Category Archives: Blog

5 “challenges” to atheism

Posted on by

Someone sent me a link to a video and wanted me to answer his 5 challenges (the video has since been taken down). Since I’m relatively bored and feeling productive, I though I’d give it a try.

1) Is chance the same as “God in the Gaps” when explaining the origin of life?

If you can’t accept probability and chance, then you can’t accept reality. It would be swell if we lived in a deterministic Universe, but the simple fact is we don’t. Mutations in a organism’s DNA is a random process, and most of the time, these mutations aren’t beneficial at all. But because natural selection tends to favor mutations that provide some slight survival advantage, the element of chance is bred out, with only those mutations providing some benefit being passed on to future generations. So, although this guy would like to think evolution is the product of randomness, it is in fact only a mechanism of change, not selection. And unlike “God in the Gaps” which answers nothing, evolution offers us a model to understand how organisms change and adapt to their environment over time.

2) Why should there be something instead of nothing?

It’s a compelling argument, but the explanation a supernatural entity did it creates more questions than it answers. If everything needs a first cause, then who created God?

He also foolishly believes the Earth was somehow “manufactured” for us to live on it. This is kind of like arguing the reason your nose sticks out of your face is so you can wear glasses. We are suited for this planet because we evolved to adapt to its environment, not the other way around. To claim life bears the mark of “intelligent design” merely illustrates the fact the maker of this video has little or no education in biology.

3) Where do you get your morals from?

This is probably the most frustrating and annoying question religionists ask when they think they are being clever. I’m not going to argue most believers credit their religion for their morality. What I argue against is the truth of this assertion. You can believe something fervently even when it isn’t true. If religion really was the basis for morality, it still doesn’t explain where morals come from, since all modern religions are relatively recent inventions in our history as a species. Did our ancestors, who possessed the same cognitive faculties as us, suffer from a terrible lack of morality? Could they not experience love, suffering, anger and pain like we do? Could they not determine the consequences of their actions, and how those might be interpreted in the future? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that one doesn’t need codified religious laws to act morally.

In any event, it’s a far more serious problem to attribute morality to a supernatural being who apparently does not interact with the natural world in any measurable way. How are we to trust the “words” of such a deity? If God asks us to do something which seems wrong (like killing another desert tribe), then how are we supposed to know if it’s right or wrong? Is it right merely because of his say-so?

4) How did morals evolve?

This isn’t really a challenge for atheists, but rather a question an evolutionary psychologist should answer. Michael Shermer’s book, “The Science of Good and Evil“, and Richard Dawkins “The Selfish Gene” attempt to do just that.

If you want the quick answer to the question, look at other social animals and how they have evolved behavior that allows them to function as a group. It’s not hard to imagine in the struggle for survival, cooperation would be beneficial, and our species would adapt to favor traits that would make us more trustworthy and empathetic towards one another (the more selfish and opportunistic ones presumably dying without passing on their genes).

5) Can nature generate complex organism, in the sense of originating it?

Do you get the sense that this guy would benefit from studying biology a little bit more? He’s not an idiot, but his points center on the fact he doesn’t seem to understand how natural selection works. We have a relatively chauvinistic way of looking at life; we tend to think we are infinitely more complex than other beings simply because we’re intelligent. But if you measure complexity by an organism’s genome, we’re no more complex than a mouse, and a lot less complex than some species of ferns. The point is evolution doesn’t mean improvement, and certainly doesn’t mean “increased complexity”. The e-coli bacteria that makes you sick is just as “evolved” as you are. The difference is the niche we exploit, and that’s it.

If you want to attribute intelligence to the working of some higher power, you’re free to do so. You should, however, realize this “explanation” only offers up more questions (where did God come from, why does he let bad things happen, etc). The insulting thing about the “God in the gaps” argument isn’t only that it’s not an adequate answer to anything; it also shuts down the impulse to find those answers. It’s good to ask questions, but rather than feel proud for asking them, you should seek those answers for yourself!

