Losing Our Freedoms on the Fourth of July

Posted by Cephus as Politics

It’s really sad how our idiotic Governator has changed from a conservative to a flaming liberal when it comes to government keeping it’s hands in your pockets.  Now he’s talking about a state-wide ban on all fireworks because he’s afraid of wildfires.

Here’s a clue, Arnie.  I know of no wildfire currently burning that was caused by fireworks, legal or not.  None. Banning fireworks would have no positive effect on wildfires, you’d do better to ban lightning.  You know the three biggest causes of wildfires?  Lightning, hot car exhausts and smoking.  I doubt you could do much about lightning, I’m not sure who you’d arrest or find in that case, but you don’t see him going after people driving cars or throwing lit cigarettes out the window.  Why?  They’ve got massive lobbys!

If he really wants to go after fireworks that cause fires, he needs to go after the illegal Mexican fireworks that flood across the border constantly.  Oh, but that would mean going after all the illegal aliens and actually having some control on the border!  Can’t have that, can we?  Every single year, while my family is setting off our small, safe and sane fireworks, we see dozens of bottle rockets and thousands of firecrackers going off all around us.  Why not do something about that?

Oh wait, that’s right, he’s not really trying to solve the problem, he just wants to pretend.  It’s a useless gesture by a useless governor to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, but at least he can point to it and pretend he tried.

This 4th, go out and celebrate the freedoms that you have as an American, but do it quick before the nanny state takes them all away.  I don’t think any of us would be surprised.

Time to Point Out the Politically Obvious

Posted by Cephus as Politics

Yes, it’s started already, the clueless political pundits who advocate throwing your vote to anyone but the Democrats or Republicans to “teach them a lesson”.  On the surface, supporting the candidate that best represents your views makes perfect sense, it’s the picture postcard of the American voter’s right, but there’s a realistic side that few of these people bother to look at.

Here’s the reality.  Your third-party candidate has no chance whatsoever.  They’re not going to win.  I don’t care how much you want them to, I don’t care how much you believe in them, they’re going to lose and there’s nothing you can do about it.  The reason they’re going to lose is because the majority of third parties are one-issue wonders.  They have one or two issues that they make their stand on and the rest of their platforms are either under-thought or unremarkable.  They simply do not appeal to the overwhelming majority of American voters.  As such, they will never win in a major election.

So we’re back to a choice between the Democrats and Republicans, as dreary as that choice usually is.  I know that neither candidate represents my views, no candidate that ever runs does, but the simple reality is that one of them is going to win and you’re going to spend at least the next 4 years under their administration no matter who you vote for.  In 2004, if you voted for Nader, you don’t get to live under Nader’s rules because you voted for him, you’re stuck living in Bush-hell like the rest of us.  Sure, you might have wished that Nader won, you might like what Nader stands for, but all wishful-thinking aside, we live in a world where practically-speaking, a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.

In the end, you need to weigh your idealistic standards against practical reality.  Yes, it might be a hard pill to swallow to admit that your favored candidate doesn’t have a chance in hell, it might be difficult to pick either the Republican or Democrat candidate, but part of maturity is coming to grips with reality, no matter how unfair it ultimately might be.  The reality, at least at the moment, is that we have a two-party system and it’s not going away any time soon.  Until we overhaul the entire political process, something that we desperately need to do, third party candidates in national elections really don’t stand a chance.

You can either vote for McCain or Obama.  If you vote for Nader or Bob Barr, you’re voting for McCain.  If you vote for Baldwin of the Constitution Party, you’re voting for Obama.  That’s reality.  Deal with it.

Christian Voice Headed for Bankruptcy

Posted by Cephus as Uncategorized

Stephen Green is facing bankruptcy and I, for one, am glad.

Green, the National Director of the Christian Voice in England, sued the BBC over Jerry Springer the Opera, claiming it was blasphemous and lost.  He was ordered to pay $180,000 in court costs but, according to a press release last Thursday, he doesn’t have it.

Green complained that “Jerry Springer the Opera portrayed Jesus Christ as a nappy-wearing sexual deviant, who said he was ‘a little bit gay’. It called Mary a rape victim, said the birth of Jesus was because ‘the condom split’, ridiculed His wounds on the cross and the sacrament of Holy Communion, had God as an ineffectual old man who needed guidance from Jerry Springer and finished up with Springer as a counterfeit saviour of mankind who told Jesus to “Grow up for Christ’s sake and put some f***ing clothes on.”

