Quote of the Week- Louis CK

As a red head I have no soul, so it is ok for me to mock God!

"It's in the 10 commandments not to take the Lord's name in vain, RAPE isn't up there by the way. Rape is not a 10 commandment. But don't say his name with a shitty attitude!"

Very true Louis.  No thinking person thinks that the 10 commandments are a a good moral guide. Is the God of all things, and the creator of the universe really that bothered by having his name said in anger? Are his feelings really hurt if someone says it with a "shitty attitude"??

What is he 5?

No, come on now be serious. I'm 7000.... just a bit older than the earth.

Why no admonition against rape?

Because God thinks that Rape is the shit!

How else can I get girls to have sex with my  peeps?

Clearly that is not a view that is shared by the general populace.... for good reason.
It is more important to not say his name without hurting his feelings than it is to protect half of the population from the violent misogynistic victimization of conquering soldiers.

Hmmmmm.....

Women don't like that stuff??

No, no they don't.

And that is just one more reason why we see the Bible as an awful book.

How about just killing sassy children?

Stop it God.  Just stop.

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Rememberance Day Edition

Soldiers, whether they're,

Jew, Muslim, Christian or Sikh....

Remember them all.

PS- We are paying a heavy price. The nation, the military, and each family and friend who has lost someone. I miss you my friends and comrades.

Offended? Why should we care?

Ahhh, Philosoraptor, billions of years have taught you so much....

I have spoken about this before (although not with the bent that rant with today).

It is on the subject of offense.  People use it as a cover behind which they can hide.  

"That is offensive"

"That might offend someone"

Or even conflating offense with hate.

This is the flip side to the old "Everyone is entitled to their opinion". Both as used to keep people from disagreeing with them, and they are both cowardly.

What they are really saying is "You are not allowed to SAY that you disagree with me out loud."

What I say is "Yes! You have the right to an opinion, and you have the right to be offended"

And I have the right to say that you are stupid....

The point that needs to be made is that no one has the right NOT to be offended. You have no right to ask that others not offend you.  

None.

Low hanging, underwear exposing pants offend me, sideways hats offend my wife, sassy kids offend my mother, but that doesn't give us the right to go yell at the offending people telling them to stop what they are doing immediately.

That is because offense is subjective.

But seriously... fuck these guys

You have the right to be offended by the things that you deem disgusting or inappropriate, but unless there is harm being done, you have no right to ask that person to stop.  

Don't misunderstand me.  You can ASK, but you have no RIGHT. They can stop because they are civil people, but they are under no obligation to do so.

Everything is open to critique.... EVERYTHING.

Every thought that is expressed, every belief that is manifested by action OR word, and everything that we do. 

I have a friend who was harshly criticized a while ago for stating her opinion about the Burqa. She was called racist (Islam isn't a race people!), intolerant, and even hateful. It is NOT intolerance nor offensive to speak up. It is her stating her opinion as freely as everyone else asks to be allowed. I have to say that I find that kind of intellectual cowardice VERY offensive. They are free to be that way, and I am free to say that they are closed minded cowards who haven't the brainpower to defend their positions rationally.

If you want to hide behind your "right" to an opinion, then you can't deny others their rights too.

Except them

If you are offended and disagree with an unpalatable opinion expressed, then speak up.  Have a modicum of courage and defend your position.

Or at least find a logical position from which to deride the one that you are offended by.

BECAUSE I HATE THEM

If someone says "Jesus was a homosexual who ran a backyard brothel for lepers and told Jews that ham was awful just so that he'd have more to serve his own guests", don't just cry how that hurts your feelings.  Speak up and explain to them how Jesus was a genuine boob connoisseur and hated ham in all it's forms.

On the flip side if YOU think that gay marriage is wrong, then you better have a good and supported position that extends outside of your religion to support this position, because you can bet that someone is about to rightfully call you on it.

Think he's a Muslim born in Kenya?

Do not confuse "intolerance" with "critique". Do not even confuse intolerance with something that is always bad. We are intolerant of a lot of things.

Racism

Bullying

Spousal Abuse

Pedophilia

AND THESE GUYS!

It is not intolerance that we should be careful about. It is spurious logic. It is learning how to differentiate between things that get on our nerves that really cause no harm, and things that we should protect ourselves and others from.

If you are offended, you should take a look at what is offending you.  Look to see if that offense is YOUR issue and whether or not it causes anyone harm but your butt-hurt feelings, or if it is something that we really should be intolerant of because of the harm that you see it can cause others.  

