Archive
What is an Agnostic?
by Noah Lugeons
First, let me get the easy part out of the way. The dictionary definition of the word “agnostic” goes like this:
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
But when you try to pin the meaning down by observing the actions of those who call themselves agnostics, you arrive at a less flattering and more cynical definition:
A person who recognizes the inherent vapidity in the concept of revealed religion but lacks the conviction to assert such a belief.
I was recently sent a graphic that sought to dispel the misconceptions about the meaning of “agnostic” and in so doing managed to further muddy the waters with a definition that lacks internal logic. The first image shows the common “misconception” about agnostics. It presents a line of belief with theist on one side and atheist on the other and a space in the middle that is marked “agnostic”. This chart seemed acceptable to me, but for the words “Not This” branded below it.
That intrigued me, as I see little way to deny the utility of such a chart, so I continued. The second image showed a Venn diagram with atheist and theist overlapping and “agnostic” in the common field. This also included a “Not This” disclaimer, which I was happy to see. My first reaction to the chart was that it represented more of a misunderstanding of Venn diagrams than agnosticism.
And finally, the third graphic, the one that earned the artist’s seal of approval, showed four boxes in a grid. The upper left read “gnostic atheist”. Below that was “gnostic theist”. To the right of these boxes “agnostic atheist” and “agnostic theist” were stacked one on top of the other. And this was supposed to be the graphic that made sense.
The whole point of the exercise was to assert that agnostics are not the “undecided middle”, but rather a method of examining thoughts on metaphysics. They attempt to create a dichotomy that has the gnostic believers as certain of their beliefs and agnostics leaning one way or the other while conceding that nothing can truly be known about the nature of the metaphysical.
This is not a new concept. Many self-professed agnostics would agree whole-heartedly with this description. But those of us in their “gnostic atheist” category would beg to differ.
Let me start with the easy part. Obviously, no statement but a tautology can assert something with absolute certainty. At best, we’re leaving off the “all the evidence I have at hand leads me to believe…” whenever you make a statement for the sake of brevity. When I say that my favorite show is about to come on, I’m simply saving myself the trouble of saying “assuming that it hasn’t been preempted by an unforeseen news story and that the TV works correctly and that the cable isn’t out and that no unpredictable variable intercedes and renders it otherwise, my favorite TV show is about to come on.”
If one wished, one could claim that they were agnostic about my favorite show coming on. They could point to chaos theory and point out that nothing can truly be known about my favorite show and that at best we can only whittle down the likelihood that it will fail to come on to an infinitesimal fraction and move on accordingly under the assumption that it will come on. You could do that, but you would only do so if you were a douche.
The same is obviously true of the division of “agnostic atheist” and “gnostic atheist”. There are no “gnostic” atheists if that term implies that no amount of new evidence could convince that person that they were mistaken in their beliefs. I’m atheistic enough that if god appeared before me and jumped my ass for not capitalizing his name, I would assume first that I was delusional, but given a long enough stream of corroborating evidence, I would eventually begrudgingly cede the argument and accept the existence of god.
But that is a damn long way from being “agnostic” about the deal. I agree with the definition that Webster provides. I agree that nothing definitive can ever be known about the nature or existence (or lack of nature or non-existence) of god. I would, of course, make the same concession if pressed on the question of invisible fairies that remind the flowers to open every morning. I can never know anything at all about their nature and I can never prove with absolute certainty that they do not exist. In a technical, english-majory kind of way, I’m agnostic about fairies and I’m agnostic about god.
So strike one against the “agnostic atheist” is that it’s ultimately a meaningless term unless you actually are 100% on the fence about the issue. When someone claims to be an “agnostic atheist”, they are creating a straw man of the rest of the atheist movement, painting us as though our beliefs are received on the same faith-based level as those of the theist.
