uberkuh

From religulousmovie.net:

With religious fanatics like George Bush and Osama bin Laden now taking over the world, it seemed to me in recent years that this issue—this cause of debunking the man behind the curtain—needed to have a larger, more insistent and focused forum than late night television. I wanted to make a documentary, and I wanted it to be funny. In fact, since there is nothing more ridiculous than the ancient mythological stories that live on as today’s religions, this movie would try to be a real knee slapper. Unless, of course, you’re religious, then you might not like it.

When Atheists Attack

“Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this child’s brain?”

“Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I’m an avid hunter.”

“But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a surgeon of any kind.”

“That’s just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how we make medical decisions in this country. And when faced with a challenge, you cannot blink.”

The Turkish government has forbidden its residents from accessing richarddawkins.net, thanks to complaints by Islamic creationist author and convicted felon Adnan Oktar (a.k.a. Harun Yahya (a.k.a. Adnan Hoca)). Goddamn, pick a name, already.

I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy nailed to two pieces of wood.

-George Carlin

From here:

“Faith is not based on science,” Mr. Campbell said. “And science is not based on faith. I don’t expect you to ‘believe’ the scientific explanation of evolution that we’re going to talk about over the next few weeks.”

“But I do,” he added, “expect you to understand it.”

I applaud Mr. Campbell and Florida’s Department of Education for embracing evolution as a fundamental part of science education. And I understand Mr. Campbell’s strategy behind his presentation. However, I cannot agree with his reasoning.

Faith is always based on something and that something is always a product of our experience, even if it does not exist. Faith, like any mental construct, is experiential. And because it is experiential, it is, like any mental construct, amenable to scientific exploration.

So, while faith might not be based on science, it is misleading to imply, as Mr. Campbell seems to be doing, that faith is not open to scientific scrutiny.

As an aside, I noticed from this graphic that Florida stands out as a progressive Southern state, while Iowa unfortunately stands out for the opposite reasons (i.e., northern and regressive).

In a recent radio interview with David Mills (mp3), a 70-year-old man called in and argued, in part, that he was not trying to convert David to Christianity. A following caller supported this position while criticizing David for calling certain biblical beliefs, like the belief in a 6,000-year-old Earth, ridiculous. Let me ask you something. Is it possible for someone with a given belief to argue for that belief without also implicitly trying to convince the opposition to accept that belief as true?

If I am arguing for a belief and I admit that I accept that belief as true, then how can I possibly truthfully claim not to be defending that belief? I don’t see how I could possibly remain neutral in this case. If I believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years young and you believe that it’s millions of years old, then I cannot argue that it is so young without, at the same time, trying to convince you of that belief. Just can’t happen.

Gunman critically wounds 7 in Tennessee church

George Carlin explains:

“Do you believe in god?”

“Yes.”

“Do you believe in my god?”

“No.”

BAM! Dead!

I must share with you an admittedly kooky, but strangely reasonable, thought that struck me today. It is that evolution is proof of sin! Well, sin doesn’t exist. But if it did, then evolution would be proof of its existence.

Here is my reasoning. Because we and our environment are constantly coevolving, we are forced to constantly adapt to evolving environmental demands. It evolves. We evolve. It evolves. We evolve. And so on it goes, round and round, always changing and, sometimes, arguably progressing.

Enter sin. Sin is basically a genetic flaw or imperfection, right? And the need to constantly adapt means that we are genetically imperfect. (I would actually argue against the employment of imperfection as a valid concept here, but let’s pretend for now that it makes sense.) So the need to constantly evolve means that we are sinful by nature!

What good is this little revelation? (As an aside, I’m pretty sure without looking it up that some liberal Christian, somewhere, has argued this point before.) As a representative, if you will, of Atheism, you can tell theists that evolution must exist because sin exists (to them, anyway).