do you feel loved?

Pinko!

2009-11-09T09:35:00.002-05:00

We recently watched Pickup on South Street, a 1953 film noir/spy hybrid with heavy anti-Communist themes. The movie itself was interesting, but it got me to wonder about the apparently intense anti-Communist attitude of the time.

At first I didn't really understand this attitude. I mean, Communism isn't necessarily evil. It is an economic/political philosophy that is directly opposed to Capitalism but that doesn't make the conversation unnecessary. So what confused me was the blanket use of the term "Communist" as the ultimate pejorative. I understand that Stalin was evil. No doubt about that, but that doesn't make all Communists evil as well. I also understand that the USSR was framed as America's de-facto enemy during that time. So I suppose that "Communist" was a blanket term used to describe a political and military enemy. The fact that Communism can refer to something other than a Russian with nuclear weapons pointed at grandma's house must have been lost on many Americans.

So I would like to take this opportunity to point out how far our culture has come in just a few decades. Our enemy this time stems not from a political philosophy but from a religious one. Our enemy this time is Islamic Terrorism. Our enemy is not Islam, just as our Cold War adversaries were Soviet Communists and not simple Communism. The very idea of treating Muslims among us as we treated Communists a few short decades ago is appalling. It is true that they may have a tougher road than most Americans but we would never dream of calling them out and denying them jobs based on their religious leanings.

I'll admit that I have been less than generous to Muslims. I still think that their religion is immoral and dangerous, but only slightly more so than Christianity. The point is that I think we are better at separating the actual enemy from others who carry the same label.

But I'm not a political scientist and I clearly don't know what I'm talking about. I don't want to give that impression. Maybe all Communists are evil and maybe all Muslims are terrorists who hate America, freedom and women.

Is that where Jesus would spend your money?

2009-11-05T08:48:00.002-05:00

Warning: Harsh and profane language to follow...

First of all, watch this video. It'll get your blood boiling.

Ahem.

God-motherfucking-damn it! The Christ-eating Catholic fucking church spends half a million dollars just to sway public opinion. Why do I hate religion? This is fucking why. Because there is no reason at all to restrict gay marriage without religion. None. The weak bullshit excuses that it isn't normal or historical or natural are worthless. So "traditional marriage" is exclusively between one man and one woman? First of all, that's complete bullshit - historically speaking marriage has been between one man and dozens of women or girls. And in many places today it still is. But even if marriage had always been truly one man and one woman - so fucking what? Change the definition! It isn't hard to do. If King David had hundreds of wives (it was a different time, defenders say) then who's to say that today King David shouldn't have a husband too?

But there's no reasoning with them. Or with you, if any gay marriage opponents are reading this (doubtful). But if any Christians do read this, please tell me what reason you have for opposing gay marriage. And if it involves homosexuality being "an abomination" then you lose! Unless you own slaves and beat your children, in which case you're a good Christian. Keep up the good work, you good and faithful servant.

But aaaaarrgh! You fuckers! You know that you're on the wrong side of history, right? In fifty years when gay marriage is accepted you'll be looked on with revulsion and all of your good deeds will be marred by your work in this matter.

Assholes. You completely ruined my week!

The Future of Possessions

2009-11-03T08:11:00.003-05:00

After writing my last post about Christian book (Bible, even!) burners, I have been thinking about the futility of book burning as a means of destroying ideas. Much of the credit for that goes to the dual developments of computers and the Internet; the access and ubiquity that these two forces have provided have given us some pretty interesting social developments.

Odd as it may seem, the advent and progress of the Information Age has made me less materialistic. I may be alone in this, but I find that my desire to possess physical objects has been steadily declining. I say "physical objects" because my desire to engage in the world has not changed. In fact, it has increased.

Take photographs as an example: ten years ago I took all of my photos on film. A roll of film contained 24 to 36 frames and all of it needed to be developed. This forced me to think of each shot as something special and important. When I had the pictures developed, I had them. They were unique and personal and physical. I usually got duplicates (because why not?) and might give one away. I still have all of these photos, weighing down a few boxes in my closet. I'll probably have them until I die. Digital photography has changed that for me and I sincerely miss the care I had to take with my pictures. I still take care to frame and shoot each photo, of course, but my camera's memory card will hold over 300 photos, so there's really no need to worry if a picture is 'good enough' to take. I'll also miss the excitement I got when picking up the photos from the developer. I'll miss opening the envelope up in the car and looking through them all before leaving the parking lot. And, of course, I'll miss having the photos in physical form. Sure, I can print them out - I don't have a photo printer, but I can certainly get a fine one at a reasonable price - but there's not really any need. Why load up more boxes with photos when I can just burn them to a data DVD and keep them that way?

And see, that's exactly where the divergence begins. I have so many digital photos from the past five years saved to multiple CDs and DVDs, not to mention hard drives and scattered across the Internet. There's no concept of a unique or original photo anymore so each one becomes less important. And although these digital photos are relatively secure, it is unlikely that I will look through them very often. In fact, there are plenty - hundreds if not thousands - that I will never see again. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a thousand pictures simply becomes tl;dr.

Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. I am no longer obsessed with these photos, no longer concerned with their safety. I don't have to watch them any more - I have given them over to the Internet for safekeeping. The same could be said for music, although I have stubbornly resisted (and will continue to resist for the foreseeable future) digital music. But the principle is there. Music bought on iTunes is more easily forgotten than music bought at a record store, even if it sounds exactly the same. Movies and television are similarly fated. We still buy the occasional DVD, but those purchases are very rare anymore. With Hulu and Netflix, we have essentially got an unlimited and very convenient video library at our disposal. Even our personal computers are becoming disposable. I am in the market for a new one and I realize that, aside from the above-mentioned need for photo storage, I have very little need for any kind of physical memory. Practically everything I do is online.

I still buy DVDs, I still buy CDs, I still buy games and books and magazines. But the day is coming when those things aren't going to matter to us anymore. Think of children growing up today and their attitudes toward hard-copies of various media. When they are 20 years old they won't buy books or CDs - they'll simply download them. And nothing will really change except that the information is shared instead of owned.

Maybe this is the creeping communism that everyone was worried about. It isn't difficult to imagine a world where no one needs more than a bed, some clothes and an Internet login. We could be headed to a worse future, for sure.

Bonfire!

2009-10-31T09:34:00.004-04:00

There was a recent local color/news event in which a small (tiny, actually) 14-member church announced that they would be burning books on Halloween. Included on their list of perverse and demonic texts: Bibles - pretty much any version that is not the King James Version. So that has obviously sent the atheist community into giggle fits. But I have also noticed an undercurrent of disapproval, as the burning of books is as close to a sacred cow as atheists seem to have.

Book burning is not what it used to be. That is, it used to be an effective way of ridding the world of a specific piece of information. There is much information that has been lost to bonfires throughout history and it is not something to take lightly. And yet I have a hard time feeling the same way about book burning today. In many ways, burning a book (or a flag) is like burning a figure in effigy. It is a statement and an insult and nothing more. Information is so inexpensive and ideas are so widespread that stamping them out is impossible. Suppose a very determined entity decided to rid the world of On the Origin of Species or even The God Delusion, never mind NIV Bibles or Korans. It would be nothing but a losing battle, obvious to everyone from the start.

It may be an entirely different situation in a place like North Korea, where the citizens do not have ready access to the internet or bookstores or libraries. In that case, burning a valuable book truly becomes an unforgivable crime. Here in America, however, there is no such information hurdle. I can obtain just about any text in a matter of hours or days, depending on how much money I want to spend on shipping. Many books (Origin of Species, every conceivable translation of the Bible) are available to read online, and for free. So burn away, people of Canton, NC. Burn everything you can get your stupid hands on. I hope you go to your local Barnes & Noble to buy books specifically to be burned. Because the only person you are keeping that information from is you.

Heaven is a Return to Eden

2009-10-26T10:40:00.006-04:00

As many of my readers (presumably) know, my move to vegetarianism has been propelled largely by a concern for animal welfare. It is my attempt to reduce global suffering. Maybe I am a coward, but I have never liked to know where meat comes from. As a vegetarian, I would like to forget it entirely, but I cannot.

We went to the State Fair last night - it was really quite a lot of fun and, as advertised, "A Whole Lotta Happy." There were also a whole lotta animals in various stages of food preparation, from adorable, wet-eyed calves to deep fried cheeseburgers. But although I see the calves and lambs and chicks as future meals, all they can see is the immediate present. All they can see is their food and bedding. Hopefully this is adequate and comfortable and free from fear, pain or torment. It is very fortunate for the animals, therefore, that they cannot see very far into the future. They aren't like the barnyard animals from Babe, who not only recognize their fate, but also accept it with a sort of grim acquiescence.

Every single one of us dies. Every single human, chimpanzee, pig, bumblebee, ear of corn or lily pad, whether we are hunted or deep fried or harvested. All living things die and while our self-awareness may have been a singular advantage in our drive to the top of the food chain, it is a definite downer. We can no longer simply live in the moment, because we see death looming over us, lurking around every turn and we know that every lapsed second brings our inevitable end closer. This is decidedly unsettling and maybe this is why we have developed an idea of the afterlife. We do not like to look our mortality in the face; we do not like to see a void at the end; we do not want to picture ourselves in front of the butcher and imagine the lights in our eyes going out forever. So believing in an afterlife is like putting the blindfold back over our eyes. We cannot forget what we have seen, but we can believe in something else, something unseeable and unprovable, we can return to the bliss of ignorance.

Why is this a problem? Why does it matter if someone chooses to believe that their death isn't actually the end, that all dogs really do go to heaven? For one thing, it is probably wrong, so if people have any kind of intellectual honesty, I think that they would actually prefer to know the truth. But in a practical sense, I suppose that it doesn't really matter if people believe that they will continue to live in some way after they die. But if the problem with an afterlife isn't the destination, then it's the ticket and the baggage. The question of How We Get To Heaven is enormous. It causes wars and enslaves whole demographics, it cuts the foreskins off of infant boys, it forces women to feel ashamed to be themselves, it causes guilt and grief on a global scale every minute of every day.

On one hand, I miss the thought that I will continue to live in bliss after the darkness comes. But on the other hand, I enjoy knowing that this life is fleeting. It really is a strange mix of relief and exhilaration, because I want to get all the good I can from life because it is the only chance I'll ever have, but I also don't have to worry about how the insignificant details of daily life may effect my afterlife. It is fantastic to live like this, to dance right up until the very end.

And that thought is fine for me, fine for people who think like Dead Poets Society, who go to a coffee shop and order a birthday cake, but what about those chickens packed together, what about those children starving to death or dying of diarrhea because they don't have clean drinking water? Their lives are dark and miserable and painful from start to finish.

So carpe diem! Seize the day and eat your cake, but try to make it a good place for every living thing. Remember that you don't have to believe in heaven to experience pain and fear.

___

A few points that I wanted to make but couldn't find a way to include them gracefully.

First. I know that the subject of an afterlife is a basically unknowable proposition. It should be apparent which side of the debate I am on. I think that there is ample reason to believe that there is no afterlife, but I want to be clear that whatever opinions we may hold on the merits of heaven, hell or anything else have nothing at all to do with the truth. So whether you like the thought of heaven or hate it, it makes no difference to the actual truth of heaven's existence, whatever that may turn out to be.

Second. I know that pain and suffering are not uniquely caused by humanity. Although I believe that a large portion of the quantity of pain and suffering experienced globally every second is caused by humanity, the basic circle of life has plenty of capacity to create pain all on its own. Every antelope that gets away from a cheetah means a hungry cheetah. And when a polar bear fails to catch a seal, he may starve to death. That is life and although it truly breaks my heart, I know that this is the vicious chisel that has been used to shape our world for millions of years.

Cutting the Baby in Half

2009-10-23T11:34:00.003-04:00

I have heard the phrase "Cut the baby in half" several times this week, and this has caused me to reflect on the story that inspired this grotesque idiom. It is another one of those stories from the Bible that always bothered me when I was younger and now that I am older, I can read it without cringing, safe in the knowledge that it is nothing more than folklore.

The story is brief and well known:

1 Kings 3:16-28 (New International Version)
A Wise Ruling
¹⁶ Now two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. ¹⁷ One of them said, "My lord, this woman and I live in the same house. I had a baby while she was there with me. ¹⁸ The third day after my child was born, this woman also had a baby. We were alone; there was no one in the house but the two of us. ¹⁹ "During the night this woman's son died because she lay on him. ²⁰ So she got up in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while I your servant was asleep. She put him by her breast and put her dead son by my breast. ²¹ The next morning, I got up to nurse my son—and he was dead! But when I looked at him closely in the morning light, I saw that it wasn't the son I had borne." ²² The other woman said, "No! The living one is my son; the dead one is yours." But the first one insisted, "No! The dead one is yours; the living one is mine." And so they argued before the king. ²³ The king said, "This one says, 'My son is alive and your son is dead,' while that one says, 'No! Your son is dead and mine is alive.' " ²⁴ Then the king said, "Bring me a sword." So they brought a sword for the king. ²⁵ He then gave an order: "Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other." ²⁶ The woman whose son was alive was filled with compassion for her son and said to the king, "Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don't kill him!" But the other said, "Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!" ²⁷ Then the king gave his ruling: "Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother." ²⁸ When all Israel heard the verdict the king had given, they held the king in awe, because they saw that he had wisdom from God to administer justice.

What bothered me is how this is set up as the example of King Solomon's excellent wisdom. This is a terrible solution to the problem! It isn't difficult to imagine a different ending where both women responded to his threat in a reasonable manner. What would the great King Solomon have done if neither woman wanted to see a three-day-old infant sliced in half in front of them? I have trouble picturing these circumstances on an episode of Law and Order, a show I, admittedly, never watch.

I am forced to regard this story as a complete fabrication. And yet there may be a shred of truth to it. It was a difficult time. No doubt the people who live 500 years from now will look back on this moment in history and say the same about us. Perhaps the Israelites (and all of the random tribes that lived in the Middle East) led such desperate, hard-scrabble lives that the death of a child wasn't that big a deal. Maybe the bereaved mother really would have preferred to see a child die that wasn't hers. But (to me) it is relevant only in the context of an outdated book of values. These women were not modern women and maybe the author of the story was correct in his estimation of the reaction of these women. Maybe the tale is even based on actual anecdotal evidence. But that is all the more reason not to use the Bible as any kind of moral guide.

I know that I can't have it both ways. I can't say that the story is false because the women wouldn't have responded in the way that they did and then turn around and use their reactions as examples of how society behaved in the bronze age. I have no idea. In the end, I have to simply let this go as a cruel little fable that has absolutely no relevance to modern life. It is also a terrible signifier of great, god-given wisdom.

The Anglican/Catholic Merger

2009-10-20T12:14:00.004-04:00

Since I know next to nothing about either the Anglican Church or the Catholic Church, I don't know what to make of this story.

The Vatican said Tuesday it has worked out a way for groups of Anglicans who are dissatisfied with their faith to join the Catholic Church. The process will allow groups of Anglicans, including bishops and married priests, to join the Catholic Church some 450 years after King Henry VIII broke from Rome and created the Church of England.

The number of Anglicans wishing to join the Catholic Church has increased in recent years as the Anglican church has welcomed the ordination of women and openly gay clergy and blessed homosexual partnerships, said Cardinal William Joseph Levada, the head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Good for them. Go where you feel the most comfortable. But why bother? Why integrating the faith when they can just do whatever they want anyway? I mean, if you don't like your church, leave and go to another one. My family certainly did plenty of that when I was growing up. And if a large segment of the Anglican Church is dissatisfied with how wide their front door has become, they can simply rename and rebrand themselves. This happens all the time.

I suppose from a purely historical perspective, this has some slight significance, but from a doctrinal standpoint, it just seems like pure silliness. It also serves to underline one of the most powerful arguments against religion - that is, if God were as apparent and obvious as everyone seems to think he is, then there would be far less confusion and argument about what his policies were.

After the rapture

2009-10-14T22:11:00.004-04:00

In many ways, my atheism is simply a lack of faith, an inability to believe the impossible. I arrived at my current godless state through purely rational means. At the same time, I have taken on a bit of an anti-theist attitude. That is, I have determined that the traditional Christian god is not only fiction, but he is also evil.

This may damage my Christian credibility, but I have to admit that I never really understood the doctrine of the rapture. As a Christian, the focus was on making it into that first wave. I never thought much beyond that. But that isn't even the end. There is an anti-Christ who is supposedly some demagogue. And this occurs after the rapture. Right? So somehow the rapture happens and then there are still people who don't believe in god.

That's absurd. If half of the people on the planet suddenly disappeared, I think plenty of atheists know enough about the rapture to identify what happened. So then I try to imagine myself in that position. Suddenly the god of the Bible is proven to be real. What then? What do I do? Can god be fooled? Would he buy my false confession? Because I would have a very difficult time learning to love - or even forgive - this god. Obviously I wouldn't want to burn in hell, so I would probably try to get on his good side. But it would be nothing but self-preservation. I would be forced to believe that god existed, but if I had any honesty, I would refuse to love him.

This attitude bothers me a little bit, because I feel like it weakens the honesty of my position. It should be all about rationality and have no emotional element at all. So every time I discuss the intrinsic evil of the god of the Bible I feel compelled to explain that he is fiction first, villain second.

Live and let die

2009-10-06T19:21:00.002-04:00

The world is a horrible, vicious place, and life itself is cruel. There are times when I wish I could believe in a heaven again, although that generally comes with a hell, and what's the point of that? I wish that there was a way that life could be lived without intruding on the lives of others, but there isn't. My very existence is predicated on the daily death of millions of other life forms, both animals and plants.

Since I can't simply "live and let live," I have to do the best I can. I am a vegetarian for the explicit purpose of abstaining from eating other animals. I am very happy about this because, as I have mentioned before, I cannot even see meat without thinking of it as animal flesh. A plate of chicken wings represents six dead chickens to me. A strip of bacon makes me sad that a pig had to suffer and die so that someone could have a tasty sandwich.

I saw a problem and I solved it: no more eating meat. Easy enough. And yet the problem persists. I still use butter. I still eat eggs. True, no animals were killed in the production of these items, but what are the circumstances of their lives? I make it a point to buy eggs that say things like "Cruelty Free" and "Cage Free," but when I eat eggs (or cake, or pasta) at a restaurant, I have no idea where they came from - in fact, I think it would be a pretty good guess that food service eggs are not cruelty free and come from chickens who live their entire lives smashed in between two other chickens and whose beaks are chopped off so that they can't peck each other to death because of the close proximity. So do I go vegan? I'm afraid that I am on that slippery slope.

