Political Correctness can kiss my godless ass.

You may have read last week that in New York a 6 year old boy was suspended for bringing "a gun" to school. It was two inches of injection molded plastic shaped like a space gun. It was the toy gun of his toy Lego figure!

About the same time a big brouhaha erupted when White House Chief of Staff
Rahm Emanuel used the word “retarded” to describe some members of his own party. Evidently the word is taboo. We now have a perfectly good “R” word that no one is allowed to utter lest they horrify the sensibilities of the PC police. It’s become the “N” word for the “mentally challenged” or “special needs children,” or whatever the proper term is these days.

Both of these insane tempests in a tea pot are the result of Political Correctness run amok. It reminded me of when I was taken to task for typing the word “Xtian,” short for Christian, on an internet message group. This fundie was deeply offended and went into a rant. Was I afraid to type the name of the Lord and Savior? Did I have so little respect for God that I abbreviated His name? How dare I defile the one true religion and insult its faithful adherents?

Never missing an opportunity to educate the undereducated I explained that the term “Xtian” is based on the Greek word “Christos” which starts with the letter Chi which is written with the letter X. The abbreviation "Xtian" goes back to the 16th century, and was common usage. I also confirmed that while I had no respect for his Imaginary Friend, had as much fear of it as I have for a Stephen King villian, and could care less about defiling his religion or belittling his fellow religionists -- the use of Xtian is not in and of itself an insult. In keeping with my characteristic modus operandi I believe I ended the lesson with the phrase “You witless fundie Xtian retard!” I feel badly about that now. In the future I will refine it, bring it up to code, by replacing the term “retard” with “special needs person,” although it loses something in the translation.

Religionists have no compunctions about using less than flatering epithets when referring to atheists. “Godless,” “heathen,” “the irreligious,” “hell bound non-believer,” and “fool” (from the scriptural verse that says those who say there is no god are fools) are among the most popular. Evidently Xtians don’t feel any pressure to be PC (Properly Christ-like) where atheists are concerned; not that I give a fiddler’s damn. For just as African-Americans may casually refer to their friends by using (Oy!… I have to do this eh?? Ok… ) “the N word,” I occasionally refer to my fellow atheists as “godless hell bound heathens.” It’s a term of endearment, and the highest compliment I can pay a freethinker.

As hard as it may be to believe, I can be induced to throw out derogatory terms for the most religiously afflicted Xtians. I endeavor to use them only on those occasions where decorum and good taste have been suspended having outlived their usefulness. They include but are not limited to: Bible Banger, Bible Thumper, Holy Roller, Papist, Popeblower, Bead Mumbler, Mind Slave, Mindless Medieval Peasant, Dead Jew Worshipper, Death Cultist, and Kool-Aide-Sipping-Blood-Imbibing-Flesh-Devouring-Polytheist-Throwback.

For the followers of the notorious 6th century warlord prophet and pedophile, the nomenclature becomes substantially more vivid, conjuring up visions of sand simians, dune jockeys, and head gear that would be equally useful for wiping up camel vomit. When it comes to the religiously deluded let no one say I’m not an equal opportunity non-PCist

Rationality -- The Work of Satan!

A dedicated Atheist Camel reader and friend emailed me for advice. The issue was this:

“I've been mulling over something that I know would get thrown in my face if I ever discussed my atheism with certain members of my family. That is the notion that science and rational thought are a work of Satan … that he is the one putting all these rational thoughts in our heads.”

My reply follows:

This kind of “argument" comes from the most profoundly religiously infected. No matter what you do to disprove it with reason, since reason is the enemy of faith, their rejection of reality will be unmoved.

First, understand that the underlying distrust and hatred toward science by the most religious is rooted in their fear that science disproves god. But science doesn't seek to disprove god. Science shows that the things attributed to god/gods/ supernaturalism are more easily explained by physics, chemistry, biology, etc. etc ... natural law and observable repeatable principles. If people wish to reject what they can see for what they can't, science doesn't care one way or another. Science doesn’t waste it’s time on fairy tales or fools.

But let’s go to the devil, so to speak. If a devil is responsible for putting rational thoughts in man's minds then Satan must have been responsible for the invention of small pox vaccine; polio vaccine; heart, lung, liver, etc. transplants; medicines to control diabetes; chemo therapy to save the lives of cancer patients; Lasik surgery to restore eyesight; and the countless discoveries and inventions that have reduced human suffering and extended the lives of theists and non-theists alike. All of which are as a result of the rational human mind; the minds of men and women who were not satisfied with "it's God's Will."