‘It should be enough for Mark Thompson and Jonathan Thoday that they got away with blasphemy, insulting God and the Lord Jesus Christ, at least in this life. For these rich, powerful men to pursue me into the bankruptcy courts over money I don’t have would be vindictive.’”

Well too bad for you.  Probably most of the things you call blasphemous were accurate, people have been interpreting a lot of the things in the Bible similar to the above for decades.  What do you say about a 30-year old unmarried man who travels around with 12 other guys?  Think about it.

Green is threatening contempt of court should the courts decide to go after his contributors to pay the fees.  He’ll conveniently “forget” who gives him money and go to prison, which is a good move in my book, and when they search his office and find the names anyhow, they’ll recoup their legal losses and put a Christian douchebag away.  It’s a win-win situation.

Pointless Debates 101

Posted by Cephus as Religion

I get a lot of e-mail here, some from theists and some from atheists and I’ve always got 2-3 debates running.  Personally, I don’t know why they don’t just post here, but some want anonymity I suppose so I respect their wishes.

I’m just finishing one debate that has illustrated exactly why these debates are often so frustrating.  I’m not going to post actual comments because I haven’t asked for permission, but the general gist should be enough.

It started when I got a short e-mail saying that being a former Christian must be sad and that parents who pray for their children rather than seek medical treatment must have some degree of care for them.

Well no, actually, being a former Christian isn’t sad at all, it’s one of the best things that has ever happened to me.  That’s like asking a blind man who has just gotten surgery so he can see if losing his blindness is sad.  Hell no!  Finally being able to take a few steps in reality without the lead-soled shoes of religion was a great relief and every day that goes by, it becomes more clear that religion is a mind-poison that only gets in the way of an appreciation of the world around us.

As for the praying parents, I said that while I have no problem if you want to pray in addition to regular medical treatment, I’ve got no problem with it, but praying instead of providing normal treatment is child abuse.  They responded that missionaries and the like, people who don’t have access to major medical treatment, may feel that prayer is their only option but I pointed out that all of the cases in the news recently have been people who have had access but refused to use it.

They then said that it’s probably not abusive to tell children that God loves them.  Sure it is.  It’s always abusive to one degree or another to purposely lie to your children.  God doesn’t love them because there’s no reason to think God exists.  It’s about as pointless to tell children that God loves them as to say the Loch Ness Monster loves them.  Children need to be raised to respect and accept reality as it exists, not as their delusional parents wish it was.

This person didn’t like that and claimed that they were a “reality-based Christian” and went on to explain that they had no psychoses, neuroses, no OCD and no addictions.  I very much beg to differ.  If you’re an adult talking to an invisible friend, you’re most definitely psychotic and religion is an addiction, just like drugs and alcohol.  Again, they insisted that God is real, just look at the universe around you.  I fought rolling my eyes for a minute, then asked point-blank that if there is evidence, real evidence, that God is factually real, evidence that rests on a logical, rational basis, then present it.

I got back exactly what I was expecting, the mindless “look at your eye” nonsense, claiming that we’re all “biometric witnesses to God”.

Yeah, I laughed at that for a while.  Then I responded along the lines of “no, that’s evidence for naturalistic evolution, I thought you said you could prove God!”

The last response, the one I feel probably will be the last, simply did the “I hope you’re happy as a godless…” you know the drill, it’s what they pull when they’ve gotten backed into a corner and have nothing else worthwhile to say.  The only thing I could say in response is “I hope you’re happy being intellectually dishonest.”

Exactly what is it with theists who think this kind of argument is going to convince anyone?  Either the e-mailer is extremely young or extremely ignorant, or both.  It’s the equivalent of debating with “I know you are but what am I?”  They don’t know what the hell they’re talking about, they don’t know anything about their religion, they don’t know anything about science, they don’t know anything about life, they’re just vomiting ill-conceived drivel through the keyboard and expecting anyone to do anything but laugh at it.

I just don’t get theists.

Atheism, a Visual Presentation

Posted by Cephus as Atheism

Because you get a lot of theists saying atheists are evil, vile, uncivilized monsters who probably dine on roasted baby-flesh every night, let’s take a look at the facts.

No, I don’t expect it to sway the religious idiots either.

Definition of Terms: Atheism Redux

Posted by Cephus as Atheism

I’ve put off writing this, just because I wanted to see how things play out, but now that the hue and cry is mostly over, I wanted to weigh in with my own 49-cents, adjusting for inflation, on the subject of what atheism really is.  I’ve written about it before and my position is largely unchanged, but in light of recent posts in the blogosphere, might as well touch on the subject again.