Another strike against it is the simple lack of internal logic. If by agnostic one means that nothing can be known about the nature or existence of god, an afterlife or a universal spirit, it is quite meaningless to use it as a modifier for atheist or theist. If nothing can be known for certain then no evidence can exist on either side of the argument and thus no preference can be reached except by relying on information known to be insufficient to draw a conclusion. To then stake your agnostic flag on one side or the other of the issue is an admission that at least something can be known about the issue, as you have clearly been influenced by one data set or the other.
But the final nail in the coffin of this fictional division is the fact that many people refer to themselves as “passionate” or “strong” agnostics. How can one be passionate about not knowing? How can one have a strong lack of opinion?
Agnosticism is the middle ground. It is the “undecided” vote. It is the removal of oneself from the argument.
To be clear, I have no issue whatsoever with true agnostics. If nothing else, they are intellectually honest. My issue is with the atheists that mistakenly take the title to avoid being called atheists. But if you believe that there is no god and operate your life as though there is no god, you are an atheist. If there is no active doubt in your mind, you are no more agnostic about god than you are about Count Chocula.
Before I get accused of being a bitter jerk about this (though I’m sure I’ll still be called a bitter jerk and worse by a few agnostics), I should point out that there is an important and unintended consequence of atheists in agnostic’s clothing. If you call yourself an agnostic, you’re actively placing religion in a special category, as though nonsensical claims about this single field of study are more valid than the nonsensical claims about any other.
Not to belabor the point, but consider holocaust deniers. Before you flinch, I’m not comparing agnostics to holocaust deniers. In this analogy, the holocaust deniers will represent religious people. Okay… now you can flinch.
Let’s say we did a poll. We asked the country if they believe that the holocaust occurred. A small group of people would say “no”, they did not believe it and a large group would say “yes”. But suppose that we worded the question a bit different. Let’s say we asked “Are you certain that the holocaust occurred?” The small group of holocaust deniers would still say no and the vast majority of people would still say yes.
But could you really say yes to that question? What direct, tangible evidence do you have that could not possibly have been counterfeit? You weren’t there (I’m assuming) and even if you talked directly with someone who was there, there’s no way to say with absolute certainty that they’re not lying. Even if you managed to speak with every surviving witness of the atrocities you still couldn’t rule out large-scale deceit with unquestionable certitude.
So what if we approached this question with the same ineffectual, vacillating manner of the “agnostic atheist”? We know nothing for certain and thus we must answer this question “I don’t know”, regardless of our level of conviction. We still hold on to the possibility, however remote, that our assumptions can be overturned. We must answer all binary questions with an “IDK”, of course, short of questions like “Do you believe that cats are felines?”
But imagine the actual result if a significant number of people did choose to be “agnostic but damn near sure” about the holocaust. The numbers in these surveys would suddenly skew and leave the impression that people are far less certain about the holocaust than they actually are. The results, once published, would lead the fringe deniers to mistaken believe that their point of view was more widely expected. It would empower them.
So please, when they offer both “atheist” and “agnostic”, check the box that’s more intellectually honest. I can’t say which box that is for you, but know that the theists are seizing on that “agnostic” number the way that politicians hone in on the undecided voters. It’s not because they misunderstand the term, it’s because too many “agnostics” do.
90% of Americans Believe in Space Fairies
by Noah Lugeons
In surveying the national tenor, one could be forgiven for believing that the atheists are gaining ground. While it might seem in some areas that reason is outweighing superstition and secularism is encroaching on stupidity, the numbers would like to respectfully disagree.
In a recent Gallup Poll, more than 90% of Americans still believe in god despite the fact that in the same survey, 100% of them had no evidence upon which to base this asinine assumption. What’s worse is that among the remaining 9% or so, only about a third were willing to go as far as to say they were “convinced that god did not exist”. 4% of the total took the fence-riding position of an agnostic atheist (“I don’t believe in god but I don’t have the guts to own it”) and 2 % actually said they had “no opinion” on the existence of god.