If these rational discoveries by rational people are the influence of an evil entity, then perhaps the devil is good and it is god that is evil. For if god is responsible for the creation of all life forms (Genesis), and is responsible for all the good and evil on earth (Isaiah 45:7), then it was god who created the hideous life forms we know as smallpox and polio. If the devil was the root for rational thought which gave man the power of science that defeated god's evil disease creations, then maybe the Satan worshipers are right.

But again, the problem you will encounter in argument with your fundie family members will be that they aren't held to any definitive limitations. That is, if you blunt their illogic and show a rational reason why their position is fallacy, nothing stops them from inventing a new supernatural justification. You know how that works, we’ve seen it time and again: i.e. "Uh, well maybe all the animals on the Ark were babies and didn’t take up much space or need food, or ... uh, or maybe god put them into hibernation so they wouldn't poop or eat each other ,or … uh . .." And on it goes. When all else falls, the default to the usual ... "God did it, and God can do anything." negates any potential for fruitful exchange.

In the case of Science & Rationality = Satan they may proffer that man was responsible for the creation of virus, and illness, and that god gave scientists the rationality necessary to cure them. But again, what is the basis for that reversal? What scripture will they distort and interpret to support it? It flies in the face of their original premise of rationality and science being the work of Satan.

We the rational are at a disadvantage in these kinds of theological masturbatory discussions. We hold ourselves to, are limited to, strict observable and predictable and repeatable events ... the very definitive guidelines of natural law and science. We can’t adjust our argument by begging some supernatural “shoulda, coulda, woulda” explanation. We are held to real world explanations that we know are scientifically sound.

A word of advice -- you will not convince your family with any argument from reason or reality. The hypnotic grasp of the God Virus is not that easily cured. If anything it will intensify their defensiveness of the indefensible. Do not risk alienating your family for the sake of being right. In the words of Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, “… just look at them and sigh, and know they love you.”

"Stop Reading Anti-Religion Books!": A Religionist’s Demand for Tolerance of the Intolerable

Last week I read The God Virus by Dr. Darrel W. Ray. It’s an outstanding exposé of how religion infects all our lives and negatively impacts on civilization. It earned a five star amazon review from me.

One of the very few negative reviews was posted by someone who declares herself to be neither an atheist nor a Christian. Besides her simplistic dismissal of science as “arrogant,” and a complete misunderstanding of the term “God virus,” there was this gem:

"Let's have some more tolerance here. You should not need to constantly read books about how bad religion is if you are secure about who you are. You should not need this validation."

My reply to this fallacious comment follows:

Tolerance?! As in the tolerance carriers of the fundamentalist God Virus have for homosexuals' equal rights and happiness?

You mean like the tolerance extremist anti-abortionists have for OBGYN's who perform legal procedure but are killed for it, or their offices bombed? Or the tolerance that would disallow women control of their own bodies? Or that seeks to force raped women to bare her rapist's child?

You mean like the tolerance Catholics have for condom use while HIV runs rampant in 3rd World countries killing millions?

Perhaps you mean like the tolerance religionists have for scientific reality and those who seek to stem global warming's threat, while they turn a blind eye to it or deny it because Jesus is coming anyway?

Tolerance, such as Muslims have for apostates from Islam, or for "Kafirs" -- “truths” with which they infect each succeeding generation?

Tolerance Islamics have for free speech when that speech is deemed offensive to their inane belief?

We should have tolerance for using a god as justification for "crusade" aganist nations that did us no harm?

Tolerance for theistically inspired revisionist history?

We should tolerate those who want to set back the teaching of science in our class rooms three-hundred years?

We should tolerate obstacles to better health and the elimination devestating illnesses or crippling injuries because it supposedly offends their imaginary god?

We should tolerate those who want to transform the USA into a "Christian Nation," a theocracy?

Don't talk to me about having tolerance for those religionists whose world view is driven and controlled by a book that itself endorses hideous acts of immorality; that is rife with the lies, delusions, and thirst for control of an ancient patriarchal society whose infamous intolerance toward other beliefs was manifested by barbaric laws, tribal genocide and enslavement.