I guess the current spate of posts started over on An Apostate’s Chapel and then continued, after a fashion, on You Made Me Say It, where PhillyChief makes the claim that atheism is not just the lack of belief in god(s), it’s the purposeful rejection of belief and claims about god(s).  There are a number of reasons why this is not and cannot be the case.

First, let’s look at it linguistically.  Words have meanings and if you violate those meanings, it is impossible to communicate clearly.  Theists try to redefine “atheism” into something it is not constantly because they want to cast atheists as an enemy, but without redefining “atheism” as a religion, they can’t simply turn around faith arguments and say “you have faith too”.

The prefix a- means, according to both American Heritage and Random House Dictionary, “not” or “without”, with the examples of amoral, atonal and achromatic.  I gave further examples of apolitical and asexual.  In none of these cases is there a purposeful rejection of the subject matter, in fact in most, such rejection isn’t even logically possible.  Asexual animals do not reject having a sex, they simply lack one.

If you want to talk about the purposeful rejection of theism, we already have a perfectly good prefix in the English language that one can use.  Someone who rejects theism on that basis is an anti-theist.

Secondly, let’s examine it from a political standpoint.  If we’re only going to count those who strongly reject beliefs in god(s) as atheists, we’re not going to have all that many atheists.  This is really why, when Christians count heads, they do so of all people who consider themselves Christians, even if there are major doctrinal differences.  It makes their numbers seem much larger, even if most sects consider all other sects to be wrong and often hellbound.  Currently, atheists represent a minority of the population, somewhere between 18-21%.  If we only count those who are actively rejecting beliefs in god(s), that number drops significantly.   Because numbers matter to theists, we need every percentage point we can get in order to demonstrate how strong the non-religious side actually is.

Further, if we allow atheism to be used as a religious analogue, we give some small credence to the theist claims that atheism is a religion.  That means that when they claim Stalin and Mao killed millions and they were atheists, the argument that their atheism had nothing to do with their actions because atheism has no creed, no code and no stance weakens.  Once atheism becomes an actual position, rather than a lack of one, it opens the door to theists blaming human ills on active disbelief, rather than simply non-belief.

Third, from a community standpoint.  Because of the above, if we want to reach out and include all atheists, we need to count not only those who are strong disbelievers, but those who simply have no interest in religion as well.

Our numbers are growing at an amazing rate and yes, many of us have rejected religion because it is illogical, irrational and downright stupid, but that’s only a portion of our numbers and we have to be careful not to exclude the rest.  I’m hoping for the day when atheists rank in the majority and the religious fundamentalists are functionally extinct.  That will be a day to celebrate, where we can finally stop bowing down to non-existent father figures in the sky, actually roll up our sleeves and get things done.  Hands that pray are useless, we need hands that are willing to work.  I look forward to the day when all atheists, those who strongly disbelieve and those who frankly don’t give a damn, can stand side by side and improve this planet.

That’s a goal worth working toward.

Religious school “witch hunts” in the UK?

Posted by Cephus as Education, Religion, Uncategorized

Christina Odone argues that the government in the UK is threatening to remove the autonomy of private religious schools and it bothers her.  In “Faith Schools Betrayed”, she argues that religious schools are inclusive and provide services to students that would otherwise miss out.  She goes so far as to suggest that they benefit Muslim female students whose parents would otherwise not allow them to be educated, apparently because Muslims view females as cattle.

However, that’s exactly why autonomy, at least in an absolute sense, isn’t a positive.  Muslim parents should not have the option to pull their female children out of school because of their religious views, education through the end of high school should be manditory for all regardless of religious views and beliefs.  When you choose to live in a society, you give up a certain degree of your autonomy for the common good.  In most modern societies, education for the young is absolutely required because educated people are better able to care for themselves and to provide a positive benefit to society as a whole.  In secular societies, which include pretty much everything outside the Middle East, a person’s religious rights need to be limited for the betterment of society.  Can you imagine living in a country where whatever the church said was law?  It would be a terribly stagnant, ignorant, stilted society without much hope of improvement because religion doesn’t change or grow or learn, it simply sits there stubbornly, demanding that it already has all the answers and anything else is evil.

So no, Christina, your faith schools don’t deserve autonomy, the education of the young is an essential element of government, and by extension, societal, importance that cannot be left to the ignorant religious masses who teach backwards beliefs and reject reality in favor of feel-good dogma.

I actually look forward to the day when religious schools are entirely eliminated and we can simply teach reality to everyone, not just the poor souls unfortunate enough not to have the money to land in a private religious academy.

Has Religion Earned Respect?

