Atheist Peace

Tasteless... But I Couldn't Help It

2008-06-04T13:25:01Z

The green background reminded me of Hamas to be honest. Ugh, I can't wait until he loses this November. His speech was just *awful.*

John McCain's... Rage?

2008-05-05T13:53:10Z

John McCain looking a little too excited at a Diamondbacks game. Should he be eating peanuts like that? It almost looks fake.

Go get em' tiger. Look at that zeal!

Talked About in Class

2008-04-01T18:46:51Z

Apparently my website was mentioned at some university. I found this peculiar and I wondered what they talked about. How was it brought up? Oftentimes I get the short end of these discussions. I see blog posts from linguists talking about it but they don't quite hint too much at how it is viewed in their circle. I'm very curious. How does the site play into the English language or online dialog? In any case I do offer any input if anyone from there needs it. I'm not shy at all. I kind of enjoy stepping out of the role of site administrator and simply talking about the site from another perspective. I can has a clue?

Obama, Hillary Appeal Online

2008-03-24T12:36:51Z

I wish I could expand on this further, and perhaps I will at a later time. I just had a quick thought (I miss the days when blogging was nothing but quick thoughts) and I noticed that online there is a lot of consolidation in candidate support depending on the site.

As an example, Daily Kos is definitely Obama land. So much so that the Clinton supporters recently declared a "strike" on the site and all twelve of them left in a huff. MyDD has culminated into Hillary Clinton land where grand delusions of winning run high.

Digg is interesting in that it was a total Ron Paul stronghold and the front page often had several Ron Paul stories. Today, it is much more docile and the majority of support seems to be behind Obama at this time. So much for the Ron Paul revolution. Didn't realize it took a string of losses to stem a revolution.

YouTube was also Ron Paul land but recently has shifted to Obama Country. Both candidates seem to have found favor there though early on.

I wonder why Ron Paul and Obama both had that early net appeal even before their candidacies really took off in the mainstream media world. One theory I have is how fast information flows online and the tendency for group mentality to take place in large groups. It appears that as information is gathered there is a filtering affect that occurs. Clinton had a strong disadvantage online as the "Establishment Candidate" and I believe that turned a lot of users off. They wanted a fresh face. Early information favored Obama and as far as the internet was concerned for the most part, he was the candidate of choice.

What happens now is that the other candidates not favored receive bad press and information is filtered by the community at large. It is, in essence, a snowball effect. The more good information about a favored candidate, the more they will filter out good information on opposing candidates. An early advantage could mean everything and could tilt a particular community for overwhelmingly supporting a particular candidate.

This of course bars any major news that may slam a candidate. The Wright story has made Digg though many users there took a sympathetic stance towards Obama despite the overall negative light by the mainstream media. There are also straggling support for other candidates and some stories, if extraordinarily good, may leak through and paint a previously unfavored candidate in better light.

On YouTube Hillary Clinton videos tend to get slammed with negative ratings. The infamous Hillary4U&Me video was lambasted for its canned feel and unimaginative lyrics. Her recent "lie" is getting wide coverage and several videos regarding it have gone viral.

This is only a quick look at a few communities. I'm not too immersed in other communities but I'm wondering if anyone out there knows which way their own forum or website community leans election wise.