Strip Clubs safer than church

Posted on by

If you’ve ever wondered if it’s better to attend church Sunday morning to listen to the sermons of some out-of-touch old white dude rather than heading over to the local strip joint to watch some nubile young lady shake her ton-tons, you might be interested to know the latter is not only more enjoyable, it’s also a lot safer. The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research in Australia recently released a report that showed churchgoers were more likely to get assaulted, robbed, threatened and sexually assaulted than their voyeuristic counterparts.

In other words, the image of churches as “safe havens” is most certainly just a good P.R. campaign, since they can’t seem to stop attendees from committing a whole range of petty crimes. Unlike strip clubs who have muscular bouncers to kick your ass out, the worst thing a preacher can do is throw some holy water at you. So scary!

As a finally note, the “donations” I keep leaving at the strip clubs doesn’t go to help defend priests from prosecution for the rape and abuse of children. Instead, all that money probably going towards a new boob job, and that’s something we can all celebrate, no

Richard Dawkins wants UK to arrest the Pope

Posted on by

It looks like someone is finally taking a stand against Pope Benedict XVI for his role in covering up the abuse of children, and it’s none other than atheist superstar Richard Dawkins. Along with Christopher Hitchens, the pair is trying to see if they can get the UK government to arrest the pontiff when he comes to visit in September to beatify some 19th century theologian no one actually gives a shit about. Since the Vatican isn’t actually recognized by the UN as it’s own state, he wouldn’t be able to claim diplomatic immunity, making his arrest a real possibility. Now all they need to find is a prosecutor with some balls, and then we can all sit back and witness something spectacular; a religious leader actually being held responsible for his actions.

Now before we all get too excited, you have to wonder what the backlash from this is going to be. There are still lots of Catholics willing to defend Benedict no matter how guilty he is for the simple reason they are convinced as an avatar of God, he is quite literally infallible. Luckily, the Vatican seems to be in complete denial over the seriousness of these allegations, so my guess is they won’t even take this threat seriously until it’s too late.

I’m not sure how all of this is going to go down, but with Dawkins on the case, it’s safe to say he isn’t going to let this thing slide that easily. Good luck you beautiful British bastard!

Child bride dies of internal bleeding

Posted on by

I’m officially ready to throw up all over the place after reading this story; a 12 year old Yemeni girl recently died of internal injury after her “husband” (a man more than twice her age) decided to consummate their recent marriage. Kids being married to much older men is a pretty serious problem in the country, and the government has been slow to change the legal age of consent due to religious conservatives fighting these measures; it seems the faithful aren’t too happy at thoughts of the government forbidding them to forcefully have sex with little girls. Go figure!

If you think that’s horrifying (which it is), consider the fact the tradition is as old (if not older) than Islam; Mohammed’s favorite wife was 6 years old when he married her, and if it wasn’t for the fact she was sick when they married, he probably would haven’t have waited until she was 9 to make that marriage “official”. Most moderate Muslims don’t really like to talk about Aisha and the disturbing fact their prophet was basically a pedophile, although in countries like Yemen they seem actually proud of the fact they are legally allowed to marry and fuck children.

What a dark and disturbing place the world would be without religion to show us the light, eh?

Bill Donohue does it again!

Posted on by

I dream of the day when I no longer have to say the name Bill Donohue, for every time I do, a little bit of sick makes its way into my mouth. The fact that mainstream media continues to give him a platform to speak proves how shallow and uneducated they are. The latest words out of his poisonous mouth regarding the allegations of priestly sexual abuse (the subsequent attempt to conceal these activities) goes something like this: It wasn’t child rape because the kids were post-pubescent at the time (and were therefore just “sexy” teenagers).

Maybe Bill is a little confused as to the relative age of consent. According to him, if you’re above 12 years of age and a clergyman forcefully shoves his dick in your mouth, it’s in actually consensual gay sex (and silly you for thinking otherwise!). So in Bill’s view, the controversy surrounding the Vatican isn’t about child rape, but homosexuality.

Surely there are Catholics out there who are genuinely disgusted and outraged Bill could say such a thing while representing the interest of their institution. Unfortunately for them, the ones in power have no real interest in seeking justice for the victims; they simply want to avoid having to admit their culpability and end up paying billions of dollars in compensation. They would rather blame everything on gays and atheists rather than take a long hard look at the corruption and rot present in their own church.