Reading books about the dangers inherent in radical fundamentalist religion, how it negatively impacts our lives and threatens our culture, isn't about how "secure" one is in their non-belief. It's about opening doors to understanding how supernaturalism in its most virulent, and even more benign forms, impacts us for the worse ... as a civilization and on an individual basis.

That you don't get it speaks to your own strain of religious mind virus. That you condemn reading such books is a manifestation of that illness.

"Believers are the Happiest" : Should we be surprised?

The Pew Forum in the US (2009) and Professor Andrew Clark and Dr Orsolya Lelkes in Europe (2008), respected researches all, report that the results of their studies indicate those with a strong belief in God tend to report being “Very Happy” with their lives more often than do atheists.

If you search through atheist / skeptic blogs that reported on these studies you’ll find a few that are quite angered by the results, or are skeptical about their veracity, and/or try to come up with various ways to either justify or explain away the result. They are wasting their time. in their excitement they lost sight of their scientific side. You see, by only reading about the result one isn’t getting the entire picture. The devil is in the details… that is the actual statistics..

I had some difficulty finding the raw stats from either study, but managed to find this chart which gives summary stats. Note that on the “0-10” axis “0” means “Dissatisfied” and 10 means “Very Happy” with ones life.

http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/11/happy-worshippers-unhappy-believers.html

While the differences aren’t dramatic, indeed believers and the most religious do have a higher percentage (approx 42%) of people who say they are “Very happy” with their lives, the highest happiness range, than do those describing themselves as atheists (approx 37%).

You’ll also note the most religious also have the most (approx. 17%) who are in the “Dissatisfied with life” column compared to atheists (approx 15%); while in the middle ranges…the “Satisfied / Happy with life” ranges … approx 49% of atheists are represented versus only 42% of believers.

BUT, and here is the clincher, when you take the “Satisfied/Happy” and “Very Happy” combined stats, the most religious score 84% combined while atheists score 86% combined.

So what exactly does this mean? It means that while 5% more religionists report being “Very Happy” with their lives than do atheists, on an overall positive life scoring atheists are generally more satisfied with their lives. To corroborate these findings, here is the charted result of a World Values Survey which also gauged religiosity and happiness.

http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/08/happiness-smile.html

Once again, the most religious people (those saying religion is very important to them) report being “Very Happy” more frequently than do people who hold religion of no importance. But on the combined happiness scale of “Very” and “Quite” happy, the most religiously afflicted score 81% while least religious (which includes atheists, agnostics, skeptics and humanists) scored 86%.

Ok, so bottom line – the more religious one is the more frequently they consider themselves “Very Happy” than do non-religious/non-believers. But on an aggregate happiness / satisfaction quotient, they are not only NOT generally happier than atheists they are slightly less so.

Should we be surprised that religious fanatics report being ecstatic about their lives more frequently than secularists? Frequent church attendence, the group dynamic of a shared myth/ self induced spiritual experience, will have a positive effect on the sense of comfort and happiness of these dependent people. Additionally the less one is forced to focus on reality, and can ignore it; the less they feel in control of their lives because it is controlled for them by a Sky Daddy -- the less they worry about life. After all, belief that simply by praying -- “God will deliver [insert one or more] a new job / my next meal / a new car / a roof over my head.” -- tends to take a lot of stress out of ones life; never mind that invariably they are more likely to be chronically unemployed, impoverished, on foot and homeless than an atheist. The annual Pew Forum report on religiosity by state which consistently reports higher crime, teen pregnancy, poverty, unemployment, and the lowest education levels in the most religious states supports this contention.

Finally, when one puts their faith in a god who works in strange and mysterious ways, they are more inclined to accept their lot in life as “God’s Will” and be delighted with it, even if it puts them below the poverty line and their kid’s life span is negatively impacted by their diet or substandard healthcare.

Which brings us to George Bernard Shaw’s famous line: "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." I might also point out that the very happiest man in most towns is the village idiot.

[[[ thanks to Rachel h. for her email to me which prompted this article]]]

Militant Atheist: “To be or not to be?” That is the question

I place myself in the Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Meyers school of aggressive anti-theist militant atheism. If not for people like them, and organizations that share their tact, we would not be seeing the surge in rational thought and outspoken opposition coming from previously closeted atheists and agnostics who are now “coming out.”