Gallup has been running these religion surveys for upwards of 70 years now and the total number of non-believers has been remarkably flat in that time. It looked for a time like atheists were gaining ground, but in truth this was a surveying error. When Gallup recently amended their survey to include a question about belief in a “universal spirit”, a solid eighth of all Americans are willing to sign on to that option.
So is this good news or bad news?
Well, the trend lines are a bit tricky but one thing is certain: organized religion is losing ground. The number of people who express an actual “belief in god” has been in steady decline for more than a decade. But not all of these gains are going to the atheist camp. Many choose to reject bullshit specifically but not in general. This growth of the “spiritual” movement has been rapid enough to all but wipe out any gains atheists might have seen in the past 50 years. In fact, as recently as 2008, Gallup’s research showed a reversing trend line. The number of professed atheists actually dropped by almost a full percent which, perhaps coincidentally, was almost exactly the same percent gained by the more Unitarian belief.
The saddest finding is under a category where Gallup asks respondents about the certitude with which they accept god. They allow for 5 potential answers:
- Convinced that god exists
- God probably exists, but I have some doubt
- God probably exists, but I have a lot of doubt
- God probably doesn’t exist, but I’m not sure
- Convinced God doesn’t exist.
In the results of this question we find that as many as three-quarters of Americans are unwilling to even entertain doubt that god exists. Officially, 73% were counted in that 1st category with only 3% selecting the correct answer offered at the bottom.
Of course, our perception of this is often colored by where in the country we live. Those in the West (where atheism and “spiritualism” are at their highest) might be tempted to dismiss the findings altogether while those in the South are likely shocked to find so much rationality in the country.
The issue, of course, is a lack of devangelism. Atheists are too damn nice and too willing to pretend to be “agnostic” about the existence of god. Hell, 2% of respondents were so on the fence that they couldn’t even call themselves agnostic and instead chose “no opinion”. It’s hard for me to imagine that anyone more sentient than a potato could have no opinion on the existence of god, but nobody ever went broke overestimating the vacuousness of Americans.
…But I’m Not That Crazy…
by Noah Lugeons
It never fails to amaze me the way one religious person can look at the beliefs of an alternate faith and say, “well, that’s just silly” without realizing that the same is true of their own sacred cow.
I’m reminded of my freshman anthropology class. The professor was talking about the early signs of religion in human history and he spoke at length about the tribal magic of ancient cultures. A girl who was in the process of learning that college was for smart people looked puzzled and asked, “how could they believe in magic if it didn’t work?”
I glanced back at the crucifix hanging around her neck and then back to the prof to see how he would handle the question. I could see him biting the words “why do you pray?” back as they tried to escape. He was nicer than me. So I said it.
“People still believe in prayer and that doesn’t work,” I offered, much to the disgust of the inquisitor.
But somehow people can switch to a different set of eyes when they are looking at what is considered holy by the other guy. They can see how untenable and silly any religion is but their own. Even within their faith they can point to one belief of another and say, “well, I don’t believe in that, but I believe in this”. They offer it up as though clearly believing that a talking snake is silly, but a man sacrificing himself to himself to appease himself is quite defensible.
Poor Mitt Romney is finding this out the hard way. As he desperately seeks the republican presidential nomination he finds himself constantly butting up against the common prejudice that Christians have against other Christians. Of course, his liberal history as Massachusetts governor isn’t helping him either, but a number of reports overlook his support of jesus-ish policies like universal healthcare and go straight for his faith.
He’s a Mormon, of course, and those people are just weird. They believe that a magical space man came to America to teach people the ways of heaven. Of course, all the thinking folks understand that magical space men only go to the Middle East to reveal such things. Mormons think that God lives on some planet out in space when all the critical minds know that he lives in a different dimension paved in streets of gold. Mormons believe that special underwear can protect them from harm when smart people know that it takes water blessed by an ancient incantation to truly keep you safe.