Posted by Cephus as Religion, Uncategorized

As happens so often, this comes from a debate where theists argue that their religious beliefs deserve respect, no matter how outlandish they might be.  Theists hold their beliefs in high esteem, but is that esteem warranted or is it just a load of hooey?

Robert Nola writes an excellent article on religion and respect which everyone should read because he spells out exactly what theists are really asking for and why they don’t deserve it.  I’d like to point out that I think the real problem is that theists are asking for the wrong thing.  What they really ought to want, and all they have a right to ask for, is some modicum of tolerance of their beliefs.

Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want, in fact it is impossible for me to stop anyone from believing anything, no matter how nonsensical it is.  I do not, however, have to respect the belief itself.  If you believe you’re really a giant anthropomorphic wombat, more power to you.  I think your belief is delusional and idiotic.  Deal with it.

So long as your delusional, idiotic belief is not harmful to you or those around you, however, I’m going to tolerate your right to believe as you wish.  You can expect that your non-harmful beliefs be tolerated in society and that no one attempt to take away your right to believe, or within reason, act upon your beliefs.  That is all you have a right to expect.

Unfortunately, what a lot of people want, and I’ve addressed this before, is validation in their beliefs.  They not only want to be allowed to believe as they wish, they want everyone else around them to tell them that their beliefs are valid.  Not only do the giant anthropomorphic wombats want to be allowed to believe their ridiculous nonsense, they want everyone to tell them their ridiculous nonsense is true.

Well it ain’t.  As much as you’re entitled to your own beliefs, you’re not entitled to your own facts.  If what you believe is unmitigated bullshit, then it is, no matter how strongly you believe it.  I’m not going to lie to you and tell you that it’s absolutely true because it might hurt your feelings to know the truth and you have no right to expect it.

Do I respect the rights of theists to believe in whatever stupid, imaginary friend they believe in?  Absolutely.  Do I respect the belief itself?  Hell no.  Am I going to tell them what I think of their beliefs if they ask?  Damn straight.  I’m completely justified in doing so and that’s life.  Deal with it.

10,000 B.C. is Bad Crap x 10,000

Posted by Cephus as TV/Movies

Like most Roland Emmerich films, this one, as Harlan Ellison once referred to ID4, is “a bonehead film”.  Unfortunately, unlike other Emmerich films like ID4, it isn’t a good bonehead film, it’s just idiotic.

As the ice age 10,000 years ago is ending, the Yagahi people struggle to survive as the last of the mammoth herds moves through their valley.  Evolet, a young girl whose tribe has been wiped out, comes to the Yagahi valley and captures the heart of D’Leh, a young boy who lives in shame because his father supposedly abandoned their people.  D’Leh pledges his heart to Evolet because… well… they don’t go into that, he just does.  Years later, D’Leh stands poised to take over leadership of the people and claim Evolet as his own when mysterious invaders on horseback ride through the village and capture most of the people to take them back to their masters from Atlantis who are building the pyramids.  D’Leh follows, taking the war leader of the tribe and a young boy, and building a massive army along the way, so he can rescue his true love.

Yeah, except it’s just boring the way he does it.  If you look at the DVD cover, they make a big deal about D’Leh facing down a sabertooth, like this plays a big part in the movie.  It doesn’t.  D’Leh saves a sabertooth from drowning and the sabertooth walks by him later, thus proving to another tribe that he’s the promised leader of legend.  Big deal.  Where does his “talking to sabertooths” legend come into play?  Surely even Emmerich could have seen the need for an army of sabertooths at the end, but no… that would make sense.

Likewise, the whole “Atlanteans building the pyramids” angle was dropped.  You had the guys with the golden fingernails playing gods, right up until D’Leh puts a spear through the head shrouded-guy and then… that’s all she wrote.  Uh… what?

The other thing that pissed me off is the complete disconnect in technology going on within a few days walk.  You’ve got the Yagahi people who just have wooden spears, the tribe on the other side of the mountain that’s got pretty decent metal-working technology, and the raiders who have fleets of ships and have domesticated horses and mammoths and are building the pyramids.  I was waiting for someone to pull out an AK-47 and start blasting people.

This movie isn’t just crap, it’s bucketloads of crap.  It makes M. Night Shama-lama-ding-dong’s works look good and that’s saying something.

Save your money, don’t bother renting it, it’ll just piss you off.

A Letter From Hell

Posted by Cephus as Religion

Oh look, they’re going to describe hell for us all now.  Yes, let’s blame teenagers for people going to hell because they didn’t force their silly religious beliefs on their friends.

Pathetic.