I also have put a near-complete halt to purchases of leather goods. Since I already have a leather belt and wallet and watchband I will continue to use those things. This pretty much relegates me to buying Converse sneakers, which is certainly not a problem for me, but I am worried about what to do when I have to replace my work shoes (which are really comfortable!). I am sad to say that I will probably opt for leather shoes.

This has been on my mind for the past few weeks - I've been reading a lot of Peter Singer - and the disturbing conclusion is that I am contributing to misery at just about every turn. So I don't buy shoes that require leather (presumably reducing the aggregate demand for leather) but who knows the conditions under which Converse produces their sneakers? If I follow my coffee back to the farmers, or the tee-shirts back to the textile manufacturers, or the food that I feed my dogs back to their multiple sources, I am sure that misery and unfairness and cruelty would spring up almost immediately.

So what can I do? Should I jump to every cause? Should I research every item of clothing and only patronize entirely green and fair manufacturers? Should I raise my own chickens so that I can be assured that they are being treated fairly? Should I ride a bicycle made from bamboo so that I don't support the oil industry, the auto industry and, in turn, the textile and rubber and mining industries? I care about the world, and I want to reduce misery, but all of these things simply revolve around my own life. And then there are the problems that I am not responsible for but exist anyway that I can help with. Starving children in Africa, for example, or victims of disasters or war.

I feel like we are all piled in a giant bowl - some of us are on the top, some are not so fortunate. I am one of the fortunate ones, so every time I move to look around or try to get comfortable, I have an elbow in someone's stomach or a shoe in someone's eye. It is clear that I cannot reduce the suffering in the world by any reasonable measure so why do anything at all? If I continue to abstain from eating meat, am I a hypocrite if I eat eggs or if I wear leather or if I wear tee-shirts from Vietnam or don't go to Indonesia to help with tsunami relief?

I'm not trying to be clever or witty here. These are real questions. I'm sure I'll find a balance, but until then, I have to stop thinking about it. Maybe I need a hobby.

I'm not really an atheist, apparently

2009-09-28T13:20:00.003-04:00

I am attaching a video and I promise that I do not mean anything malicious or mean by it. The video quality is extremely poor and the poster himself is not a terribly great spokesman - he even acknowledges this himself. I am putting it here because it represents perfectly one of the primary communication problems that atheists have with theists.

The communication problem is that theists simply don't accept the atheist premise that there is no proof of a god. They cite Bible (or, presumably, Koran) verses that reinforce the idea that everyone knows, in a very real way, that there is a god. For an atheist to exist, therefore, a specific and deliberate rebellion has to occur.

Theists should know that this is patently and profoundly untrue, but if they insist on holding this position, then an honest discussion of the subject of god really cannot take place. Not only is it relatively insulting to be told that I am lying before I even open my mouth, but it also assumes my position without listening to me. In other words, if a theist comes to a discussion with this thought in his or her head, then there is no need for the atheist to even show up.

I Hate Sundays

2009-09-27T11:34:00.004-04:00

I think it's safe to say that we all stereotype a bit, we all prejudge. Because, let's face it, they really are a time-saver. In a perfect world, we would get to know every person and form our opinion of them based on what we observe. But since that's never going to happen, and since stereotypes are right so much of the time, even the most fair-minded of us form opinions on little more than clothing choices and hairstyles.

I am sure that I make mistakes, and this is a problem for me because I am sure that I am being incorrectly judged myself. If I am at a grocery store on Sunday morning and I see someone in a shirt and tie, I assume that this person is on the way to or from some kind of church. It's a pretty safe bet, and one that is mostly harmless. So when I go to work on Sunday morning in my shirt and tie, I feel very self-conscious.

I certainly never go around telling people that I'm an atheist or correcting them when they say 'god bless you,' but I also like to be clear when the subject comes up. If I am a part of the atheist movement, then the least I can do to advance my cause is to represent godlessness honestly. So when I am seen at 7:00 am walking to my car wearing a tie, I feel a pang of guilt about the assumptions I've made of everyone else. And yet I'm probably right. I'm sure they're going to church!

Addendum to the Immovable Object

2009-09-20T13:22:00.003-04:00

I have to apologize for the last post. It was a disorganized mess. I have had those thoughts in my head for quite a while and apparently they spent that time becoming more confused and jumbled. I don't really know what else to say. I wish I could just say that I was drunk. But I wasn't. Maybe it would have helped.

I promise clearer posts in the future.

Thank you for your time.

Unmovable Object vs Unmovable Object

2009-09-19T17:47:00.003-04:00

There was a recent post on the Atheist Media Blog that, while not terribly interesting in itself, has caused me to do some thinking about the tone of discourse between atheists and theists. As I said, the podcast is relatively boring - feel free to listen if you like, but for the purpose of my post here, I will summarize briefly: one man - Richard Morgan - was a new 'convert' to atheism and started, as many of us do, frequenting the message board at richarddawkins.net. There he was swept up in the so-called (with some accuracy, I will admit) echo-chamber of atheist message boards. Christians who are gluttons for punishment occasionally post there as well and the atheists, with nothing better to do, jump all over the theists with often abusive (if humorous) replies and rebuttals. One such Christian, David Robertson, was a frequent poster and was predictably abused. Richard Morgan, dismayed by the anger displayed by his fellow atheists, had second thoughts about his decision and began lurking on Christian message boards. After a time, he had a conversion. An atheist blogger, Ed Turner, was also featured on the podcast but did not add much to the conversation.

I would love to be able to just ignore the fringe, the rude people, the fanatics, I feel that I need to address them, even if briefly, because they are the most visible element of both factions. Some people are just assholes. It doesn't matter if they are Christian, Muslim, atheist or Buddhist. When those people start hanging around together, they feed each other's fire. Add to that the convenience and relative anonymity (facelessness, anyway) of the internet, and the outcome is completely predictable. Those people are not helpful, but can be, I think, safely ignored.

For the rest, it gets tricky. I am certainly not one of those people who thinks that atheists should shut up about religion. For one thing, the subject is absolutely fascinating. I enjoy discussing religion. I even enjoy having the same conversation again and again. I find that many theists are unfamiliar with what atheists have to say, and are often genuinely curious about our position. I don't mind going around the ring with them, refuting the same tired arguments again and again. I don't really get upset with Pascal's Wager because I know that, for a theist, it is a genuine question. This is why I have a blog - I really enjoy the conversation.

