Author (#1)December 2007 Archives

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.

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.

Iowa - Mike Huckabee is normally just like every other candidate. He campaigns tirelessly, he pleads for his supporters to raise money, and he launches attack ads on other candidates trying to convince others he is the candidate of choice. The similarities end there however.

After a previous bizarre string of statements alluding to foe suicide and the voter being akin to a dead pheasant if he does not vote for him, he took an even stronger stance in the death of his political foes.

Mike Huckabee was visiting a dog kennel in Northern Iowa today when he viciously attacked and beheaded a dog with his bare hands after being questioned about how he felt about his campaign strength. "I feel like this," he had said.

After requesting a towel and wiping off his hands he said, "Look it, I think I can win. If you don't vote for me, well, you'll end up being a headless dog in a pool of your own blood."

He clarified further, "Hell, even if you do vote for me, you'll end up like this. I'll just do it faster. I'll kill all of you. I swear."

He refused to comment any further.

"I think Huckabee is a great candidate. I mean, did you see that? He killed a fucking rotweiler with his bare hands," said one undecided Republican voter, "and I look forward to being next."

PETA issued a statement condemning Huckabee for his actions.

Our chief political correspondence observed, "He is still showing rockstar performance in the polls with no sign of slowing down, even under intense pressure and scrutiny."

"It is unclear how the dead dog incident will impact his standing," he added.

Mike Huckabee is currently statistically tied for first place in Iowa along with Romney.

The Pledge of Allegiance continues to be a hot button issue for atheists and Christians alike in the US. The atheists charge the Christians with inserting religion into every area of government and the Christians charge the atheists with trying to take God out of the government, despite the majority of people believing in him.

This post touches upon Michael Newdow and the controversy surrounding his latest legal actions.

What was odd about the post was that it never really addressed the issues Newdow is trying to raise. Instead it alluded to his custody battle and hinted that his child and wife are Christians.

In case anyone has forgotten, this all started as a bitter custody battle between NewDow and a woman with whom he shares a child. (Also see WorldNetDaily - his daughter and her mother are Christian.)

What does this have to do with his case? Why is it we can't have an honest debate without referencing his personal life?

The fact is, Christians fear this man and his stance. So they attack his character in an effort to discredit him. So before you even hear the man's arguments (Which are nicely left out of this post) you feel you can't trust his words.

Very nice tactic.

Then we have a link to a blog that states that most people want to keep "In God We Trust" on money. Well, I answer to this, since when was the us a pure democracy? Most Americans hate George W. Bush, yet he is still in office. Most people believe Joan of Arc is Noah's wife.

This case has nothing to do with what the majority of people want. It has to do with government establishing official ties with religion. Also, please, let us spare the childish remarks about sending people who feel this way to North Korea.

What we have in this case is the will of the majority suppressing the views of the few. I don't feel we should trust in God. He's a homicidal maniac who calls himself Jealous. I don't want the US to put ANY trust in him!

But then we are told it is a generic term for whatever god you wish to put faith in. This is such a cop out my head is spinning. This is a lie. Clearly. The same people who are saying the majority of people want "In God We Trust" on money are saying that the SAME God mentioned there is a generic god. Further, these are the same people who are Christians. Clearly it isn't generic.

To Muslims "Allah" is just as generic as "God" is to Christians. I suggest then we replace all references to God with Allah. Let us see how supportive they are of putting a generic term for a deity on money then.

Then we will clearly see it is the Christians that want the Christian God mentioned in our pledge, and on our money, and in our oaths. This is laid out clearly because the same people fighting for this are the ones that state the US is founded on Judeo-Christian values. The same people who say we need to put God back in government.

They change hats depending on who they talk to. It is time to see through this.

Another ridiculous charge by Christians in an effort to fear monger their position is the specter or "They want to ban mentioning God in public!" This is clearly a position when one lacks the mental capacity to understand that limiting government's ability to mention God does not limit the citizen's ability to mention God.

Removing God from money isn't silencing anyone. It's becoming neutral. My headphones don't say "God" on them, does this mean they are atheist headphones? My laptop doesn't have any mention of God. Does this mean my laptop is an advocacy for atheism?

Get realistic.

It is time government accepts the pluralistic society and caters to no one. It is time for government to maintain a neutral position on matter of all faith, even if just mentioning a god, because it is a fine line between being personal and publicly endorsing a particular faith. The government has no place is doing the latter.

It is clear "God" in the pledge, and on the money, is anything but "generic." It is a cultural war being waged by Christians into establishing Dominionism over the US government and people. They feel that their faith should have the say in public matters.

Here a self proclaimed bible thumper calls the site I administer, the LOLCat Bible Translation Project, a "new low." Of course, this is based purely on her sensibilities as an outstanding Christian, no?

It would appear to me that the offensive level of the lolcat bible is fairly low. A few verses here and there are altered into something less desirable for a Christian but nothing stops them from altering it to suit their own needs. In fact, I would guess that most of the people translating are Christian themselves. Why is it that this one Christian feels the need to feel outraged?

'You just don't make a mockery of God's Word! They truly do not know what they do,' she proclaims. She offers no supporting reasons for why we don't make a mockery of the supposed Word of God. She just states that it is something you just don't do. Furthermore, she doesn't state why she finds it a mockery. I must say, it is very hard to argue with that impeccable logic.

This leads me to a puzzling point I've always wondered. Why do Christians throw around convictions without actual thought? Why is it "simply this way" without any reasoning as to why? Is it because their convictions falter under scrutiny? Worse yet, they call to arms often times under the weakest of pretences.

This blogger fell short of calling to arms.