Keep being the same old you, Bill. You do more to help atheism than you can possibly imagine.

City council fails to change Good Friday to “Spring Holiday”

Posted on by

“Good Friday” is creepy. As a holiday, I’d say it ranks pretty high up on the weirdo-meter (the biggest one in my book is the cryptic and disturbing celebration of Passover, where Jews celebrate God killing the first born children of Egyptians and “passing over” their own kids). For starters, millions of Catholics celebrate the crucifixion of their messiah, as though his supposed torture and eventual death is something to celebrate. The big joke, of course, is that Easter is nothing more than a pagan holiday, but you can’t seem to convince the faithful that their precious celebration is nothing more than a copyright infringement.

In an effort to try and show some degree of neutrality towards religion, the city council of Davenport, Iowa tried to change “Good Friday” on their municipal calendar to simply “Spring Holiday”. As you can guess, religious folks totally lost their shit, and forced city officials to change it back. They now say that the name change was “an error”.

Just another example of tantrum religious people have whenever they aren’t shown any special treatment. They might frame it as a religious rights issue, but I don’t exactly see a lot of Christians fighting for the rights of other religious denominations to have their holidays officially recognized by the government. Bunch of crybabies.

Home Grown Terrorist arrested in Michigan

Posted on by

Normally, if you hear about a plot by an armed civilian militia trying to kill government officials, you figure it’s happening in some unstable developing country. It’s hard to believe in this day and age, the most powerful and wealthy country in the world also seems to have similar problems with armed maniacs trying to overthrow the present authority.

A few days ago, police and FBI agents arrested 9 home grown “terrorists” who were planning on killing a cop in order to later murder a bunch of police officers at his/her funeral. The small militia is composed entirely of Christian fundamentalists, and claim the name of the group, the”Hutaree” means “Christian warrior” (although by all accounts the word is simply made-up).

These religious nutjobs are very anti-government, and are convinced the former Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, is actually the Antichrist. Their plan is simple: to defend Christianity by waging war on those who oppose the divine authority of Jesus Christ (in other words, anyone who has half a brain). Their “About Us” page says it all* (including the fact it’s illegible at times):

“We believe that one day, as prophecy says, there will be an Anti-Christ. All Christians must know this and prepare, just as Christ commanded…The Hutaree will one day see its enemy and meet him on the battlefield if so [sic] God wills it.”

This has to be the part of their scheme that confuses me the most. The Bible “predicts” the Antichrist will come, but this is all supposed to lead up to the event Christians call the Rapture, where true believers get whisked up to God’s magical-sky-playland. Only non-believers will be “left behind” to face-off against Jesus in the final conflict. So what exactly do these fundamentalists think their job is? Do they think they are responsible for bringing down the Anti-Christ and failing to let prophesy be fulfilled?

Of course you could argue religious nutbags simply find in their respective texts whatever they want to find; in this case, these paranoid weirdos needed some kind of moral justification for the twisted evil they were about to commit. This is what makes religions conviction so frightening; anyone wanting to find reason to harm, torture or kill their neighbor can find plenty of religious passages encouraging violence in their respective holy texts; there’s no limit to the kind of twisted logic you’ll be capable of if you put enough time and effort into looking for it. If you think there’s a difference between these assholes and the fuckfaces who blew up the World Trade Center, you’re underestimating just how crazy fundamentalists really are.

*(Update: The site now sells outdoor apparel and cowboy hats)

Pope thinks abuse scandal is “petty gossip”

Posted on by

It must be nice to not have to answer to any authority whatsoever when you’ve committed a series of heinous crimes. While the secular world tries to grow enough balls to bring Pope Benedict XVI to justice (I really wouldn’t hold my breath, people), the pontiff is still free to try and play down the seriousness of the allegations against him and other senior officials in the Vatican. Recently, the Pope sent out a broadcast on Vatican radio praying for the victims of earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, and for “all the victims of child abuse”.