Beyond the fun, however, I believe that the conversation is important. It is important precisely because of the angry fringe that we would all love to ignore. If there weren't angry asshole atheists, then the calm, middle of the bell curve theists wouldn't think that atheists were terrible. And if there weren't angry asshole theists, promoting mythology instead of science, fear instead of reason and bigotry instead of fairness, atheists wouldn't have much to complain about either. In the communal conversation that I, as a member of the atheist community have with the rest of the world, it is absolutely imperative to remember that most theists are not jerks. They are not my target. It is true that I think that their beliefs are poorly-founded. I think that they are deceived and deluded. I know that their superstition is causing a lot of other people grief. And yet they are nice people. We can have perfectly wonderful conversations without a single mention of the issues that set all of us off: healthcare, same-sex marriage, evolution. I have to force myself, on occasion, to willfully ignore some element of someone's life that would preclude friendship. I have written about that here, in fact - I have a hard time taking Republicans seriously. As a resident of North Carolina, I am sure I deal daily with Republicans and theists, and yet I manage to get through each day without a single argument or angry word.

One further thing to consider is that an ugly conversation never changes anyone's mind. In the podcast I mentioned above, the atheist-turned-theist's reason for change was not based on any kind of reason whatsoever. That is not an insult - he says this in so many words. His conversion was a purely emotional (he would say divinely-inspired) response. This is what makes the religion debate so very frustrating: neither side is willing to give a single inch, and that is because we aren't really arguing in the same reality. We are like people playing laser tag in a hall of mirrors - we can interact with each other, but we are approaching the debate from completely different planes of reality.

Obamacare

2009-09-13T08:07:00.003-04:00

As I have mentioned before, the health care reform debate baffles and angers me. I feel strongly about the issue, but the opposition (Republicans, wouldn't you know?) is so uninformed and short-sighted (not to mention selfish and evil, which I'll get to in a bit) that I can't even comprehend joining in any kind of reasonable dialogue. From what I can tell - and this is just my opinion - the opposition to health care is opposed to Obama. They don't like him and so they don't like anything he says or does.

"You Lie" has become a mantra for the anti-health care crowd, which is funny to everyone else because, whatever your stance on Obama or health care reform is, the current bill does not make any concessions to illegal immigrants. But it makes sense that they would seize on this issue, no matter how true or false it may be. Because Republicans hate immigrants. They should put that on their logo, right next to a cross and a middle finger. I have a theory (untested, unscientific) that conservatives hate immigrants in general, but even they know that they can't use that. So they instead turn their focus to illegal immigrants. I think that this fascination with illegal immigrants is very revealing. I understand that illegal immigration is a real problem and it needs to be dealt with. I understand that illegal immigration can be harmful to the host country as well as for the immigrants themselves (I have yet to see a Republican talking point mention their concern of the safety of the immigrants, however). Illegal immigration is a real concern that requires a real solution.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the conservative position - that wouldn't really surprise me, since I'm not able to see it very clearly - but it seems like their opposition to this aspect of the health care plan is that it would be too awesome. But I would be proud of our country if our new single payer health care system covered anyone who came through the hospital doors. I would consider it a point of pride that we cared enough about the citizens of the world that we as a nation were willing to spend a few extra dollars apiece to provide medical care to anyone who needed it. That is simply a dream, of course. Liberals like me dream of a society where anyone can walk into a hospital and get health care. Conservatives dream of a world where everyone stays in their own country and watches with glee as the other countries scramble to feed and distribute band-aids (but not condoms) to their AIDS and malaria infested populations. Also conservatives like war.

That last line was meant to be a joke, but there is some element of truth to it. I'm not going to repeat party-line rhetoric about how conservatives pushed an unnecessary, expensive and damaging war and liberals are pushing a health care reform bill and the differences that exposes. The truth is that, as with the presidential race, this health care reform conversation is reducing people to ugly stereotypes. I don't like to listen to it, because it fills me with loathing for the other side. I also don't like it because there is another side and I detest the people on the other side of the fence. I imagine that they detest me: atheist, liberal, anti-death penalty, pro-choice, vegetarian because of animal-cruelty concerns (which means that I place a higher value on living animals than human embryos) and they are right. I do want to end our wars and spend the money to provide health care to our citizens and visitors. I do want to help the world provide safe drinking water to the most impoverished citizens. I do want to make abortion safe and legal. I do want to end religious interference in political issues. I do want the Catholic church to stop spreading lies about how condoms are useless to prevent the spreading of AIDS. I do want the commercial meat industry to be shut down completely. I know it won't happen. None of that will happen. We'll continue to kill humans, humiliate women, neglect the sick and the poor, torture animals and do it all in the name of an evil god. Can't we just have universal health care?

Heaven is for losers

2009-09-10T18:59:00.003-04:00

A question that is often asked of atheists who spend any time at all discussing atheism is "why bother? I don't believe in Santa Claus or unicorns but I don't spend any time stressing or thinking about it." It is a fair question, but one that also has a real answer. It has several answers, actually, but the one that seems most helpful is that religion is everywhere. It not only drives political policy, but it informs much of our popular culture.

This isn't the point of this post, so I don't wish to get too sidetracked here, but I want to quickly respond to another popular... critique (if you can call it that) of atheism. Maybe it's more of a rebuttal for theism. It is the trope of cultural history. That is, our Western culture has such a long history with theism that we all owe Christianity (and, to a much lesser extent, Judaism - but you can't say Christian without sticking 'Judeo' in front of it anymore) a huge debt of gratitude. Just think of all the art that religion has inspired (always with the art!). To which I say: It is true that the Sistine Chapel and the Brandenburg Concertos and Dante's Inferno may truly be irreplaceable works of art, but what evidence is there that, lacking an oppressive religion, these artists would have been left without any muse at all? Imagine what art could have been achieved if science and nature and the universe had been prevalent ideas throughout our history! But I digress.

Our culture does owe a great many ideas to our Judeo-Christian heritage. But that doesn't mean we have to be grateful. Think, for a minute, on moral values. This is a platform upon which the religious have unjustifiably stood defiantly for centuries. Their credentials on the subject of morality and good judgement are transparently, demonstrably, objectively worthless. But I won't even go into the tired talking points of slavery, misogyny, child abuse, homophobia, genocide or general common sense. Instead I want to complain about the things that effect everyone. What is good and what is bad? What is a sin and what is a virtue? What is vice and what is honest?