Sin: The Unjust Judgement

2008-02-20T20:31:27Z

The concept of sin is one of the most unjust concepts of Christianity. The idea is that the things you've done, regardless of who they harm or not, are wrong simply on the basis that God dislikes them. In the documentary "Jesus Camp" one girl succinctly described the bias of the concepts of sin when she says, "Sometimes I dance for the flesh." She then lowers her eyes and mutters that she has to be weary of that. Why? It would appear that God doesn't wish you to dance unless it is for him. Though there doesn't seem to be much biblical basis for this (outside of over interpreting things to cherry pick such a concept) it is a meme that is spread pretty heavily within socially conservative Christians. On a broader scope sin is all-encompassing of human nature and nobody can escape it. A Bible verse speaks volumes when it says, "For all have fallen short of the glory of God." Christians place a yoke of sin on every human and blanket all shortcomings and problems in a world as stemming from this sinful nature. Where is the evidence that sins causes world problems? If one looks around the evidence, to a Christian at least, would be all around. The world has problems. There are wars, famine, death, and disease. Even the mortality of humans is drenched in dogma as a by-product of sin. A verse says, "For the wages of sin is death." While to the rational observer this argument seems circular to a Christian it may pass as ample evidence for their belief in sin. After all, they might argue, what else could cause all the world's problems? A sufficient argument would be to point out that diseases and death impact animals as well. The most fundamentalist Christians, however, will point out the downfall of man in Genesis as the basis for the curse of death and disease on animals. It seems to be locked it pretty well. Man's sin causes animals to die too. Our sin causes flowers to wilt in winter and causes bees to die after stinging in protection of its hive. The idea is so far-fetched, arrogant, and ludicrous that finding a place to begin is difficult. First off, there is no basis for believing in a literal Genesis account of how sin began. Nor does it adequately explain why God felt it was necessary to curse the whole of creation for the mistake of two people. So this leads us to one unjust aspect of sin. The sin of man causes suffering for the whole of creation. It'd be akin to slaughtering all people in a village because a few don't follow the rules. Believe it or not, the Bible commands this. The second problem with the "man's sins curse the world" view is the arrogance of centering the entire universe upon two people's mistakes. All the natural problems of the world and the misfortune that befalls man as a result is because sometimes Billy masturbates in the middle of the night. The ludicrous nature of this naturally falls into place when you realize the scope that sin is blamed for. Meteors falling and killing people? Sin. A bear mauls some unfortunate park visitors? Sin. I imagine before the sin of Adam and Eve drowning, falling off a cliff, or having an elephant sit on you didn't result in death because, after all, death is product of sin. So another aspect of sin that is unjust aside from the death itself (and all of us succumbing to death as a result of sin) is the punishment after death. Apparently living a good life and only making a few mistakes isn't good enough for God. Any shortcoming what so ever will result in everlasting burning and gnashing of teeth. Out of all the unjustness of sin this is by far the most bothersome. It takes all personal responsibility and throws it out the window and takes a "one size fits all" approach to dealing with the shortcomings of man. Would we view a court system that only dealt out life sentences for any crime as just? Imagine the pain of a mother as her ten year old son is thrown into jail for life because he stole some bubble gum. Imagine facing such a judgement for something as simple as jaywalking. To Christians who fully believe in sin and its consequence this is the reality of sin. All sin is equal in God's eyes and they are all worthy of eternal punishment. Any rational person would see a major problem with this approach but we are so conveniently warned that we are in no place to question the judgement of God. There is irony in Christians, who often tout that they are very patriotic and love the freedom America affords them, lend themselves to one of the most tyrannical theological views. The despotic nature of God makes Stalin and Hitler look like freedom fighters. There is something entirely bankrupt in the concept of sin and that is rationality. The atheist perspective is that while there is no sin there is wrong and right and there are punishments that fit the crime. A ten year old stealing bubble gum isn't as wrong as someone who murders. There is a definite, though subjective, quality to punishment fitting the crime's committed. As a result there is a strong sense of personal responsibility. One doesn't have to appeal to an external, divine punishment. A Christian may argue that man does not hold the authority of judgement. The answer is, of course, that people give that authority in good faith that it won't be abused. A sense of just judgement has developed entirely devoid of religious input. An argument given in response to this seems to be that if a murderer gets away and dies before he is caught and put to justice this is somehow a problem with man's judgement and therefore there must be a God to delve out this punishment. It is hard to find a place to begin with such a ludicrous argument. Punishment isn't something required of crimes and sin. The whole concept of salvation hinges on the belief that sins and crimes can be forgiven and dealt with in another manner. History, regardless, will either forget those that escape their crimes or remember them in negative light. The crimes of those that are remembered are examples of how not to behave. They serve as a reminder of where bad behavior gets people. Invoking the need for an external, all powerful, all knowing judge just seems to be grasping at straws in an attempt to require justice for every little thing. However, this requirement is entirely made up and doesn't have any bearing on the reality of that need of a judge like God. A fact of life is that some people get away with their crimes and move on. Sin being inescapable is unjust. Sin being all encompassing is unjust. All of sin having the same punishment is unjust. The need for no wrongdoing, no matter what, to go unnoticed is unjust in a Big Brother way. It is clear, with the above, that the concept of sin is unjust as a whole, and is something that should not be taken to heart. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and accept the consequences of their actions in this life. There is no need to invoke an external judge to handle the collective cases of humanity. We do that on our own just fine, and in many cases, in spite of religion.

I Don't Count

2008-02-17T03:19:41Z

The Clinton campaign keeps insinuating that the Obama wins in all the states but Illinois don't really count. If it is a caucus they say it doesn't count because it is a caucus. If it is a primary in a southern state it is because it was a large African-American population. Very stupid. So I started this to protest. I'm going to gather images of Obama supporters in those states that don't count and show everyone who Senator Clinton is truly discrediting.