Isn’t just like a Christian to do something wrong and then ask for forgiveness? It’s a lot easier than actually bothering to do the right thing or actually bothering to pay for your crimes. Hey, don’t they believe a 2000 year old dead Jewish guy has already paid for their past and future sins? Must be nice to not have to deal with anything and instead beg some invisible sky-daddy to be absolved.

During his address, he stated “From God comes the courage not to be intimidated by petty gossip”. Yes, I’m sure it takes a lot of courage for you to simply ignore your role in furthering abuse by priests, and harboring them from prosecution. You’re so brave! All that “petty gossip” about hundreds and thousands of kids being abused must really bother you when you’re enjoying all the luxuries afforded by your position.

Every time this sack of shit opens his mouth, he’s sending a big “fuck you” to the rest of the world that doesn’t believe in his fairytale bullshit. We’re too damn gutless here in the West to do anything about it, lest it offend people of “religious faith”. Yep, because he’s a religious leader, we’ll kick up some dust and condemn his actions, but it’s doubtful we’ll have the balls to do much more. If we could finally start standing up to these religious loonies, we would live in a much different world, that’s for damn sure.

NZ Christians won’t allow woman the right to end her own life

Posted on by

When health care reform was first proposed in the United States, one of the talking points raised by conservative idiots trying to scare the general public was the dreaded “death panels“, a supposed government entity that would be “whacking” old people willy-nilly. Rational minded policy makers failed to dissuade the public (who were spoon-fed this nonsense by right wing talking heads) that this threat was simply a fabrication. The controversy ended up being about “end of life” services; essentially giving people the ability to chose when they want to stop receiving treatment for terminal ailments, rather than letting the choice be made by other people. It’s a responsible way to look at the realities of death; not everyone wants to keep fighting when they’ve been in pain their whole lives.

In the end, the real controversy about “end of life” services is actually over the fact the religious right abhors euthanasia, which they regard simply as “a sin”. Take the story of this New Zealand woman who can’t seem to be able to die in peace: After suffering a cerebral hemorrhage 20 years ago and living in pain ever since, she’s recently decided to stop eating and simply let herself die. Her own fellow citizens, however, are trying to prevent this, motivated by the primitive thought a supernatural being would not approve of her actions:

Margaret’s life is important, she is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of God’s loving creation. The taking of one’s life is contrary to the moral law. Our life is a gift from God. We are but stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. The decision to kill oneself, is not a rational decision. She has been assessed by psychiatrists as being lucid, but was she also assessed as being severely depressed and if so, why is she not being treated for this condition?

The problem for these religious folks trying to force Margaret Page to eat is this is actually a form of assault in their country, so although it’s apparently illegal for someone to kill themselves (a law I’ve come to realize is entirely motivated by religious sentiments), it’s also illegal to shove food down their gullets to keep them alive. Hello paradox!

The doctors may still choose to keep her alive if she become unconscious from malnutrition, since it’s unlikely they would be charged with assault (I’m hoping of course this won’t happen). The religious organization “Right to Life” is asking the authorities to save her, but when is someone actually going to bother to listen to the person who’s actually living that life? She no longer wants to suffer and wishes to die, but religious opposition is making even this simple request impossible. This is the degree of control religion wants to have over every single human being. They may mask it under the guise of “respecting life”, but their need to dominate all aspects of human life makes it impossible for them to respect anyone’s right to actually make their own choices.

**NOTE** She recently succeeded in choosing to end her own life. You can read all about it here.

New York Times fingers Pope

Posted on by

Yes, I’ve always wanted to use a headline like this, and today seemed like the perfect time to do it. Plus it helps that it’s completely true; the New York Times has supposedly come up with definitive evidence that Ratzinger was not only aware of Reverend Peter Hullerman (formerly known only as “H”) had molested children and, rather than notify authorities, simply transferred him to another parish despite a letter saying he was still a potential “danger”.

Of course, the problem here is no one is going to do anything about this. The only way he can get fired is if his Invisible friend in the sky decides he needs to go, and since he’s supposedly a voice only Ratzinger can hear, I have a feeling “Sky-man” won’t call for his resignation anytime soon. Would you want to stop living in the biggest and most luxurious palace in the world? He eats on gold plates for fuck’s sake; that was pimp even back in the Middle Ages.

