the same, because it is the right thing to do. It is up to each of us whether we choose the path of righteousness and reason, aided by the trials and lessons of the past; or choose to fester in the imposturous mirth of religion and drive ourselves to the frigid depths of delusional, selfish sin.

Michael.