My Election Predictions

2008-02-07T15:48:57Z

I'm no political scientist. Nor do I have exactly the best election expertise. However, the day before Super Tuesday I predicted well enough that I'm going to try and project who I think will win what in the coming primaries and caucuses. So, here is where we stand currently:

Obama has taken more states, clearly, and about the same amount of delegates. Every news source is saying February is shaping up to be Obama territory. So here is how I think Feb 9th will play out. (Obama is baby blue, Clinton is pink):

Feb 10:

Feb 12:

So that is how I think it'll look by the end of February. This is where it gets a bit tough. Do the wins in February propel Obama to make a clean sweep of the rest of the states? Does Clinton maintain some strength and continue to dominate. It's hard to say. The rest of these predictions go on momentum from Obama and Clinton continuing to be somewhat of a resistance to a complete sweep: March 4:

March 8:

March 11:

March 22:

So, in a nutshell, I predict Obama will ultimately win the nomination (given current momentum) and Clinton will continue to put up a fight. I think Obama can easily win in the general election and I think you are going to see a major redrawing of the political map.

Obama Fever

2008-02-07T02:25:56Z

I honestly think I am being swept up into the Obama fever running wild in the country. I think I may actually vote for him come this election. This may seem odd coming from a Socialist. On the contrary, I think he can bring progressive ideas to the forefront and make them viable.

I honestly think he'll be good for the country.

After all, the central theme of his candidacy seems to be:

Yes we can.

I find that inspiring, empowering, and good. It's a central part of what I believe can make America great again.

Without God, You Have No Hope

2008-01-21T01:23:44Z

Today I got into a slightly confrontational argument with a small group of Christians in the cafeteria today at dinner. They were talking to one person who looked down and a bit beat by their words, and I heard the whispers of Hell and the words, "When you read the Bible don't read it with your mind. Open up to it." I asked him why he left church (he indicated earlier that he used to go) and he said he just fell out of it. I confided in him that I myself have left church years ago and it was the best decision of my life. Through glares of a Christian woman I explained to him that ultimately it is his decision what path he takes and that he must take responsibility for his own actions and beliefs. Then the woman turned her attention towards me and started berating me about my own beliefs. At first she didn't know I was an atheist but a Christian friend of mine introduced me to her and he couldn't bring himself to say, "he is an atheist." So I said, "Yes, hi, I'm the prominent atheist on center." Which is the truth. I'm one of the most outspoken atheists at this Job Corps center. She seemed taken aback. She became visibly angry and berated me. A few gems were her telling me: 1.) That I should keep my beliefs to myself and 2.) That I have no hope because I don't believe in Heaven and Hell. Is that how atheism is viewed? That I should shut up and wallow in misery? She seemed confused that I didn't feel I had no hope. I feel quite the opposite. How can this be? How can someone that believes in no gods feel any hope? Never mind the hollowness in believing in a god simply to have hope. I'm sure thousands believed in Zeus, Ra, and countless other gods for hope. I don't see how the Christian God is any different in this aspect. Am I, an atheist, liable to feel hopeless due to my lack of belief? The answer is a resounding no. I do not feel hopeless. Quite the contrary, in fact, and I think that confuses many people of faith. To them, hope is looking forward to dying so you can go to Heaven. I don't see how that is hopeful at all. As a Bad Religion song states, "What good is something if you can't have it until you die?" I think this explains my view pretty well regarding faith-based hope and I think it serves well as a reminder of how empty such promises are. My hope lies in humanity, in the expanding of knowledge. My hope lies in us continuing to learn and grow as time goes on as we have been doing. Times in the Dark Ages and before were barbaric, cruel, and immoral. We've advanced quite admirably; when was the last time you attended a witch burning or a gruesome gladiator battle to the death? I find religious hope troubling. It takes the ball completely out of our hands and thrusts it into the hands of a malevolent deity bent up on control. The only hope for humans is to hope they end up in Heaven upon death? Perhaps I go to far to say this, but I can't imagine I am, isn't this demeaning to the life we have? I tried explaining it. I don't think she could grasp what I was saying. She knew nothing more than that her faith in God and in Heaven were what drove her to live. She couldn't see my motives for living. I find something very sad about that and wonder how despair doesn't set in with such beliefs. She seemed to think it was arrogant to think man handled his morals and hope himself. I find it empowering and the true key to happiness. In any case, I hope I left the man they were targeting for conversion with some food for thought. I didn't pitch to him that atheism was the true path, nor did I even ask him if he believed in God or not. I simply told him to empower himself and to think for himself. I also realized something. The greatest tool against religion is to ask, "why?"

