Harold the Christian

Posted on May 24, 2011 by Michael

Harold Camping has revised his rapture prediction:

Camping, who made a special appearance before the press at the Oakland headquarters of the media empire Monday evening, apologized for not having the dates “worked out as accurately as I could have.” Through chatting with a friend over what he acknowledged was a very difficult weekend, the light dawned on him that instead of the biblical Rapture in which the faithful would be swept up to the heavens, May 21 had instead been a “spiritual” Judgment Day, which places the entire world under Christ’s judgment, he said.

Ah yes, of course. Since Camping is 89 and near his own personal day of rapture, 5 months is a reasonable period for him to bilk more people of their savings, destroying more and more families. But that isn’t the interesting thing. What’s interesting is that while so many people are dismissing the guy as a nut case, there’s this little fact (click to enlarge):

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »

The tyranny of the majority

Posted on May 23, 2011 by Michael

No surprise here:

The Republican-led Minnesota legislature approved late Saturday putting a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to voters in November 2012.

The Minnesota House of Representatives voted 70 to 62 after about five hours of discussion, cementing the amendment’s place on the ballot for 2012. The Senate approved the proposed amendment earlier in May largely along party lines.

Minnesota law already bans gay marriage, but amendment sponsors argued that a constitutional amendment would ensure legislators or a small group of judges could not change that.

In other words, go to hell gays and go to hell civil rights, the majority is afraid of what they don’t understand. Of course, this is the state of Michele Bachmann, so maybe these people actually think the founding fathers thought majorities ought to be able to oppress minorities.

Filed under: News, Religions, Same-sex marriage | Tagged: , | 37 Comments »

Kinky sex

Posted on May 22, 2011 by Michael

Two things. First, I am pretty sure this song is about all the kinky sex that God has just discovered.

I presume after an eternity of sexual repression, it must be pretty liberating to be “doing a new thang”.

Second, I’m curious to see how many hits I get from Facebook when I put up a post about kinky sex.

Filed under: Humor, Religions | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

The Catholic Church does not get it

Posted on May 19, 2011 by Michael

A study relieving the priesthood of many common charges has been released:

Researchers hired by the U.S. Roman Catholic bishops to determine the causes of the sex crisis that convulsed the church dismissed all the usual suspects:

Few of the offenders were pedophiles. The abusers were not acting on their homosexuality. Mandatory celibacy did not turn clerics into molesters.

The first two points are incorrect. The offenders are pedophiles by definition – they raped and molested underaged boys – and the vast majority of instances involved men whose interest in children was limited to males. The third point may have nothing to do with many of the acts, but sexual repression is never good and almost always due to sexual immaturity, something the Church and many Christians have routinely displayed.

But I’m being a stickler for facts. The important point here is that the greatest complaints against the Church as an institution have to do with its record. It has again and again covered up its acts. It shifted priests from one church to another, fully aware of the accusations. Hell, even the current Pope did this before he reached his current place.

If the Church thinks that this in any way absolves it of its responsibility for its horrific acts, it’s wrong. It’s dead wrong. But that isn’t going to stop these monsters from making excuses:

Instead, most of the priest-offenders came from seminary classes of the 1940s and 1950s who were not properly trained to confront the upheavals of the 1960s, when behavioral norms were upended and crime overall in the United States spiked, the researchers said.

You see, it was just all that sex and junk from the 60’s. If society had have just listened to the Church, none of this would have happened. Hell, if you think about it, it was really those pre- and early baby boomers who raped all those boys, amirite?

This has to be the single most revolting study I have seen in quite some time. The Church has been pushing this gross narrative for years now where they attempt to absolve themselves by pointing out that people besides priests rape boys too. They don’t get it: That is not the point. The Church protected rapists and then tried to cover itself up after information started to come out. That is devastating to any sense of morality.

These antiquated rape-hiders need to understand what this is all about if they ever want to address the crimes of their institution in any way approaching adequacy.

Filed under: News, Religions | Tagged: , , , | 20 Comments »

Gov. Rick Perry calls for magic

Posted on April 22, 2011 by Michael

In an effort to contain wildfires that have already claimed 1.5 million acres across the state of Texas, Gov. Rick Perry called on his fellow Texans to seek out a magical remedy:

“Throughout our history, both as a state and as individuals, Texans have been strengthened, assured and lifted up through prayer,” Perry said in a statement.

“It is fitting that Texans should join together in prayer to humbly seek an end to this ongoing drought and these devastating wildfires.”

Doesn’t Perry’s particular, cultural god already have a plan in place, though? If prayer can change that plan, is it really a plan? And if prayer isn’t suppose to change the plan but only put Perry and others in line with his god’s magic, then isn’t this all a completely fruitless effort?

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

Prayer does not work

Posted on April 17, 2011 by Michael

I think the most annoying habit I witness when discussing what science has to say on a topic is that people will find the most obscure individual studies to bolster their case. That might work depending on the particular study, but it’s rare. A basic of science is that we defer to the body of evidence. That’s why we can say cigarettes cause cancer but marijuana does not (at least until the body of evidence changes). It’s also why we can say that prayer does not have healing properties. Unfortunately, it is possible to abuse the body of evidence. PZ has managed to find some kook who has done just that:

Equal healing benefit has been demonstrated whether the prayer is Hindu or Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant, Jewish or Muslim.

(Quote from the kook, not PZ.)

I suppose a big, fat “NO” across the board is equal, but that’s cheating. And if someone is willing to cheat logic once, why not do it again?

Can medical science prove the benefit of prayer to im- prove the result of an operation? I refer you to the latest Cochrane review on this topic.5 This 69-page manuscript is a meta-analysis of 10 prospective randomized studies on intercessory prayer to help the efforts of modern medicine involving over 7,000 patients. Some studies in this meta- analysis showed benefit, while others did not. The conclusion of the authors was that there is no indisputable proof that intercessory prayer lowers surgical complications or improves mortality rates.