The contributions of scientists, the best of whom are non-believers of varying degrees, whose efforts have lead to medical advances, longer life spans for humanity, technology that just 100 years ago was unimagined, are rarely if ever praised by the religionists. They see science as the bulwark of anti-religious thought. So much for atheists gaining legitimacy in the eyes of religionists with gentility, reason, and contributions to their very existence. Theists will credit god instead.

Some say that engaging in aggressive debate using reason will never change the mind of those who are absolutists, who base their lives on supernaturalism to which they were exposed at an early age. I agree. It is as unlikely to yield fruit as religious proselytizing will cause a thinking person to suddenly abandon reason for supernaturalist belief. But what debate does do is give fence sitters something to think about, chew on. If they are prompted to question the unquestionable precepts of faith, something religions do not encourage, then by observing a realist in aggressive debate their curiosity may be piqued and their reasoning skills along with it.

Those who despise atheists, distrust them, see them as immoral and un-American, will not be swayed by a kinder gentler approach … my reference to scientists is one example. The fundamentalist theist mind, be it Christian or Muslim, are as firm in their dismissal of science and atheists as they are immersed in their supernaturalist beliefs. We’d be deceiving ourselves to think otherwise. The women’s suffrage movement didn’t win the right to vote by being kinder and gentler. Nor did blacks attain civil rights by just being good citizens and walking on tip toe to the back of the bus. Nor did the gay rights movement win any converts to full equality and tolerance by working in soup kitchens, or contributing to the Red Cross.

Every one of those movements realized that the kinder and gentler method of whispering their desire for equality was perceived as weakness, powerlessness, by the majority opposition. A strong front, challenging the religious right’s efforts; demanding that the Separation of Church and state be kept sacrosanct; fighting theist intrusions into our lives and schools and government; calling out the fakes, frauds and exposing the unbalanced words and deeds of religionists is how we will gain influence and retain our freedom. If they take offense, so what?

Islam continues to flood into Western society. With governmental and the media’s failure to stand firm against Muslim threats of violence if demands for the limitation of free speech where their religion is concerned isn’t observed, we are reinforcing their perception of us as the spineless “Kafir.” If the West doesn’t pull its head out of the sand, change its approach, Islamic Fundamentalists will continue to capitalize on it, the virus will spread, and Western culture will continue contributing to its own eventual demise.

So, if we are militant as atheists, if we push it to the wall and go toe to toe with theist ignorance, arrogance and intolerance what’s the worst that can happen? Muslims will riot, burn and threaten us with domination and death? They already do that. Christians will hate us, mistrust us, deny our patriotism and morality? They already do that too. We need to make it crystal clear that as freethinkers we are not door mats to mindless fanaticism; that the days of pretending to be theist are over; that expectations of respect for their mindless beliefs can be forgotten; that we won’t give an inch to their attempts at creeping theocracy. That there will be no appeasement, no compromise, no negotiating with ancient delusion.

I’m a militant atheist, I could be nothing else.

“Drive a spike through my hand … I'm feelin' Christ-like today.”

There’s nothing like religion to convince people to do crazy things that no sane person on the planet would otherwise do.

Many early religions had human sacrifice. It was practiced in proto-Hebraic religions, and throughout the Middle and far East, and in Europe by the Druids. In the New World the Aztecs and Mayans perfected it making it a high production spectator sport all the way until the Conquistadors wiped them out in the 16th century.

The Egyptian pharaohs and nobles had people, volunteers even, buried alive in their tombs to serve them in the afterlife. Wives of dead Hindu Brahmans threw themselves on their husband’s funeral pyres to join them in the great beyond.

Some American Indian tribes did the “sun dance” which included having barbs pierced through the flesh on ones back and hoisted up on a scaffold. Some plains tribes also shot arrows into a selected virgin, wounding her repeatedly until mercifully putting one through her heart.

Today Muslims in western India throw babies off of buildings and catch them (usually) in open sheets. Somehow this is supposed to insure good health. In many Muslim countries they practice Ashura blood letting, where the child’s head is cut with a knife and blood allowed to drip down all over him soaking his clothes as he screams. Naturally, in neither case is the child consulted beforehand.

Of course the Jews are famous for circumcision of male children on the eighth day after birth. The good news is it’s done with a scalpel now, having done away with the earlier flint knife.

Christians have some lovely rituals. In the Philippines on Easter men drag a full size crucifix across cobblestones until bloodied; and/or they are “scourged,” given the old forty-lashes just like Jesus. Some even volunteer to have nails driven through their palms into a cross and are briefly hung out to dry.