It always strikes me odd that we atheists are often the only defense that small religions have against big ones. The general rule is that everyone is in favor of separation of church and state except the nation’s largest church. When the “ground zero mosque” was in the news it was largely the secular institutions (and, at the very least the secular community) that stood up and said, “hey, their stupidity is no more stupid than your stupidity.”
Evangelical journalist and general fucktard Warren Cole Smith was recently quoted as saying:
“You can’t say that his religious beliefs don’t matter but his ‘values’ do. If beliefs are false, then behavior will eventually–but inevitably–be warped.”
Smith, of course, would not tolerate this type of blatant and inexcusable bigotry if it was directed at his sacred cow. Interestingly enough, he accidentally pinpoints the source of his hypocrisy within that brief statements. His beliefs are false and his behavior is warped.
Mississippi’s “Conceived in Rape” Tour
by Noah Lugeons
Since my childhood, abortion has been the very definition of a “hot button” topic. Throughout my memory it has been the singular issue which has spurned the most disagreement and has been debated with the most ferocity. Religion ran a close second, of course, but too few atheists bring the subject up for it to be a true contender.
But through it all there was at least some sense of civility. Even in the most vehement disputes some exception was made for the more extreme circumstances. Even most ardent opposers of abortion rights would agree to exceptions in cases of rape or incest or in instances when the health of the mother was in danger.
No more. The “personhood” movement that is sweeping through the bible belt seeks to do away with that last vestige of civility by offering up amendments to state constitutions that would give full legal rights to zygotes. To put to rest and lingering doubts that they might have any sliver of compassion, the group “Mississippi Personhood” is sponsoring a “Conceived in Rape” tour.
The tour will feature one Rebecca Kiessling who was, predictably, conceived in rape.
Despite having never met her and having very little familiarity with her work, I feel confident in saying that Kiessling is a revolting bitch. If you doubt my assessment, a quick trip to her website should convince you. She is a dedicated anti-abortion activist and her whole shtick seems to be cashing in on the traumatic circumstance of her conception.
On her home page she announces:
Have you ever considered how really insulting it is to say to someone, “I think your mother should have been able to abort you.”? It’s like saying, “If I had my way, you’d be dead right now.”
Yes. Of course that is what they’re saying. Thus, those of us who believe that every woman should have the right to get an abortion are clearly saying “If I had my way, everyone would be dead right now”, which laudably sums up the goals of the pro-choice lobby.
But again, Kiessling is a rampaging bitch. I suppose that when people say they wish her mother had been able to abort her it is truly because they wish she had personally been aborted. I shouldn’t be so quick to label her conclusion as bullshit.
She continues:
And that is the reality with which I live every time someone says they are pro-choice or pro-life “except in cases of rape” because I absolutely would have been aborted if it had been legal in Michigan when I was an unborn child, and I can tell you that it hurts.
I’m not sure how many people I’ve met that are “Pro-Choice” except in cases of rape, but let’s continue on as though that part of her statement made sense.
Note that she says she “absolutely” would have been aborted if it had been legal in Michigan at the time. Her mother was raped and did not want to carry the child to term. Of course, with an over-inflated sense of self-worth, Kiessling assumes that her inherent worth makes it clear that the world is better off with her than it would be without her. She assumes that earth was one babbling Christian extremist shy of perfection at the time.
But there’s also a pretty deep insult to logic in this whole notion. We can’t go back in time and replay how the world might have gone if Kiessling’s mother had been allowed to abort her unborn child. Of course, I don’t know the first thing about the situation, but we’re not really talking about this one situation. She says herself that she wants to “put a face” on this phenomenon. So realistically, we shouldn’t be weighing a world with or without Rebecca Kiessling, but rather we should explore a world with or without baby X, conceived in rape.
Perhaps a mother who was otherwise destined to finish school, get a degree and cure some disease was thrown off the path to success when a brutal assault left her with a child she did not want and could not care for. Little matter in Kiessling’s world. Perhaps a mother who was raped at a young age might have been a great mother at an older age but because of the financial difficulties of her first (forced) child, she was unwilling to have another.