Discuss it.

Be open minded, and willing to change your opinion if shown evidence or support for the opposing position.

Why should we NOT be critical of things that we see are harmful? 

You have a right to be offended, and you have a right to defend your position. 

Just remember that saying "I'm offended" is merely another way of whining that you don't like how someone doesn't agree with your way of seeing things.  

That is right.  If you express only that you are offended, or that you are offended because of some personal experience, you are just whining. 

You don't have a right to ask that others "respect you" if you aren't willing to respect them back by allowing them the free speech that you are asking for yourself.

and fuck this guy too (for my wife)

The Immoral Power of Prayer

This is an issue that is very close to my heart, because I feel that it is something that is ingrained in children at a very young age and is harmful to their development as humane members of our society.

The immorality of prayer.

Why do I say this?

Not everyone who prays is praying for personal gain, or mundane things, most are praying for very humane and caring things.  

God, I knew that you wouldn't mind taking time out of your
 busy day for Monday night Football....wanna take sides?

People praying for a loved one's cure from cancer, 

Friends praying for friends to find a way out of the dark reality of drugs,

Fathers praying for daughters to find the strength to escape violent relationships,

etcetera, etcetera, and on and on ...

What could be wrong with that?

I mean, even if God ISN'T real, what is the worst that can happen?

We'd still have to see THIS!

The worst that can happen is already happening.

INTENT

Are people really trying to help? I know that the answer would generally be yes, but are they really?

Do they really think that their god will ignore the plights of needy people unless someone kneels and begs him to intercede?

Do they really think that he doesn't already know?

Do they think that it will make ANY difference at all if they believe that their god is a good and just god?

I would say that, if pressed, most people would have to consider their answer and say no to all those questions.

So why do they do it then?

Who does it help? To whom does it offer consolation? To whom does it give relief?

The answer to all these questions is: It helps only the person who is praying.

It makes them feel like they have done their part, like they have some real sympathy for the person in need.  Like they have a sense of humanity and caring that surpasses others. It makes them feel genuinely good that they are a good and caring person.

Seems like all the positive manifestations of prayer are all in favour of the person praying.  At worst, it makes it lazy, self aggrandizing, arrogant, UNcaring, and selfish.

At best, it is just arrogant, self aggrandizing and selfish.

Ummmm, that touchdown was for the whole TEAM!

When someone prays they are thinking that they have a special connect line to the creator of the universe, the artificer of the laws of physics and the writer of all morality. That is the very definition of arrogance and is worse than the worst case of nepotism that you have ever encountered.  

Ok, the second worst

When someone prays they are not bothering to bake a cake, or make a call to raise funds, or write a letter to help someone get a job, or even buying a card. What it does is give someone is a sense that they have done something. It gives them the sense that they are a good person and a feeling that they have proof that they really do have the person in need's issues at heart. Since no one would say that God would ignore the plights of the needy without THEIR voice to plead the case of the needy, it follows that the act of praying is lazy, self aggrandizing and uncaring (since prayer only benefits them, it is clearly not out of caring for the person in need).

At the very best, when the person praying DOES bake a cake as well, or DOES make a phone call as well, or even DOES pay a visit, it makes the act of praying useless.  What bothers me about those people praying is that if something good DOES happen, they attribute the prayer and god for the improvement, not the interceding of caring people. That spreads the wrong message in my mind.

So I can't see a single instance where prayer is a good thing unless it is for yourself and for the comfort that your beliefs give you.  (Even then I would argue that there are better ways to do that, but this is where opinion rings pretty heavily and I can't really back it up with evidence.  Just more opinion.)

Let's give credit to the people who really deserve it.

Doctors, case workers, wives, husbands, children, loving friends, policemen, science, caring strangers, and sometimes even bald chance.

But don't give credit to the prayer that did nothing but make the person praying feel as though they were finished and had to do nothing more to help.

If you really believe in God, and that he is a good being, then don't worry ... he's got it under control.

If you believe that your prayer is helping, then what you are saying is that God really is a self important, narcissistic, malevolent being who cares nothing for the needy but only for the praise that begging for help gives him.

And

If you really want to help someone in need, get up off your knees and use your hands.

Place a call, buy a card, send a donation, or just make a cake ...

Trust me, that is the kind of help, that actually helps.

maybe it doesn't help THIS guy

Peace

Atheist Haiku of the Month

that cat should DEFINITELY not be walking under there....(not sure why)

There is evidence

For all beliefs....if there's not

it's superstition

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Movie Reaction Edition.