What Would Dr.King Fight For?

2008-01-16T13:20:28Z

Martin Luther King Jr.'s views have been reduced to such a level that the average high school student could not surmise what his political stances were beyond that he fought for civil rights and encouraged non-violent action. The holiday given in his honor has been a disgrace to his vision and has been used as an excuse to pacify the continuing struggle that he often described. While he was heralded as a great civil rights activist, his greater calling is often ignored. King's vision extended beyond simply dreaming of black and white kids holding hands in harmony, indeed, they went much deeper into what King viewed as the systemic cause of such social injustice. That systemic cause he saw was greed, militarism, and the stranglehold of a materialistic society ignoring the impoverished and downtrodden. Poverty, to King, was not simply a problem for poor ghetto bound blacks, it was a societal problem that had to be attacked by every American. King said, "we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society." To him, materialism fueled inexorable injustice and that true empowerment of the poor came when we started compassionately giving them opportunity to rise up. We are not there yet. The question hangs on to us: what would Dr. King fight for today? What causes would he take up? Though we can't ask him directly we can look at what he has said in the past to gain inspiration for the new wave of social injustice taking hold under our very noses. One can look at the current debate surrounding universal health care. A Harvard study says in 2001 56% of all bankruptcy in the US is caused by surmounting medical costs due to illness and injury. Out of them, 72% had health insurance and were working. There is something very wrong when half of bankruptcies are caused by health care costs. There is something very wrong when the rhetoric is, "We don't want to care for the slacking poor." There is something wrong when the richest nation in the entire world says it can't afford to give health care to every single one of its citizens. ]]> "It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued..." How eerily history echoes it's lessons into the present which are too often ignored. Dr. King viewed social programs as a way to empower and to show compassion to the nation's poor. It was a way to pave the way for true equality, because without economic freedom, you could never have civil freedom. The two are intertwined in a way that too many fail to see. He spoke of this further and said: "A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth..." While you remember Dr. King this Martin Luther King Jr. Day, don't simply remember what he did; look towards the future and see how we can continue to fulfill his dreams. Not simply his dreams for racial equality, because that was only one part of the solution, but also for economic equality. A deeper equality that so few dare to speak of, a true revolution of values. As Dr. King saw it, the words "the freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ring hollow in the face of economic injustice, and only through economic freedom can we truly begin to realize his dream fully.

The State of Moral Decay

2008-01-15T12:37:42Z

In Michael Moore's film, Bowling for Columbine, he asks a pervasive question about what could possibly be different that causes the US to stand out from most other industrialized nations in terms of gun murder rates. "Is it their culture?" It would seem culture is ridiculously homogenized across the western nations as the free flow of information over the internet and mass media has brought everyone closer. So why is it the US stands out in this negative fashion? A man shoots up Virginia Tech and another man shoots and kills churchgoers in Colorado. What exactly is going on? While it may seem far fetched, the state of education and morality in the US may be what is partly to blame. The US is ridiculously religious when compared to other industrialized nations[1] and morals are something that many feel is given to us by religion and tradition. As a result education is not focused on rationalization of thoughts and feelings as this would be something that treads upon a parent's rights to instill their personal values onto children. Furthermore, questions of morality in the education system are glossed over and students are fed what positions and actions are good or bad, without much thought to the actual reasons for this. http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/8244121]]>

Once Saved, Always Saved?

2008-01-03T14:03:33Z

I was a Christian for seven years of my life. I would lie if I said that I hated those years or that those years were entirely wasted, even with hindsight. The fact is, I enjoyed them in my ignorance, and I learned a small part about compassion (though, it was entirely misdirected).

There are two camps of Christian thought regarding my salvation. One group says that since I had accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior, I am forever bound to him and thus I am still saved. This group usually loves to point out that there is no possible way I could truly know Jesus and be with him and then deny his existence.

To them, it would be akin to meeting your aunt for the first time, spending time with her, and then later on saying you never met her and you didn't think she was real. It would be a ludicrous thing to do.

The other group of Christians say that a Christian is able to do something called "backslide" in which they are either sinning again and in the clutches of Satan or no longer believing in the doctrines. To them, one can be sufficiently backslidden enough to no longer have the saving grace of Jesus.