I could break out a thousand more examples and the opposition could break out a thousand theoreticals in the other direction. In the end we would be no closer to solving anything. The very exercise is insane. Rebecca Kiessling believes that people who believe a woman should be able to abort a child in cases of rape would change their mind if we only put a face on the “victim”.
I propose she take a dose of her own medicine. How about if and when Mississippi ever enacts their medieval law, she can have the job telling all the underage rape victims that they can’t have abortions. Perhaps she should meet the real victims before trying to cash in on her mother’s personal tragedy.
If you’re in Mississippi and you’d like to remind this abortion that should have happened what a foul and despicable person she is, you might be able to get tickets to one of her stops. But get your tickets quick. Events at the Trinity Baptist Church in Southhaven (on Swinnea just north of Goodman) tend to sell out fast.
Fred Phelps vs the KKK
by Noah Lugeons
Raise your hand if you liked “Freddy vs. Jason” (and yes, the people dumb enough to have liked that movie just raised their hands).
Once in a while we like to see our villains mixed together. All of us (of a certain level of geekery) have wondered which supervillain would beat which other supervillain in a fight and the media corporations have been happy to sell us those musings from time to time.
Well, something kind of like that played out in real life yesterday at Arlington National Cemetery. According to a report today by CNN, members of the Westboro Baptist Church were counter-protested by the KKK before Obama’s Memorial Day address. The anti-gay firebrands of Fred Phelps’ church had apparently given bigotry a bad name and the KKK sent a few guys round to let them know.
This likely marks the first time that the KKK has ever been on the correct side of anything so I’m not sure I’m ready to get behind their counter protest. For all I know they’re just protesting the fact that the WBC doesn’t protest at more black and Jewish funerals. But the groups were separated and cops were everywhere keeping the peace so there was likely no direct interaction between any of them. And no… the KKK guys weren’t wearing their sheets, despite the fact that laws of fashion allow the wearing of white as of that day.
But it did bring to mind a pretty cool death match. All the members of the WBC taking on the KKK in a hand to hand battle royal in some kind of coliseum with electrified barbed wire and random patches of spikes. The WBC could fight with razor sharp “God Hates Fags” signs and the KKK would (obviously) use flaming crosses. We could broadcast the whole thing live; we could have sponsors and cheerleaders.
Obviously, the KKK would win out pretty quickly. They have a lot more members and I’m going to go out on a limb and say that more KKK members are veterans.
Alas, instead we get an awkward sound clip from CNN of an admitted Ku Klux Klan member saying “those guys are just being dicks” (That’s a paraphrase, by the way).
I don’t want to spend too much time pinning Fred Phelps to Christianity as a whole, but if I was a member of your club, I wouldn’t be satisfied until there were thousands of dedicated Christians that showed up to shout down Phelps message everywhere he went. It shouldn’t be hard to find a few thousand Christians in any area that vehemently oppose his message, should it?
Until you speak loudly against him, this diabolical asshole is speaking for your whole faith. It leads us atheists to believe that far too many of you are against his tactics rather than his message.
Is Neil deGrasse Tyson an Atheist?
by Noah Lugeons
If you have even the most passing interest in astronomy or astrophysics, you’re likely familiar with the works of Neil deGrasse Tyson. The director of New York’s Hayden Planetarium,Tyson is part of the minority of scientists who can express his passion for science without boring the hell out of the general public. He hosts science programs on PBS, he appears frequently on programs like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report and he has a number of books that are comfortable reads for the uninitiated.
And he’s definitely not an atheist.
But he doesn’t believe in god.
Curious how that works? Well, if you go to Tyson’s Wikipedia page, you’ll see that Tyson describes himself as a “passionate agnostic”. In a recent interview with Christopher Thielen of the American Atheist Podcast, he explained that he’d repeatedly had to go back in and edit it when people wikied him to an atheist.