I was at the NC Museum of Art over the weekend and, as with most art museums, there was an overabundance of religious artwork. That is one debt to religion that society has paid in full. We need no more grim depictions of martyrdom or sacrifice, thank you. But one picture (I really wish I had snapped a photo) that I have always enjoyed suddenly stood out. It is a picture of judgement, with the top half of the canvas filled with beatific, white-robed people sitting around on clouds. Not doing anything, just sitting. Below them was a hellscape that the artist clearly enjoyed creating. Demons towered over the wretched masses, prodding and impaling them with spears, skeletons leered between the naked bodies - the whole scene was a writhing mass of naked flesh. Say what you will about eternal torment, but it excites our imagination. Hell is visceral, it is vivid, we can imagine what it is like! Why? I say it is because religion has vilified our most basic, primal instincts.

Lux, our adorable little Whippet, does not like going to her crate. For the most part, she has access to the whole house except when we leave. So when we are out of the house, she is in her crate. She does not like to go. But I can bribe her very easily by offering her a treat. What do I give her? Usually I just give her a few bits of dog food. It isn't anything special - she eats this stuff by the bowlful - but just three or four bits of dog food will get her rushing to her crate. For her, eating is its own reward. And with us, many things are gratifying. Food, drink, sex, fun - all of these things are pleasurable. All are sensual and hedonistic. When I grew up, hedonism was a bad word. It described things that were sinful, people who were evil. The pursuit of pleasure was wrong!

As I said at the top, I don't want to discuss ethics or social morality. Although sex is good, rape is bad. There are limits to the pleasures we should indulge in. My 20 pound Whippet would eat through a 40 pound bag of dog food before giving up. I know what is best for her so I keep her on a regulated diet and feed her only a small amount per day. And I know where the theists are suddenly going with this, but I disagree: we do not need a sky-king to tell us where our limits our. We know! Eating too much food is unhealthy. It will kill you if you aren't careful. Alcohol is toxic in large doses. Smoking in public is offensive to those of us who don't want emphysema or lung cancer. This is reasonable and the limits are clear to us. But we can't even have a discussion of pleasure without using biased language. We indulge in dessert. Many products are advertised as sinfully delicious. Decadent is a bad word and makes us think we're getting away with something.

This is why it is easy for us to imagine hell. But what about heaven? All we can think of is sitting there. Sitting around and (presumably) worshipping God, the cause of all that is good and righteous and boring. If I had my way, heaven would be a big giant restaurant with an open bar, video games and an orgy - never mind 72 virgins (or raisins, as the embarrassing translation might read) - this is heaven. I'd want some real sluts!

Television is good for you!

2009-09-03T11:41:00.003-04:00

One of my many, many peeves is the the stigma against various forms of entertainment. Specifically, television and video games. I am a fan of both. I enjoy spending my spare time engaged in one or the other and I resent the idea that they are mindless entertainments, that my brain atrophies when I watch an episode of Lost, Mad Men or The Soup. The default "healthy" activity is reading. I am also a fan of reading, in fact, but unless it is a book of science, philosophy or history or is otherwise particularly informative, I just cannot see how reading is intrinsically better than television.

It is true that there is a lot of terrible television that provides very little for your brain to do. Game shows, of course, although exceptions must be made for shows like Jeopardy! and Cash Cab, which challenge the watchers to think along. But I find it difficult to believe that even the terrible shows (pretty much anything on VH1, for example) are any worse for your brain than airport fiction.

I read an article in The New Yorker several years ago that was very intriguing. In doing research for this post I found the article and, upon review, I discovered that it was actually a book review. So I plan to read the actual book and am very excited to do so. But the article (and book upon which it was apparently based) says something that I had always felt: that television and video games are actually very real ways to involve your brain. I won't take credit for any of this - clearly the research was already done for me. Read the article here.

I understand that not everyone likes to watch television. There are plenty of shows that I don't watch, and that actually offend me with their oppressive (and near objective) stupidity. What annoys me is this common reaction: "I, personally, would rather spend my time doing something useful than watch television."

The Vatican is Bullshit!

2009-08-29T09:47:00.001-04:00

This is good. I'm always a fan of Penn & Teller's Bullshit.

Bible Inerrant

2009-08-26T12:43:00.004-04:00

I just finished reading Bart Ehrman's latest book, Jesus, Interrupted. It is a fantastic, fascinating read. One of the more interesting things about Ehrman is that he used to be a conservative, evangelical Christian, lost his faith and continues to teach Old Testament courses at UNC Chapel Hill. Another fascinating thing about Ehrman is why he lost his faith. I certainly don't want to misrepresent him, so I won't discuss his turn to agnosticism (he, too refuses to don the atheist label) but will recommend his book, God's Problem. What did not turn him away from faith was the discovery that the Bible is full of holes.

Apparently there are plenty of people in the world, plenty of Christians for whom the inerrancy of the Bible is not a sticking point. That is, they know that the Bible is not perfect but they just don't care. For them, the religion is about some other transcendent idea. For me, throughout my childhood and my adult Christian life, the Bible was flawless, every word was true and spoken to the (admittedly human) authors by God himself. On the issue of translation "errors" and additions, God's hand protected the content and guided those who compiled the canon. This view was instrumental in my own loss of faith.

Embarrassingly, it was reading Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code that pushed me from my seat on the fence between theism and atheism. Not to say that The Da Vinci Code convinced me by any stretch. What it did was open me up to the world of historical Biblical criticism, and in a very clumsy, hokey way, I might add. And for the record, no one book was responsible for my eventual outcome, and there was no moment in time when I realized with a flash that I was an atheist. Although if you are interested and are looking for some books on the subject, I will be happy to recommend a few of my favorites.

Enough of the distractions! After reading The Da Vinci Code, I found that the strongest link in my chain to religion was broken. I researched the issue myself and found that Dan Brown was right. The history of Christianity was full of twists and turns and drama and dark, ulterior motives. And if the Bible could not be trusted then the whole thing fell down very quickly. Why would I base my life on a text that is known to have errors?

"We don't know how many mistakes there are among our surviving copies [of the New Testament books], but they appear to number in the hundreds of thousands. It is safe to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament." B. Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, pg 184.