I do wonder how much more backlash I'll get. I've received one email in similar tone to this blog spot. These are the first truly negative reactions I've gotten about the lolcat bible project. While I don't mind the controversy I do wish they'd at least give more reasoning than simply stating their disgust.

To clarify further, the LOLCat Bible Translation project is not meant to be a mockery in of itself. It is an interpretation of the Bible as we imagine it would be viewed by cats. That is it. Some people may mock in their translation and that is their right. Parody is an important part of internet culture.

I imagine the shock comes from seeing something usually only in print form and in physical reverence reduced to something freely manipulated and not as respected. However, isn't it truly a sign of maturity to live and let live? What exactly are you defending? Does God need little foot soldiers to protect him from an amusing translation that makes light of a serious work?

My personal stance on the Bible has always been that I don't believe in it literally. I believe it is a collection of myths surrounded with historical events. That said, I also believe it is an important cultural literary work and something that must be revered in that context. That doesn't exempt it from manipulation though.

So the creator of the site doesn't view it as a mockery per se and the vast majority of the translators aren't doing it as a mockery either. Where does this lead us? A group of people non-mockingly mocking a deity who is concerned about a small corner niche website that translates his words into cat speak.

Can we get realistic please?

I'm in Georgia for the holidays and I have to say this area has pretty large mega churches.

I'm saddened. So many mouths could have been fed and so many families could have had houses and warm beds. Giant LED signs and three-thousand parking spaces is more important. It is what God would want, right?

In Acts 3 (or was it 4) towards the end the church is viewed as a communistic community. Everybody sold their property and the church gave it back out according to need. It even says "to each according to their need."

Why is the current church nothing like this?

Here we have a thought provoking quote,

The real lesson to be learned from the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that it shows how completely out of touch our popular culture is with the great tradition of natural theology. One might as well be speaking a foreign language. That people could think that belief in God is anything like the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present. [. . .]

So, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not mainstream and therefore their parody has no merit. You have to be at a whole other level to even begin to discuss the existence of God.

So essentially, only theologians can discuss Theology! How convenient.

I've personally read Aquinas. It was total rubbish, to be blunt, and nothing near a great theology piece. It was assumption on top of assumption. Then it used those "supported" assumptions to make more. It was making baseless assumptions as fast as possible.

Theology is like having a school of blind men discussing the merits of color on their psyche. There is simply no basis for the arguments they may present. There is no reason to take it seriously. They simply have private thoughts on the matter and then discuss them.

There is your great "tradition of natural theology."

Here we have several prominent Democrats and a Republican viewing interrogation methods in a CIA program in 2002. This included waterboarding. Not one rejected the notion. They were silent and they consented, some of them actively encouraged the acts.

Today we are told the act is despicable and is something used by the most repressive regimes in history, and while I reject this as supporting evidence for its wrongness (afterall, the Nazis ate too), I can agree that the act is in fact torture and something we shouldn't be doing. What I don't get is how those that supported it now come against it.

Is it because of the polls on the issue?

This a clear indicator of the intangible differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. They still, fundamentally, have the same set of twisted morals and sense of the world. What they say is an entirely different matter than what they feel. If they said how they feel they'd be viewed as crazy, and we don't want that.

Waterboarding is torture and there is no way around it. It is an act that is meant to inflict direct harm on another for the purpose of coercing information out of them, regardless of the fact that under duress one may spit out any nonsense to escape said pain.

It is a needless cause of human harm. I am sure many would love to point out the fact that I am perhaps compassionate enough to care about terrorists. I shouldn't because terrorists hate me and wouldn't give me any comfort.

Isn't this why we shouldn't be using these techniques? We say we are better than them and then resort to the same methods that they use. They are designed to cause as much suffering as possible. It is a direct agent of harm and is thus outlawed.

Furthermore, it is surprising that this is even in the national dialogue as a serious issue. We are actually weighing the pros and cons of a torture technique. I realize I am appealing to emotion, but isn't it time we move on?

It would seem, however, that we won't move on. This is because the major parties in power really do share a general support for the idea and no matter how immoral it is it will be considered a "tool" (what a euphemism) to get information out of terrorists.

We are sinking down into a new path in this country where the ends always justify the means. This is a dangerous path where we may find that we no longer recognize ourselves and by that time it is too late.

I figure since I am pretty well known (well, marginally well known) in the lolcat community, I thought I'd share this little political bit I made.

Evangelical Outpost writes an excerpt from "A Brief History of Time" where an old lady tells an scientist giving a lecture that the world is a flat plate resting on the back of a giant tortoise. The scientist then asks, "What is the tortoise standing on?" and the woman replied back, "...it's turtles all the way down." Then the author of the post continues on to name his own "turtles" and thus, I believe, missing the entire point of the allegory.

The point of the story is to show the lady making a preposterous claim , and when challenged, she haughtily replies a solution, because she of course has it all figured out.  It alludes, however, to the possibility that perhaps the scientist himself is making equally preposterous claims, and is just as crazy as the lady. This view, however, can be remedied if the question of evidence is brought into light; who is more justified in making their claim?

The "turtles all the way down" portion is alluding to the non-termination of the idea of "God" creating the universe. What made God? How did God happen? Likewise, ask a scientist about what made the energy for the Big Bang, and you find yourself in pretty much the same "turtles all the way down" syndrome. However, once again, we can ask who has more evidence to back up their claim, and then act accordingly based upon that. To give a hint, one is falsifiable, one is not.

Everyone has presuppositions and many are unwilling to show them to light and I would argue especially true of those of religious persuasion as this is detrimental to the strength of their claims.  Furthermore, I believe the author of referenced post doesn't get wholly what "presupposition" is, because they make many claims with knowledge gained from experience in the evangelical world.