When pressed on this issue in the interview, Tyson provided a defense that was so intellectually clever that it almost makes sense. But it doesn’t.
Paraphrasing Tyson, he argued that dictionary definitions to not dictate the cultural meaning of words, but rather that the cultural meaning dictates the dictionary definition. He explains that as he looks around the country and sees people who call themselves “atheists”, he does not feel that they accurately reflect his views.
There is a pertinent back story here, of course. Like many scientists, Tyson has expressed strong concerns about creationism and intelligent design. Like many scientists, he’s publicly expressed the dangers of stopping an intellectual pursuit at “well I guess god did it”. If you take a few minutes searching the name on YouTube, you’ll quickly find a number of lectures where he speaks out against the encroachment of faith on science.
But of course, when he refers to “people who call themselves atheists”, he is referring to the four horsemen. He is talking about unapologetic bloggers like the intrepid PZ Myers. And even though he doesn’t know it, he’s also talking about me. He’s talking about the antagonistic way that the gnu atheists combat the dangers of faith.
To borrow a Thoreau analogy from the Tea-Partiers, Tyson hacks at the branches while Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchins and Myers work on the roots.
But is it fair for Tyson to back away from the very term? Phil Plait, another noted “passionate agnostic” admits freely that there is no functional difference between his agnosticism and my atheism. He does not consider the possibility of god existing in his day-to-day life if at all. I’m sure the same is true of Tyson. When Tyson covets his neighbor’s ass, I’m sure that he doesn’t spend a moment wondering if god minds.
It is in Tyson’s professional and personal interest to distance himself from foul-mouthed and bitter atheists like myself, but should one do so by trying to redefine language? Why claim oneself an agnostic if you aren’t truly on the fence? Couldn’t we offer up a new term like “atheish” for folks like Tyson?
Atheists are in short supply in this country. For that reason we love to try to claim people whenever possible. Many an atheist will make the argument that Obama is part of our club simply because he’s intelligent, scientifically literate and doesn’t talk about Jesus with the incessant fervor that Bush did. It may be true that Obama is an atheist. Political reality would not allow him to admit as much, but there is also no direct evidence to suggest that he is. When we try to claim him we’re really not doing much better than the folks who try to claim him a Muslim.
But when actual, genuine, dictionary definition atheists are fleeing from the camp, I think that is a real cause for concern.
In my experience, it seems that two broad and imperfect categories can be described to illustrate the cause of this schism; “Atheist by way of science” and “Science by way of atheism”. I would count myself among the latter, as I’d rejected faith long before I developed any real understanding of the scientific explanations for those questions that religion purports to answer. Many others were only gradually led from faith as their knowledge of the universe grew and they came to understand that god was not necessary to make a universe or to make it work.
This difference largely defines which side of the schism one will fall into. While it is certainly true that not every gnu atheist got there without a gentle push from science, for people like Tyson and Plait, antagonizing religion is counterproductive. For people like me, it’s the whole point.
So fine, Neil deGrasse Tyson is not an atheist. I can’t exactly argue with someone about their own religious affiliation (or lack thereof). But if he gets to redefine words to distance himself from groups he doesn’t want to embrace, I’d like to claim the same privilege. Henceforth I am no longer white, as I’ve seen many people who call themselves “white” and I don’t agree with a lot of the shit they do. From now on, I will be ambiguous on my race and call myself an agnozoid. I would also like to disavow my species in general, as I’ve seen people who call themselves “human” and I don’t agree with them either. Thus I now choose to belong to my own new hominid species, homo incognitus.
Tyson, I love your work and I have your books sitting on my shelf. I understand why one would not want to choose sides in a dispute that is so often marked my hatred and vicious personal attacks. But not wanting to draw fire from religious nut-jobs is no excuse to go redefining words.
Atheist Converts to Christianity for $1 Million
by Noah Lugeons
In the past, I’ve often been asked what it would take to make me believe in god. Normally I simply answer “a shred of objective evidence would help”, but from now on I’m going to add to that “a million dollars of Jesus’ money”.