I am genuinely baffled by those who continue to call themselves Christians who can acknowledge the many, many mistakes and errata in the holy books. Imagine those statistics applied to a dictionary or encyclopedia. We might continue to use the book, but we would certainly take every single item with a healthy dose of salt. And we would most definitely not make any life choices based on this flawed book. It was through this reasoning, through this break in the chain that I lost my own faith. Once I discounted the Bible, all bets were off. If there were a personal god (not to discount an impersonal, universal deity) then he/she/it had failed to make its presence known to me and by any standard I could not be expected to live my life in any particular way.

There were other fronts where I lost my faith, of course. There was the loving God vs the Cruel Universe front, the Creation vs Evolution front, the Many Exclusive Religions front, the Many Lost Religions front, among others. Faith lost to reason on each and every one. But it all started when the Bible gave way.

Socialized Medicine = Good

2009-08-22T10:31:00.003-04:00

I haven't been posting about the health care debate like I said I would. Sorry about that. It isn't that I haven't had the time, but I haven't had much desire to do so. I feel very strongly about the subject, actually, and my reaction to the debate is very similar to my reaction to the debate about same-sex marriage: I can't believe that this is even a debate. I can't believe we have to actually talk about this. It should be obvious! Sure there's a choice of paths to take, but one is clear, straight and paved. The others are dark, twisted, narrow and covered with brambles and littered with broken glass.

And that's what bothers me so much: I simply do not see the opposing point of view. I have had it explained to me and I simply cannot grant a single shred of validity to this point. Oh, I understand why the current health care system would be opposed, I see why insurance companies would be against it, I can see why hospitals don't want to change direction: they all make more money than they should. We are capitalists and money-makers, but first we are members of a society. Think of our society as though we were a few dozen shipwrecked survivors on a desolate island. One or two people have all of the medicine and first aid and charge for use. Medical knowledge is valuable, but it shouldn't be leveraged into a commodity.

Sorry for the digression. The opposing point of view, apparently, is simply a fear of government control. That's the term that I hear the most, actually: government control. People are afraid that the government will take control of their lives via health care. People are afraid of socialized medicine. People are afraid of socialism. I will recommend this fantastic post from Roger Ebert's blog, where he discusses this very thing.

It is "socialism." Again, yes. The word socialism, however, has lost its usefulness in this debate. It has been tainted, perhaps forever, by the malevolent Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who succeeded somehow in linking it with the godless Commies. America is the only nation in the free world in which "socialism" is generally thought of in negative terms. The only nation in which that word, in and of itself, is thought to bring the discussion to a close.

Thank you, Roger Ebert. I thought I was crazy! I have wondered what this horrible phenomenon of socialism was all about. I thought I understood what it was, but if everyone was so terrified and against it, I must have been wrong. I looked it up on Wikipedia and followed some links to read about it. As I thought, it didn't sound terrible at all. It sounded like a good thing.

Perhaps it isn't the best economic theory (that's all it is, by the way) for a productive nation, although I'm not convinced that capitalism is necessarily better (what to you expect from me? I'm a liberal - you knew that already) but surely we can compromise! Surely we can find a way to allow the government to control our medicine. Why would we want this? Because they should have no incentive other than keeping people healthy. There should be no profit motive in the administration of health care. If the government runs the entire program (like they do, very successfully in other countries, I probably don't need to point out) then it will free up hospitals and doctors to do their jobs, the jobs that they very likely want to do, and free them from worrying about something so petty as money.

Would this lower the wages of doctors? Probably. Would this put an entire industry out of work? I hope so. But don't worry, America. Your precious insurance company executives are in no danger. What I am proposing is not even on the table here. Even if Obama's proposed plan goes through unscathed (it won't), we will still have the worst health care system of any developed country. Our place in the world is secure.

I don't know how many posts I can manage on this subject. Thinking about it actually provokes a physical response (yes, rage is a physical response) and I don't like to wind myself up for no reason. I'll stick to the easier battles, like legalizing same-sex marriage and getting "In God We Trust" removed from our currency.

Welcome to the Neighborhood!

2009-08-18T08:06:00.002-04:00

There are things about living in a suburban/urban (and I don't mean 'urban' in the euphemistic sense) neighborhood that took me by surprise. For one, there is gossip. I didn't think it was real, the chatting about neighbors while leaning on fenceposts. But there it is! One week in to our new home and we're already learning about the eccentricities of everyone who lives on our block. Also, there are blueberry muffins. We got a real, live housewarming gift yesterday, when one of our neighbors brought by a plate of blueberry muffins.

There is a dark side too, like petty theft. I bought a lawnmower on Sunday, planning to mow the yard on Tuesday (my day off) and this morning, it was gone, stolen clean off our front porch. It isn't a big deal really - today it's a hassle, but in a few months or a year the money will be forgotten and the incident will just be a memory. What is bad is how it makes me feel. It makes me suspect people that are probably innocent, but the more I think about it, the stronger my suspicion grows. I know that my suspicion is baseless and completely devoid of facts or evidence. I think that the only permanent effect of this will come from my reaction. Should I live in fear and anger, seething in resentment, holding grudges against people who may well be innocent of the crime? Obviously I should just move on, learn the lesson and secure my property (although it was on my screened-in porch). After all, the mower was just about the cheapest model that Lowes sells. I can just get another one.

Deep Space

2009-08-14T05:37:00.002-04:00

I saw this video on Pharyngula this morning and just had to share it. Not that anyone here doesn't also read Pharyngula...

Anyway, it's an amazing video, so please enjoy.

The Gospel

2009-08-13T05:38:00.002-04:00

Good news? Good news? Good news? I suppose it is news to hear that your sins do deserve eternal damnation and pain of torture. When I was a young Christian (that is, a young human who believed in the silliness that is Christianity) I really did believe everything they told me. Even now I am a terrible skeptic, which is why I choose to define myself as a humanist rather than a skeptic. I have to constantly remind myself to question things, and am very susceptible to believing what I read. It's a constant struggle.