You have to wonder what kind of weird power struggles go on in the Vatican. I mean, it can’t please everyone Pope Benedict is dragging the whole church into the ground, and even though they can’t force him to resign, there still has to be a lot of folks within the halls of power who never liked him in the first place. It’s just like high school, except the prom queen used to be a Hitler Youth.

US priest accused of molesting hundreds of boys

Posted on by

Pope Benedict XVI is again being implicated in another abuse scandal, this time out of the state of Wisconsin. Reverend Lawrence C. Murphy worked in a school for deaf children, and while Benny was alerted in two letters that the priest had been suspected of molesting dozens of children, he failed to do anything at all. Unsurprisingly, Murphy was transferred from the school when the heat got too high to another parish where he continued to have unfettered access to young children. In all, it’s estimated he may have molested over 200 young boys.

I have to wonder what kind of spin the Vatican is going to try to put on this story; it’s yet another clear example of Ratzinger’s complete indifference towards the plight of abused children by the hands of his own employees. If he was a manager at a Denny’s he would not only have already been fired, he would also have gone to jail for failing to report such serious crimes to the police. But no; since he’s a religious figure living in his own tiny country, no one can touch him. I have to agree with Hitchens on this and say there’s a serious stink of evil coming from the new Pope (even though I hate this kind of rhetoric). We can only hope his failures as both a cardinal and a Pope are enough to make his sheep realize they’ve put their trust in the wrong man. I won’t hold my breath…

Billionaire donation to Catholic church fulfills “pact with God”

Posted on by

Albert Gubay, founder of Kwik Save (a grocery chain in the UK) has put his business into a trust in order to keep a promise he made to an invisible sky deity after he asked his help to become a millionaire. Now, at 82, this Catholic is now donating almost a billion dollars to various Roman Catholic charities (you may recall these are the same institutions that use homeless people and orphans as pawns in their fight against equal rights for gays).

I know what you’re thinking; how awesome would this headline be if it said “pact with the Devil” instead? It would certainly highlight the fact it wasn’t a pact with a supernatural entity that made this guy successful, but rather hard work and determination (and probably stepping on a few throats too I assume). I’ve never been a huge fan of charities (especially not the religious kind), but it is nice this guy feels the need to donate such a large amount to those less fortunate; I just wish it wasn’t all tied to a religious organization that places the well being of molesting priests above that of children.

Why journalists put “evolution is wrong” in their headlines

Posted on by

I regularly read “The Guardian”. They normally have a pretty decent science coverage, but the latest article entitled “Why everything you know about evolution is wrong” outraged me enough I felt the need to talk about it. The article starts simply enough, referring to the burgeoning science of epigenetics, and how some researchers are finding genes that become expressed due to environmental factors can effect subsequent generations. So far so good. However, at one point in the article the author jumps completely off the deep-end and begins to suggest this now proves evolution by means of natural selection is under scrutiny, and natural selection might not be a real force at all. All of this stems from a book he read that seems to have convinced him in some way something fishy must be going on in the world of evolutionary biology.

The book in question is called “What Darwin Got Wrong“, and is written not by biologists (a good start, right?), but rather by a philosopher of the mind and a cognitive scientist. Their central argument is nothing more than a simple language trick: they claim in order for natural selection to do its “selecting for”, there has to be intentionality (meaning a kind of willpower to make the selection happen at all). If this sounds completely idiotic, it’s because these guys have no idea it isn’t nature “selecting” anything; species who have a reproductive advantage in their specific environment will have more offspring and suffer from less predation, and that it turns means their particular genes will be more abundant. So really, the only thing the two authors manage to do is try and attack the language framework of evolution (and fail miserably), and find their insight so brilliant they think they’ve disproved natural selection.

Now, as far as the motives behind journalists publishing such literary rot is concerned, it’s simply to gain recognition; rather than come up with novel ideas, it’s easier to tarnish or question the discoveries of people that are smarter than you. And because of the resistance of many Americans to accept his scientific contribution, Charles Darwin is the easiest target. You don’t see many journalists tackling the fallibility of the ideas of men like Einstein or Heisenberg in mainstream media; going up against these scientific geniuses is a Herculean effort in comparison, and not likely to generate much attention from anyone.