Atheist Sal Bentivegna claims that he offered a mock prayer to Jesus that his mother would win a million dollars in the lottery. According to a widely disseminated report, on the following day she did. This was all the proof Sal needed and now he’s a Christian. Or so we’re supposed to believe.
Now, I won’t trip into the “no true Scotsman” fallacy here. It’s entirely possible that this story went down just as it was reported and it’s entirely possibly that Sal was a genuine atheist. But clearly he was no skeptic. And if he was, he was a really crappy one.
Skeptics learn early on that anecdotes like this are a dime a dozen. They’re unprovable so they have to be taken entirely on faith (something we atheists tend to lack), they’re not repeatable and most importantly, there is no measurement of success. Let’s suppose that mom had won only $10,000 on her scratch off ticket. Would Sal remain unconvinced? What if she’d still won the million but it wasn’t for another 3 days. Would Sal remain loyal to the ranks of the non-believers?
Now don’t get me wrong. If the report is to be trusted, the odds of his mom getting $1 million the day after he mock-prayed for it are pretty damned remote. I don’t know exactly how remote it was, of course, since we have no idea how much money mom’s pissed into the New York lottery up to this point. The report says she’d purchased a “Lottery Tree”, not a ticket, so it’s not like Jesus was only getting one crack at this.
For those not familiar with the term, this is a lottery tree:
Not to be too speculative, but I’m guessing that a woman who was talking about the lottery with her son the night before (to the point that he was belittling her faith over it) and then purchased a testament to poor math skills like the one shown above probably plays more than her fair share of lottery. So what were the odds that she would have won a million dollars at some point? Remote to be sure, but she might have narrowed them down to 1 in 1200 if she flushed enough of her income away on the things over the years.
This is one of those stories Christians love to trot out. Man prays for million dollars, man gets million dollars, ergo, Jesus. It’s a win-win argument for them because for some reason the people who pray for a million dollars and don’t get it aren’t counted in the “god is bullshit” column of their ledger. Remember the hits, forget the misses and ignore the fact that while Jesus was busy acquiescing to the greedy prayer of an atheist he was also ignoring a devout mother who was begging for the health of her child.
It would be pretty easy to test the claim scientifically, of course. Sal could just pray that mom wins another million tomorrow. If she doesn’t, he knows the first million was a fluke and there is no god.
There is an alternative theory, though, and I don’t want to be too quick to dismiss old Sal. When mom wins a million bucks in her will-writing years, it might be best to believe whatever the hell she wants you to believe.
Sunday School
by Noah Lugeons
Starting a tradition today. I’ll do you the service of scouring YouTube each week and bring you the best that unapologetic atheism has to offer. This is a video that’s been around for quite some time but it still gives me a thrill. I was recently reminded of it and thought it would be a perfect first installment in our Sunday School video library.
Dear Bryan Fischer, Shut Your God Damned Mouth
by Noah Lugeons
The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer isn’t so sure about the whole “free speech” thing. He doesn’t think its bad enough that America hasn’t gotten around to wiping all the blasphemy laws off the books, he wants to see them enforced.
And don’t tell him about no Constitution. He don’t wanna hear it.
He makes his point in the eloquent, stumbling manner we’ve come to expect from the echo-chamber education of our bible college turnouts. You can hear it on this YouTube video if you want to, but I wouldn’t recommend it. I’ll save you the trouble, though I’ll be unable to convey the full extent of the verbal slapstick he falls into when trying to pronounce words like “Lord”.
His argument against the constitutionality of fining people for taking the lord’s name in vain is made in two misguided points. The first is about an NBA player who was fined $50,000 for using a bigoted term against gays (with a ‘fucking’ added as a modifier) and poor Ed Shultz, who finds himself on a leave of absence after insulting some slut.