There you go. Nope, prayer does not work. That is what the body of evidence has been telling us for years. But the guy goes on:

So, have I answered the question, “Can prayer help surgery?” While there is not conclusive scientific proof that prayer improves surgical outcomes, it certainly can help relax an anxious preoperative patient and may help enhance the relationship between patient and surgeon. A surgeon must be comfortable with prayer to offer it. Professionalism can be maintained provided the prayer is offered in a non- confrontational manner and reflects the spirituality of the patient. Surgeons who want the best for their patients need to utilize every tool available, and to quote one of my patients, “Prayer is a powerful tool.”

The kook’s patient isn’t paying attention to the science. And neither is the kook. It’s mind-boggling that someone can throw out paragraphs that argue against his position and yet make the exact opposite conclusion. That, we know, is not a testament to the power of prayer. And neither is the body of evidence. It is, however, a testament to the power of blind faith and wishful thinking.

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: , , | Leave a comment »

Silly Deuteronomy

Posted on April 8, 2011 by Michael

When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

You see, the reason Christians never seem to quote parts of the Bible like this is because, well, um, uh, uh…I got it! This was all just cultural stuff, duh! The Old Testament had parts that were only meant to apply to the Jews living in ancient times! Yeah, that’s the ticket.

After all, we all know how theists are always arguing what a moral relativist their god is.

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Holy shit, I can’t believe people don’t get this

Posted on April 7, 2011 by Michael

Awhile ago I found myself in the most inane debate I’ve ever experienced. Two theists were arguing to me than an atheist cannot use the unresolvable Problem of Evil in order to make any sort of point because it assumes the existence of objective evil, something many atheists (including myself) reject. I hope most of my readers can see how baffling such a statement is. One, if the argument assumes anything, it first assumes the existence of God, something atheists reject – not only is this baffling argument wrong, but the most logical starting point hasn’t even been chosen for it, thus making it is wrong in its wrongness. Two, the point of the argument is to say someone has belief A and belief B and those two beliefs are in conflict. To put it another way, say Joe Blow believes in the Muslim god and the Christian god. Mr. Blow believes they are separate entities that both constitute the only way to salvation. Clearly there is a conflict. But according to Theist Logic, no one is allowed to question this conflict without first accepting Joe Blow’s beliefs. “What?! You think I’m wrong? But you don’t even believe in the Muslim god! You can’t use something you don’t personally think is true in your arguments!”

As stupid as this is, I have had to explain it in the past. And to top things off, the argument once again has appeared on my Facebook page:

[Other FB user], without evil, the “problem of evil” doesn’t exist, therefore, it is asinine for someone who doesn’t believe evil exists to use “the problem of evil” as an argument against the existence of God. I understand that it is hypothetical, but that doesn’t mean it’s not ridiculous. You can’t use an argument that assumes God to make an argument against the existence of God.

The most bizarre thing about this is that it is somehow even more twisted. It first begins with the “You must believe what I believe in order to tell me what I believe is wrong” argument. In this case, what this person believes is that objective evil exists. Next he cedes that the argument is hypothetical. This is where he has lost the point. I mean, come on. How can someone effectively say, “Yes, I understand that your entire point is correct” and yet somehow continue? Theist Logic, I guess. And finally, he moves to arguing that the unresolvable Problem of Evil first assumes God. So he started with evil, which is wrong in its wrongness, then moved to God, which is right in its wrongness, but he only did this after being wrong. So I guess his wrong wrongness is rightly wrong?

Theist Logic gets out of hand pretty quickly.

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Double standards

Posted on March 27, 2011 by Michael

This video is both awesome and sad at the same time.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Religions | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

“I won’t give my approval!”

Posted on March 26, 2011 by Michael

This post title is increasingly one of the most common lines that anti-gay bigots use. “Why, I didn’t vote for equal rights for gays because that’s like asking for my approval of their ‘behavior’! It’s just absurd!” It’s little more than bigot talk and here’s why.

Imagine 38 states get together with Congress and the President and want to pass a constitutional amendment that says the KKK can no longer have parades or organize or do any of the things they legally do today. We all get an opportunity to vote in favor or against the amendment. If the bigots who hate gays – and come on, that’s all this is about for them – were at all consistent, they would immediately vote in favor of the amendment; I’m sure a few of them actually would. But I think an overwhelming majority would recognize that the question on the ballot isn’t “Do you approve of the KKK?” Only a fucking moron would think that. No, most people would realize that they hate the KKK, but that there are dire consequences when we take away one group’s rights. Most people would have to vote the proposal down.

And they would be right – without approving of the KKK in the least. In fact, most of today’s bigots do actually say they support X group’s right to free speech despite not liking the group. This is really basic, really easy, really obvious logic. It is a lie, a damn convenient lie, when a bigot claims not to have voted for a civil rights measure because he would then be approving of the group facing discrimination.

We have a huge number of states all across the country that still don’t have protections for sexual orientation in housing, education, work, and other areas of daily life. Think about that. Gays can fire straight people for being straight. Straight people can deny gays home loans simply for being gay. It is absurd. And the bigots want us to believe that it’s all because fixing the problem and protecting civil rights would be the same as giving moral approval for a group? Puh-lease.

It would be nice if the bigots of the world could stop lying and just come clean: They hate gays because 1) their religion, not reason or rationality, tells them it’s wrong to be fair, 2) they don’t understand them, 3) they’re ignorant and unwilling to learn, 4) gays are different and they find that yucky, and 5) they are sexually immature little infants.

Filed under: Religions, Rights, Same-sex marriage | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »