What do you think?

"Any factual claim unsupported by empirical evidence can justly be treated as a product of the imagination."

Is this a fair statement? If it is not, what is the objection?

Atheist Bloggers - Persevere!

There are many anecdotal examples of former believers who have become atheist or agnostic in the past decade, and many who claim to have dropped faith after reading one of the recent best-sellers on atheism or from online discussions. It feels like you aren't ever getting through to folks, but I've argued for a long time that you can not judge the success of your rational arguments based on the hope that someone will thank you personally for deconverting them!

I look at what I do as similar to tossing seeds along a barren stretch of land. Maybe if I came back in 5 or 10 years, I'd see some beautiful trees. The story in this video encourages me (like many such stories do) to keep tossing seeds. I'm walking through the barren land anyway. I have nothing to lose.

Full Militant Atheist

Embrace the term! Why not? We are going to be accused of it anytime we even mention in public that we are atheists. Militant Atheist seems to be the designation. Remember the good ol' days when there were many fewer of us and, I assume, we were just seen as kind of pesky little fellers? We were "angry atheists" back then. As the ranks and voices of non-belief swelled earlier this decade, many were taken aback. And this goes for both theists and atheists.

Many long-time atheists and agnostics have sort of teamed up with the theists in their contempt for people being outspoken when it comes to non-belief. Apparently these people are either self-loathing or simply desire accommodation because they can't stand any type of conflict. I'm not sure which of those possibilities is worse. Things are seldom either/or and there are other possibilities here but these two stand out strongly in my mind.

In the defense of the "meek atheists", they don't usually call us militant. They call us the "new atheists". I suppose that's supposed to be a more intellectual put-down. They are the older and wiser atheist who know that making waves is a bad idea. The problem with this is that most of the "older and wiser" atheists haven't been around any longer than the ones they call new atheists.

I just ignore them altogether. If they want to silently be non-believers and allow belief to dictate the discourse of society, they have every right to do so. I do find it kind of amazing that the one thing they seem to have no trouble entering into a public debate about is whether or not atheism should be publicly debated! Yes, there is a little irony there.

The real issue is how to deal with my own atheism and the path is clear and obvious to me. The only way to make this society into a secular one is to talk about it and debate it. Some of us will be extremely loud and, yes, angry. Others will just relentlessly state the case and be willing to debate wherever it comes up. And some will have a lot of fun mocking and scorning supernatural religious beliefs.

There's definitely a place for those who choose the first route. They have my full support. While they are the primary reason that all of us are labeled "militant", it isn't "militant" at all. Cry me a river when bands of atheists start burning down churches and chasing god's people out of town. Until then, if you want to use the word "militant", it just gives us more mockery material.

And that's where I come in, you silly sons of bitches! There is no god(s). Yes, I am sure of it. Now, can we please just work on making a better society for everyone and quit pretending that your imaginary friends determine the direction of humankind?

No accommodation with the supernatural.

The "Accommodation Wars"

The mini-epic mega battle among some top names in science continues - highlighted by Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers on the side of telling it like it is, and folks like Ken Miller, Barbara Forrest, Chris Mooney (not a scientist, but famous science writer), on the side of "accommodation" (read: meekly inform theists that science and religion are perfectly compatible.)

We discussed all of this earlier in the month over at Philly's blog (see post and comments). But it seems to get hotter. See the latest post at Jerry Coyne's blog then, apparently, keep checking back there daily for updates. In fairness to "the other side", Coyne is pretty meticulous about linking their rebuttals, as well as the posts of Myers and others who lack the "collaborator gene".

Personally I thank the terrific paleontologist and writer Steven J. Gould and his Non-overlapping magesteria (NOMA) for making this all possible. Great minds don't get everything right. Even Phillychief has admitted to being wrong on some occasions! But this is an issue that needs to come to a head and a final decision made on how we proceed as a species. Are we going to encourage or discourage superstition? I know how simplistic that sounds, but tell me how it doesn't all come down to that.

Update:

Coyne v. Miller Part 2
Coyne v. Miller Part 3

Plugging Myself

Well, fuck it. It's my blog! And if I can't promote my Youtube channel at my own blog, where the hell am I supposed to do it? Anyway, I have certainly pushed a goodly amount of other YouTube channels, and you watched all of those recommendations if I'm not mistaken. I just happen to be a little more proud of this effort than most of my usual bullshit on YT. If you think it's any good, join my 10's of thousands of subscribers there. Either that or leave a comment...