At the end of the day, journalists want their articles to be read, and with evolution still a hot button issue in the US, if the title of your article seems to suggest it’s wrong, you’ll get your audience. Even when that’s not the motivation, many journalists believe the truth in any story can only be discovered if you present both sides of the argument equally. This isn’t at all how a scientific truth is discovered at all (for instance, I don’t need to know about creationism to know anything about evolution); science is not a democracy, and nobody votes on whether a particular theory is the right one or not. It either works or it doesn’t, and evolution works. Until more journalists understand there really is no story here other than “more idiots undermine one of the most tested scientific theories in history”, this kind of shit will keep happening.

Pope issues apology for child abuse, blames secularism

Posted on by

Imagine this hypothetical situation: you’re implicated in a child molestation scandal in your powerful and influential organization, and the whole world eagerly anticipates your response to these allegations. Would your strategy be to issue an ambiguous “apology” for the suffering of the victims followed by laying blame a completely esoteric scapegoat? The only way you could ever get away with such weaksauce is to command the only position in the world where it’s absolutely impossible to be fired (and I’m not talking about a Supreme Court judge here, people). I’m referring of course to the Pope, who’s been under intense scrutiny since it was revealed that under his watch, a rapist pastor who forced a young boy to give him oral sex was whisked to a variety of parishes where, unsurprisingly, he offended again.

The Vatican’s pastoral letter to the victims of child rape reads as follows:

“You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry, Many of you found that, when you were courageous enough to speak of what happened to you, no one would listen”

Tell them something they don’t know, Razty. This pathetic attempt to sweep everything under the rug is followed by the usual “we promise to try and do something secretly on our own, and just trust us we’ll make this all go away” bullshit that’s been the M.O. of the Church since the whole mess started. You might recall Pope Benedict XVI was the one responsible in the 80′s of “sniffing” out molesters, and he did such a bang up job that one of the people helped him become Pope was none other than Archbishop Bernard Francis Law of Boston (known primarily for his involvement in covering up the abuse scandal in that state).

The most nauseating thing in all of this is at the end of his bullshit apology, Benedict blames secularism on the declining morality of society in general (where do they get their stats?). Not only is it baffling (does he think this would have been avoidable if society was more religious?), it’s also just more scapegoating. The Church used to do the same thing with Jews until that went terribly out of “fashion”. Now secularism and homosexuality are their new targets. Hey, when you can’t take responsibility for your own actions, blame someone else entirely! It’s the formula they’ve been using for centuries, and it’s not about to stop any time soon, people.

Saudi Arabia condemns TV host to death for “sorcery”

Posted on by

If you’ve ever spent time reading tarot cards, playing with a Ouija board, or working for a psychic hotline, I suggest you avoid Saudi Arabia as a travel destination. Recently, Amnesty International has been trying to pressure the government to release a man by the name of Ali Hussain Sibat, who was sentenced to death in November 2009 for the supposed crime of “sorcery”. Sibat had a show on a Beirut satellite TV channel where, before a studio audience, he would predict the future and give advice. If that sounds familiar, it’s basically a Lebanese ripoff of “Crossing Over with John Edward” (if diplomatic relationships fail, can we send them Edward in exchange?).

Now because Islam is a political religion, there’s no rational legal body at work here; instead, a religious court based in outdated and superstitious laws are responsible for punishing offenders, and punish they do. A court in Medina convicted Sibat of witchcraft, and in accordance to their holy text, his sentence is nothing less than execution. There you have it folks, the Koran doesn’t mess around with issues of legality, human rights or even common sense; as far as the book and its murderous peddlers are concerned, you need to kill witches, and fast (Sibat tried to appeal this decision, but it didn’t take long for them to be overturned)!

I can’t imagine a clearer example of why religion and politics don’t mix; a father of 5 is being sentenced to death for the crime of reading dumb people their fortunes on TV. Yep, the world is officially fucked up.

(Update: Sibat was apparently allowed to return to his native country of Lebanon, but that has yet to be confirmed)