In fact, Christians have a long history of “mortification of the flesh.” Wearing a hair shirt; self-flagellation with chains or leather thongs with metal on the end; walking on their knees; and the wearing of a cilice, a leather or chain band with spikes that cut into the thigh of the voluntary wearer (the albino monk in the DaVinci Code wore one).

In the ancient religions these blood lettings were intended to placate the gods, give victory in war, or bring fertility to the tribe’s crops and the people. They were ignorant of science and their beliefs, their lives, were entirely controlled by shaman and the ruling authority, who often were one in the same.

But modern day practice of this kind of abuse in order to ensure health; mark ones special relationship to a god; or put to death the desires of the flesh is simply barbaric, bordering on insane. For what purpose is this pain and agony inflicted or endured? To show some supernatural sky buddy how much they love him? To be at one with a mythical man-god who may or may not have ever existed and who certainly isn’t going to applaud them? To be seen as more devout and devoted to this magical being than their neighbor?

Whatever the reason, it isn’t driven by reasoning. It’s a product of a mind virus called religion that prompts people to behave like pain inflicting, blood loving cultists. Only the deluded could possibly justify it, much less endure it.

Of course, if crucifying Christian fundies like Pat Robertson and his ilk would bring world peace, end starvation, insure tolerance and equality for all, drop the price of oil and get the stock market back up over 14k points, I’d fully endorse them all doing it on a daily basis. Heck, I’d even lend them my nail gun.

Christianity & Morality: Revelation or Evolution?

Christians will tell you that there is only one divinely revealed religion, and that theirs is it.

A number of religions claim revelation by god. Islam claims Allah revealed his word to Mohammed. Mormons claim that their doctrine was revealed to Joseph Smith by Moroni, and all subsequent doctrinal revisions were revealed to successive church presidents by God. Christians dismiss Islam as simply a fiction and its followers as dupes. They deride Mormon claims as nonsense and Mormonism as a cult at best, not even Christian at worst.

But what gives mainstream Christianity’s claim of revelation more validity than the Mormon or Muslim claims? What objective evidence can any of them offer? -- The New Testament, the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon … one a fairytale sequel to a bronze age book of cultist prophesy and myth; one the hate filled misogynistic ranting of a child molesting warlord; and the other the testimony of a convicted charlatan.

If Christianity was revealed and was not a result of religious evolution how is it that so many pre-Xtian pagan gods share some of the same characteristics and miraculous events as those attributed to Jesus? How is it that so many Christian holidays were co-opted from pagan festivals and observances? Why did the Reformation mutate from Catholicism giving birth to so many new denominations? And exactly which one of the 2800 denominations & sects of Christianity was revealed by God? With their varied rituals and interpretations of God’s words they can't all be revealed; else they'd all be in agreement.

The idea of revelation is just another aspect of man made religious delusion. It’s one religion’s desire to stake their claim to ownership of the ultimate “Truth.” Religious practices have evolved beyond human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, burnt offerings and temple prostitutes, just as technology has evolved from chariots to airplanes. We see it evolving right before our eyes as the Catholic Church accepts Evolutionary Theory, and liberal Christians reject biblical inerrancy and accept science.

If Judeo-Christian morality was revealed, why did God not reveal his condemnation of slavery in an 11th Commandment? Why didn’t Jesus condemn it 3000 years later? Why did it take 5000 years of Judeo-Christian morality for society to out law it? Was its final eradication in Western Civilization a matter of divine intervention / revelation, or the result of man’s naturally evolving mortality and ethics?

Judeo-Christian claims of being the moral beacon and holding the ethical high ground has been falsified many times and is hardly well represented in scripture. Morality evolved, and continues to evolve today -- equal rights for women, gays and minority races; and the gradual elimination of capitol punishment-- none of which were sanctioned by the Bible or revealed by a supreme being.

Religion’s evolution toward liberalism and reason, and morality’s evolution away from the static and bigoted precepts of scriptural declarations is unstoppable, just as evolution of species is unstoppable. Someday the unyielding grasp of religiously interpreted moral dictates will fall to the moral imperatives of a society evolving toward equality and acceptance.

Eventually religion will become extinct as it fails to compete with reason and reality. Much like natural selection it’s simply a matter of survival of the fittest.