Muhammed was NOT a jerk with no respect for life,
and to prove it we will act like jerkswith no respect for life!

Listen up Muslims

Insulting Islam hurts none

Relax and behave

Questions Asked- Jon Asks "What would morality look like without religion?"

What?  My gun helps me think...

A hypothetical question-"In a world where the existance of God was never even considered, would the non-thiest's have developed a moral code and what do you imagine it would look like? Again, hypothetically"

-Jon B.

This was a question posed to me by my oldest and dearest friend. 

A great question, although he still hasn't revealed the reason for asking it, and one that I will take pains to answer as honestly and as fully as possible.

In order to answer this question fully, I will need to do it in two parts.

Firstly I will need to answer about my thoughts on morality with no concept of a god (regardless of religion), and second I will need to answer as to my opinions on morality formed without the existence of the Christian God concept because that is the framework in which most people in our culture operate. (and Jon is a Christian, so it may speak more to his actual question)

In the interest of clarity it needs to be said that it can hardly be argued that morality is objective.  Morality by it's very nature MUST be subjective, or it ceases to be moral and exists solely as obedience.  In any master/slave relationship, it is not morality that is valued but obedience.  The slave has no ability to choose what to do, but must acquiesce only to the desires and values of the master. Morality doesn't work that way. Morality is considered, morality is judged, morality is an attempt to lessen the hard that we do to one another in order to live together in a society.  All societal animals have it on one level or another, and we are no different.

That being said, there are many things that are so important to our collective morality that they can SEEM objective. 

Murder

Rape

Theft

Lying

The list could grow to an impressive degree if given much thought, but then we could deconstruct this list by adding circumstance to them as well.  Is murder wrong when it is to purge a country from a despot?  Is theft wrong when it is to feed your family?  Is lying wrong when it is to save yourself or others from harm?

THIS is why morality is subjective, there are no rules for how to decide these questions.  We have to use our rationality, our humanity, our own values and our own experiences in order to find solutions.

And they may not always be solutions with which everyone agrees

ummmm, it's to feed my family?

I make this point because the concept of a god driven morality has ALWAYS been tempered by our subjective interpretation of it.  Even in very fundemental societies.  This is why there are disagreements on what is right and wrong.

Even god driven morality has changed over the centuries. 

Why?  Has the bible changed? 

No, it's message has stayed constant. 

LOVE ME!!!

It is only our interpretation of it that changes.  We change how we see biblical morality in order to suit the current societal climate.

Slavery was once ok, and supported by both the church and the Bible but then when the cultural climate changed to one that was more concerned with human rights,  the church was at the tip of the sword fighting for the very rights that they had explicitly denied people for centuries. 

Does this make sense? 

How about when we consider that we know the Bible was written by men?  Does that change the focus of the discussion?  Does that make religious texts merely a carrier for the morality of men at the time? 

Clearly

But I digress.

The question, irrespective of whether or not religious tomes were written by men, is how would society be different if not for the moral medium of religion.

My belief is that religion has held back morality more often than it promoted it.  Morality has grown with our (and every) culture and usually right there fighting against the flow of change is religion.

One current example of this is the concept of same sex marriage.  It has zero effect on the people who fight against it, and it is only done for the purpose of controlling societal norms and making them adhere to their religious norms with no concern for the people it affects.  If it has no effect on the religious, why do they care?

Because it goes against the rules outlayed in their book.

Mind you so does;

Jesus Tattoo Art (Leviticus 19:28);
Polyster Leisure suits (Leviticus 19:19);
Divorcing abusive spouses (Mark 10:8-9);
Fortune Cookies (Leviticus 19:31);
Football (Leviticus 11:8);
Bowl haircuts (Leviticus 19:27); and
Letting Lance Armstrong into your Church (Deuteronomy 23:1);
Wearing Expensive jewelery (Timothy 2:9);
Eating Yummy Shrimp (Leviticus 11:10);
Your wife defending you by punching your attacker in the junk (Deuteronomy 25:11-12); AND
Pulling out or even masturbating (Genesis 38:9-10).

You could have told me that before.....

Do we care about those particular moral guidelines any longer?  Obviously not.  Society outgrew them and the church in response merely stopped espousing them as religious laws.
The point is that morality changes, and the bible is not the driving force for that change.  Society is.
We leave behind the morals which we deem to be nonsense or no longer applicable according to our current experience and societal needs.  The church usually mirrors that change (after lagging behind for a while in many cases) in order to stay "in touch" and then often even goes so far as to present itself to be the champion of those moralities.