If the first thing you thought when you read those examples was “well, those aren’t examples of people being fined by the government, but rather the enforcement of a contract to which both parties previously agreed”, congratulations, you’re smarter than the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer.
But nevermind the time-honored and proven foundations of our society, why not be more like Iran or Pakistan? Why not take our already overblown sensibilities to every potentially offensive word or phrase and add civil penalties? We really need to find something to keep that judicial system busy anyway, right?
This is typical theocratic extremism and it’s becoming more and more common from America’s Red State rebellion. They love to wrap themselves in the American flag; they like to perpetuate the myth that the founding fathers were all deeply religious; they love to sing patriotic songs and drive around with patriotic stickers. But when it comes to the principles upon which the country was founded, they get a little shakier.
What is America? Is it simply a space within a boundary? If America is no more than a geographical distinction, there is no reason to be patriotic or have national pride. But if America is a collection of ideas enacted, a forward thinking governmental construct that challenged the dogma of the age and revolutionized the social contract there is plenty to be proud of. If America is an ideal in itself, it makes sense to get teary eyed when you look at the flag.
But if America is just a tough word to rhyme into a country song, claiming patriotism is a platitude. You can not love the country if you fight against the ideal. We, the majority, would like to move forward as it is the manner that is consistent with the way our calendars work. If you want to move into the past, be my guest. Just don’t try to take the rest of us with you.
Normally I would have closed on that, but given the nature of the article, I can’t forget to blaspheme. So Bryan Fischer, you are a god-damned, jesus-jerking, moses-molesting whore of the holy ghost. Fuck you and your antiquated nincompoopery.
Even the Brainless are People in Alabama
by Noah Lugeons
According to the Alabama state senate, you don’t need a brain to be considered a person in their state. You don’t need a beating heart or a functional nervous system… hell, you don’t even need to be multicellular.
SB 301 passed the state senate by more than a 3-1 margin yesterday. The bill, which still has to pass in the House, would redefine the term “person” to include zygotes. In the bills own words, “The term ‘persons’ as used in the Code of Alabama 1975, shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization and implantation into the womb.”
This is actually a slight back pedal from the original wording, which would have defined personhood as beginning at fertilization with no requisite implantation. Luckily, they compromised to a position that is only 98.945% insane.
This is, of course, only one in a long list of anti-abortion measures that various red states seek to implement on this legislative calender. In a brazen attempt to fire up the base of their opposition, Republicans rode to majorities nationwide by promising fiscal responsibility and then used that victory to claim a mandate against women’s reproductive rights.
The fact that such a law is scientifically untenable and reduces a complex ethical dilemma into kindergarten logic left the senators unphased. In a 23-7 vote, they decided it was alright to classify abortion as murder. The bill makes no provisions for rape, incest or the safety of the mother.
It is also, of course, political masturbation. It likely won’t pass in the house and even if it did it would be quickly struck down even by today’s conservative leaning Supreme Court. It is a theatrical and inhumane way of courting religio-tards. It is a mere spectacle of Jesosity. And, of course, while the state senate pisses away resources debating the rights of the unicellular, the people’s work goes undone.
There is, of course, strong opposition to this bill from within the state. But the strongest opposition comes from the voices who say that the bill doesn’t go far enough. While there are certainly progressive voices within the state battling this draconian misogyny, they are being drowned out by those who say that life begins at fertilization, not implantation. They’ve gone so far as to cite extremely rare cases where women carry babies to term outside of the uterus.
But I say why stop there? Why should we wait for fertilization? I say that, in the words of history’s greatest comedy troupe, every sperm is sacred. I say that every thirteen year old boy with a bottle of hand lotion and an internet connection is a murderer. Hell, with the advent of cloning, every cell on the body has the potential to become a human being so shouldn’t scratching at a sunburn count as murder as well?
I think it’s safe to say that, as a general rule, if your position on an issue is so indefensible that it requires redefining what a human being is, you’re on the wrong side of the issue.
The Scathing Atheist 