Marriage between a man and a woman

If you haven't seen the Spanish Inquisitor's hilarious YouTube find on this subject, go check it out. Then come back and watch this additional piece of Holy Book dismantling.



H/T to ProfMTH, who makes some of the consistently best videos on YouTube.

"What's in it for me"? sayeth the Lord

"Ever meet anyone from the city of Hebron"? No? That's because of evil babies.



Other questions for those who claim that these were "different times" and god only did things like that back when peoples' understanding was so meager and it was necessary to maintain "order":

How come god never actually says that? How come there is no explanation for why he would have had to give such abominable commands, back in the day? Why is it that the only indication of this comes not from god, but from modern apologists for him? Why didn't Jesus say that those things were abhorrent to god, rather than confirming the value of the older laws? And couldn't he have indicated, now that he was laying down his own life, that god wouldn't be requiring any more killing over silly matters? Why is there no instructions in any of the holy texts for ending slavery or the subjugation of women?

Are Gays and Lesbians "separate but equal"?

We've had a conversation the last couple days over at Dan Weston's "Zo Kwe Zo" blog. Dan is a happily married California gay man. Fortunately, the court did not strike down the validity of the marriage he entered into with his partner last year. It only confirmed the desire of the voters, as they narrowly expressed it, that "marriage is to be between man and woman", and said nothing about gay and lesbian marriages that had already been legally permitted.

Today I made the following comment at his blog and I wanted to repeat it here. I don't think I'm going to get an explanation from the 6 justices, so maybe some of you "wise" anti gay marriage people can answer it. I scare-quote "wise", not to say that you are foolish, but to encourage you to answer the question with wisdom - from some sort of "wise" legal perspective. Points off for mentioning god or morals on this one, kiddies. They weren't raised by the justices yesterday and shouldn't be to my questions. So here goes:

After reading and listening for 24 hours, it seems to me that the lone dissenter, Carlos Moreno, was the one who got it right.

He said denying same-sex couples the right to wed "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution."

Allow me to ask the other six a question:

If you hold that you are narrowly deciding the case based solely on voter rights vis a vis the CA state constitution, which allows for constitutional changes through the initiative process - could they (the voters) decide by 52-48 that CA will be a "separate but equal" state regarding interracial marriage? If not, why not, and how do you see this point in relation to "separate but equal" by sexual orientation?

Mommy? How come you have a penis?

First, watch the video.



These people are really too much to stomach. The day will come when people actually start resenting "the protection of the children" even when the cause is just.

Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8 is due any day. The rumor mill had it that it was going to be announced today but that San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome requested the court defer until next week. Why? Because if the decision goes the wrong way it would have done so on the anniversary of the White Night riots in the Castro district.

Whether or not any of that is true, the newest rumors have it that Tuesday is the big day. And tens of thousands of gay couples and individuals wait anxiously.

Great analysis of Jesus

He never said a word in favor of education. He never even hinted at the existence of any science. He never uttered a word in favor of industry, economy or of any effort to better our condition in this world. He was the enemy of the successful, of the wealthy. Dives was sent to hell, not because he was bad, but because he was rich. Lazarus went to heaven, not because he was good, but because he was poor.

Christ cared nothing for painting, for sculpture, for music — nothing for any art. He said nothing about the duties of nation to nation, of king to subject; nothing about the rights of man; nothing about intellectual liberty or the freedom of speech. He said nothing about the sacredness of home; not one word for the fireside; not a word in favor of marriage, in honor of maternity.

He never married. He wandered homeless from place to place with a few disciples. None of them seem to have been engaged in any useful business, and they seem to have lived on alms.

All human ties were held in contempt; this world was sacrificed for the next; all human effort was discouraged. God would support and protect.

At last, in the dusk of death, Christ, finding that he was mistaken, cried out: “My God My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?”

We have found that man must depend on himself. He must clear the land; he must build the home; he must plow and plant; he must invent; he must work with hand and brain; he must overcome the difficulties and obstructions; he must conquer and enslave the forces of nature to the end that they may do the work of the world.

by Robert Ingersoll, 1894

H/T to The Atheist Experienc