Slavery was a fantastic example of this. 

The bible itself is rife with rules for slavery, selling your children (mostly daughters) into slavery and rules governing their treatment, and even marrying your daughters off to their rapists (slavery in my mind).

Hmmm, I DO like rape, but people frown on that. Wait, I'll just BUY her.  GENIUS!

So after hundreds of years promoting the "right" of slavery, the church realized that value had outlived it's usefulness.

The evolution of morality.


Now.  I recognize that I still haven't answered the question.

How would morality have been developed without religion to guide it?

It would have developed organically, just like it does now.

But without having harmful mandated objective rules given by dogmatically accepted books stifling it.

In short, I think that the world would be far ahead of where it is today and likely with a bit fewer deaths involved.

Without religion would we care about same sex marriage as an issue to fight?
Would we have the stifling sexual guilt and slut shame that is so prevalent?
Would we have genital mutilation (both male and female)?
Would we have millions of people dying of AIDS because of misinformation about birth control?
Would we see obedience as a virtue and skepticism as a flaw?

There are many things that religion has done for us with morality, but everything that was good could have been (and was) achieved by non theist means and the rest has held us back.

So my two part answer is this;

Without ANY religion, morality would have evolved organically (just as it did in non-theistic societies all over the world)
and without the Christian religion trying to mold us into a version of the iron age sheep herders who wrote it, that evolution would have most certainly been at a very accelerated pace.

Are you SURE that I can't eat this?

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Father's Day Edition

I'm TRYING to choke him, but Jesus keeps turning it into hugs!

Love is NOT God's gift

It's a gift from my wife and son

God belittles that

PS- A belated Happy Father's day to all the dads out there!  Enjoy the love your family gives you.

Beyond Belief News- Vatican Supports Culture of Secrecy with Child Abuse

"Pro-tect?" Are you sure that is a real word?

"The Vatican's chief investigator (Monsignor Charles J Scicluna) has insisted that Ireland's most senior cleric (Cardinal Brady) has no case to answer over renewed allegations of mishandling of allegations against the paedophile Brendan Smyth"

"New evidence unearthed in a BBC documentary found Cardinal Brady had the names and addresses of children who were suspected of being abused, during a secret internal church inquiry in 1975."

- Irish Independant


Monsignor Charles J Scicluna (pictured above) defends Cardinal Brady's decision not to go to the proper authorities with this information because that was not his job at the time as he was merely the "note taker" for the church's investigation into abuse cases. 

Now before you get any ideas about what his job was in this investigation, let me clear that up for you.

"He was doing his duty (As "note taker")to investigate something that had come to the knowledge of the church and I think he fulfilled his duty well,"   "His duty...is to pass the information (that he gathered from interviews with the victims) to the people who are in authority"

It is not in the scope of his duty to report child molesters to the authorities?? 
It is not in the scope of his duty to pass on information to anyone outside the church officials?
It is not even in the scope of his duty to inform the PARENTS of the possibility that their children might be in danger? (he interviewed the children, but did not pass on the danger that he discovered during those interviews)

I am not sure what his responsibilities in the church are, but his responsibilities as a HUMAN are to protect children (and ANYONE for that matter).  To hide behind the letters of your job contract as a reason for not protecting the helpless from the clutches of physically and emotionally violent predators is cowardly and unethical.

What goes beyond this is that the Vatican accepts this without flinching.  They actually feel that Rev Brady fulfilled his duty as a church official, and that his lack of action shouldn't have any bearing on how the country views him as a leader in the church and a figure of self proclaimed moral authority in Ireland. 

"Father Brady referred all this information to the people who had authority and a duty to act."

Seriously??  Who gave the church the civil and legal duty to act as adjudicator in these matters? Do they really think that they have the power to withhold information like this until they make a decision on it? 
From where do they get the authority to circumvent the system of law so that they can decide on these matters?

I am absolutely incensed that they actually DEFEND a man who had first hand testimony from these children, including names, dates, times and addresses, and thought his only responsibility was to hand that information over to, not the parents, not the police....but his boss.

Sir, the mail room staff is raping the women in the secretary's pool. 
Did I tell anyone? Ummm, no..why? Ok, I'll leave it with you.

Vatican, let me help you with something.

You are not an authority.

You don't get to filter the evidence and make decisions as to who is and who isn't guilty of a crime. 