To them, it would be akin to meeting your aunt for the first time, spending time with her, and then later on saying you never met her and didn't think she was real. The difference is, in this case, she rejects you and says that for as long as you reject her you can't go into her house.

Both camps love to point out that perhaps I wasn't a real enough Christian. I find this notion funny. It is a childish security blanket for them to think that I was never a real Christian who believed as they did. Not to mention it also belittles my experience and puts them on a pedestal of arrogance to assume they know what my personal beliefs were.

A Christian can be summed up as someone that accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Whatever actions they justify with religious dogma afterwards are actions of a Christian for Christian reasons, even if warped. This is the inherent danger in religion. The ability to be warped and changed to fit agendas has caused much harm in history and is the running gag of the Religious Wing of the United States at this very moment.

The question poised, however, is if a person is saved are they always saved? I retaliate, is a person saved to begin with? Is there any rational reason to think the soul was in danger of hellfire before supposedly being saved? Is there even a soul to save?

Once again Christians run from rationality and set assumptions to build upon. They are building structures out of grains of sand.

My personal stance? I was never saved. There was nothing to be saved from. I was sucked into a belief system and they leeched upon my need to feel validated and safe. I was used to spread this system for their own purposes.

Really, it is the Christians who need to be saved from their dogmatic delusions.

Atheist Blogroll

2008-01-02T03:01:13Z

I've joined the Atheist Blogroll. It feels food to be part of a community. The blogroll currently has about 540 members on it. That's quite a lot. I hope I can interact with some members and get some interesting discussions going.

The Out Campaign

2007-12-29T07:07:05Z

The Out Campaign is a campaign to let the world know you are an atheist. It is meant to give a sense of belonging and community and I feel it is a very important campaign. Part of their stated goals are as follows: The OUT Campaign allows individuals to let others know they are not alone. It can also be a nice way of opening a conversation and help to demolish the negative stereotypes of atheists. Let the world know that we are not about to go away and that we are not going to allow those that would condemn us to push us into the shadows. Atheists are often viewed as mean, narrow minded, immoral, and a slew of other negative things. It is felt that without a divine baby sitter all that is left is the rotten core of human nature. This truly lays bare the true nature of religion: human nature is bad and it needs strong-armed guidance and direction. Man can't be trusted to do be moralistic and just without a divine judge to dictate what is right and wrong. It is stifling and limiting to think in such a manner. One can't help but wonder if religious followers find themselves wallowing in fear of their neighbors and friends because some of them may not believe! What a sad state to be in that you'd shun your fellow man in favor of a sadistic sky lord to help you out. The Out Campaign speaks volumes. It is more than simply atheists being open. It is about human spirit, ingenuity, and compassion. It is about sympathy and empathy with your fellow man and it is about joining together for the common good. Atheists realize that man is responsible for his own faults, failures, and deeds. Man must ultimately answer to future generations and historical scrutiny of his deeds. Most will fade away and never be heard from again; a few will spark such strong revolutions that they'll forever be remembered as long as the human species goes on. With many religions man is given a free pass as long as he seeks salvation. What a disgusting and shallow view on justice. True salvation is when you free yourself from the shackles of narrow-minded bigotry and see the big picture; it is when you hope the best for all of mankind and wish to seek to help in any way possible. No deeds of men will go unnoticed, for it is that measure that they will be ultimately judged by their fellow man. The Out Campaign may very well go down as an important, pivotal point in which atheists finally stood up to be counted and finally told the world that enough was enough; it is time to move from the Age of Faith, and into a new Age of Reason. That it is time to move beyond hollow threats of eternal judgment and into a time where we are all held individually responsible for our actions. That time is now. I ask any atheists to put the Out Campaign scarlet A onto their website and to be counted. It is imperative to take a stand and I can't think of a simpler way than to simply show yourself in the open. It is an important first step.

Religious Recipes

2007-12-29T03:54:44Z

I was having an interesting conversation about making gingerbread crosses with gingerbread men attached to them and then going to a local church and handing them out. I wonder how they would react. Would it be considered tasteless? If so, it would be the most tasteful tasteless thing done!

So I was thinking, what other religious recipes could I think of?

Angeled Eggs
By His Strips of Chicken
Hellfire Poppers
Salvation Shake (With Blood of Christ Cherry Mix!)
Brimstone Buffalo Wings
Transubstantiation Truffles
Foreskin Fillet
Ascension Cake (More holy than angel cake)
Passover Puffs
Coveted Chocolate Cake

I wonder if anyone else can think of more.