Anyway, one of the things that we learned in Sunday School (and, in some cases, in the actual adult church service) is how to witness effectively. Their secret? Appeal to guilt and shame. "Don't you believe that you have sinned?" Of course. Everyone has guilt. Everyone has a whole closet full of shameful secrets, betrayals, murderous thoughts and evil deeds. And I really believe that (for the most part) we are all our own worst critics. The longer we bury our dark little secrets, the worse they seem to us, even though airing them and saying them aloud can strip them of much of their weight (this is the basic idea of Catholic confession and, I believe, psychotherapy). So the effective witness reminds people of their crimes and the pain they cause. I suppose that this is why evangelizing is so efficient among young people and the emotionally vulnerable (recovering alcoholics and convicted felons). The idea of sin is more sophisticated than ordinary guilt, but at the outset the sleight of hand works and no one notices that their guilt and shame has been transformed into sin.

To perpetrate a wrong is to harm someone else. Stealing harms the rightful owner, lies can be harmless, but they can also have catastrophic impacts, infidelity harms just about everyone involved and so on. This is the concept of guilt, and these are the burdens that every human must carry. They seem much heavier before you realize that everyone carries the same weight. Christians (any theist, for that matter) insist that the lie you told your sister or the candy bar you stole or the pleasure you took in watching a pretty girl walk past also offends god. That is sin, and that is why I can say that I do not believe in sin.

This is the Gospel Message, by the way. That our crimes against ourselves and our fellow man are actually crimes against god. It was not the victim who suffers then, but god. And because we are all victims and perpetrators, we are all damned. Never mind the loopy logic of salvation and Christ's sacrifice, the true story here is that we are guilty of crimes against the universe and need to be redeemed simply for being human. Not that it ever comes to this - anyone can recall quickly and vividly any number of mistakes and offenses - but we are, according to theists, guilty from the word 'go.' Simply and literally by being human we are in need of salvation.

And this is what bothers me so much about the Gospel Message. When I was younger, I only saw the bright light of the story without seeing the deep shadows it cast. I only saw the salvation part because the pain of guilt was so easy to recognize. But upon closer inspection (and it doesn't take a particularly strong lens) the whole thing comes apart and is revealed to be cruel, cynical and mean. Having been on the inside for so long, I can say that there was little - if any - ulterior or monetary motive to increasing the congregation's numbers. I do not mean to suggest here that there was any actual cynicism involved. People actually believe in what they say, and they believe that they are saving souls.

But the Gospel Message should be seen for what it is: a con. It is a false remedy for a false problem. Sin does not exist and, therefore, neither does salvation. But guilt exists and shame exists and real offense is done to real people. It is good that we feel bad for causing pain to our fellow man (and fellow animals, I would like to point out). Like physical pain, emotional pain and the empathy we feel helps to keep our society running smoothly - it is possible that I have the cause and effect backwards, but that isn't really important here. What is bad is when that pain is co-opted for backwards uses, when we are duped into feeding a monster that exists only in our collective imaginations.

The Disgruntled Believer

2009-08-10T09:39:00.005-04:00

One common criticism levied against atheists (by theists) is that they must be angry with god or dissatisfied with the church in some way. Perhaps that is true for some atheists, but I don't think it is true for many, and it certainly isn't true for me. I do understand why this criticism is made, however, because theists simply cannot imagine a world where their god does not exist. To them, an atheist must be like someone insisting that the sun is imaginary.

This was something that I actually dealt with when I was in the process of losing faith. I could not shake the feeling that god was real, even though all the evidence pointed to him being an imaginary figure. Because the idea of god is so ubiquitous in our society it truly is difficult to think that one does not actually exist. To theists who express this thought to me, I have to explain it like Santa Claus. I'm not angry with Santa because he forgot me one year or because he exploits elves and reindeer - I simply don't believe that he is real.

Now that I have lived for several years as an atheist (defined below, to avoid confusion) I have rid myself of nearly all subconscious assumptions about the physical, real existence of god, the devil, heaven, hell, angels, demons and sin. I'm sure that some residual elements remain - I did spend about 25 years, including the extremely important first decade, believing and being taught about god. But my perspective on these things has changed dramatically. As such, I find much amusement and interest in watching large groups of people engaging in prayer. Since religion is a wholly human and social endeavor, there is real value and meaning in the various things that define religion. Sermons and prayer are not simply fan fiction and mumblings. They serve to teach people things about the world and about themselves. Some of these things are false (I know that atheists are not alone in this - Baptists, for example, also think that many of the central tenets of the Catholic Church are wrong) as they are based on flawed assumptions.

Prayer will not solve anything. Nothing in the world will change because of the prayer. However, things may change because someone prayed. I'm not a psychologist by any means, but it does not seem too far to guess that the action of prayer can have some mental and emotional benefits, more if the pray-er believes that the deity is real. Aside from that, however, nothing real comes from praying. So a massive congregation (about 1,000 this morning at the hotel) engaged in collective prayer is a little silly. And to those theists who still can't see where I am coming from, imagine instead that they were praying to Aslan instead, or all signing a long letter to Santa.

----------------
My atheism, defined.
When I say that I am an atheist, it means that I do not believe that a god exists. It does not mean that I think a god does not exist. I am not trying to express anything nearly that specific. Specificity comes in when I reject particular gods, such as Yahweh or Allah: their stories are inherently flawed and (to me) transparently false. I can find no reason to believe that, if there were a god, it has revealed itself to us and requires anything of us. I acknowledge that there may well be a god, but its existence has nothing to do with my life and even less to do with the Bible.

Organ Donors 4 Christ

2009-08-02T07:19:00.003-04:00

I live in North Carolina and drive 15 miles to and from work (but only for one more day!), so I pass by quite a few churches every day. I don't pay much attention anymore, but one marquee caught my eye. It said something about organ donors. I'm not against churches really - in general, I think they can provide a measure of good for society. So when I read the sign that said "Become an organ donor..." I thought, good for them! But then I read the rest of the marquee. "Become an organ donor. Give your heart 2 Christ."

Ugh! What a gross misuse of the word! Organ donation is a vital mechanism in our shitty health care system. It actually saves lives. But Christ? He doesn't need your heart. It's a clever twist of the phrase, I guess, and not actually dangerous. But it trivializes something that is important. And I haven't the slightest clue what that church's policy on organ donation actually is. For all I know, they encourage it. I hope so.

Also - using numbers for homophonic words? Not cool. Ever!

"A close connection between nakedness and water"

2009-07-31T11:58:00.002-04:00

Very fascinating, especially to someone (like me) who knows next to nothing about science, much less evolutionary biology.