The police and the legal system do that nicely.

Well, um...most times anyway (how embarrassing.....)

You need to understand that you hold a position of trust, not just as an organisation, but as individuals.  Each priest, each reverend, each cardinal, and each person in the church (and in fact on the planet) has a responsibility to be true to that trust.  That means you can do whatever you need to do with information of abuse....once you have informed the families and the police.  At the point of discovery!  Not once it has filtered through your organization.  Each and every person MUST ask himself if he has done everything he can to protect those who trust in your desire to protect them.  If they don't, then they are as guilty as the rapist from that point forward, and you don't hold the members of your organization to that standard, then you are inviting this culture of silence to continue. 

And you become as bad as the rapist too!

You failed those people by not having those "people in authority" not act, and you failed them a second time by not admonishing then Reverend Brady for not taking it to the legal authorities or warning their parents.  THAT would be doing everything you can. 

Reverend Brady, I am not even sure what to say to you.  Your stupidity and willfull ignorance of your duty as a human being is astronomical. 

You said;

"It is a grave sin. If I was aware my failure to act had allowed or meant future children were abused, I think I would resign."




In retrospect you must see that if you had gone to the PROPER authorities (not your boss) and reported this, that those children would be safe. 

So by your own admitting, and since you must recognise now that your lack of action directly harmed those children, you must resign as the church leader of Ireland.

Sorry, I can't hear you over my sense of blind self importance.

The pain that those children went through was, in part, your fault.  It was your inaction that led to the predator being able to prey on those children again and again well after their pain should have been over.  They should have been able to breath a sigh of relief once they told you of their plight knowing that you would stop at nothing to see them safe.

You decided to look the other way as a human being, and just passed it on for someone else to handle.

I am not saying that those who had the information after you are not responsible as well, but they are not in the spotlight (however much they should be).

The fact remains that you made a terrible, immoral and unethical mistake in betraying those children with your willful inaction, and it is such a grave one that your moral and professional credibility may never recover.


But more importantly (because I don't actually care about your worthless credibility) it is one from which the victims of your inaction may never recover.




UPDATE-Cardinal Brady issues an apology

Editorial-

This apology came on the heels of an outright refusal to apologize publicly.  So why the change of heart?  It's pretty plain to me that the sudden sorrow over his forgotten responsibilities is disingenuous and self serving.  Protecting himself and whatever image he has left after he has landed in hot water.  Even NOW he can't say that HE did something wrong.  Just that he is sad that something didn't happen. (here's a hint Cardinal... something didn't just "not happen", it didn't happen because you MADE it not happen.  Shame on you.  Here is the quote.

"I regret very much that [the parents] weren't [informed]"


Not, "I am sorry that I didn't inform them".  No personal responsibility even now, with all the facts laid bare. 

I could rant about this for hours, but I think that Tim Minchin said it far better than I ever could.

"If you covered for a single motherfucker who's a kiddie fucker,

Fuck the motherfucker he's as evil as the rapist"

Nuff said!

Watch the video here.

Ironic Creationist Quotes- Rev Kevin Flynn

Irony?  Isn't that when OTHER people say things that are contradict their own points?

"The point is that atheists have erred in what they are talking about when they attack Christianity. I agree with atheists who scorn crude or superstitious versions of Christianity."

Yes Reverend, but I think that where we disagree is that it is ALL superstitious.  As soon as an attempt to describe the forces that created the universe stops being superstitious, it becomes SCIENCE.

 Billy the Bookworm says that "Superstition" is a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, ocurance, proceeding, or the like. (1)




Anything that is perported intellectually without reasonably objective supporting evidence is, by definition, superstition. 

Sorry Reverend but your religion is no more or less superstitious than those who believe that a spaceship is coming to gather up the chosen from behind a meteor....

.....on second thought, I have changed my mind.  It IS more superstitious than that, because at least THAT claim can be verified or debunked with the proper tools. 

What Christianity provides is the ultimate superstitious snow job.

All the answers, but none of the explanations.

Believe in the Word contained in the Bible.  How do you know that word is true?



It says so on page 421

 If the only evidence that you can provide would also support any of the other tens of thousands of gods (and possibly a few other literary fictional characters as well) then you can hardly call YOUR belief anything BUT superstitious.

Well...

.....maybe YOU can.

And that my friends, is irony.


Rev Kevin Flynn is an Anglican priest and director of the Anglican studies program at Saint Paul University.


1- Superstition definition found at Dictionary.com