Americans Are Great Except Too Many Deny Reality

I really like Americans, I always have. I love NFL football, the TV shows, the music (well up to around the mid 80's), their patriotism, and a lot more. But for the life of me, I don't understand how such a well educated country can be so out to lunch when it comes to accepting evolution and an ancient earth.

The USA ranks 33 out of 34 Western countries when it comes to acceptance of evolution.
Turkey (the only majority Muslim country in the survey), ranked 34th. Canada was not included in the survey. Iceland was ranked first followed by Denmark, Sweden, France, Japan and the UK, as far as acceptance of evolution is concerned. I have to think Canada ranks around where the UK ranks.

Now for some good news. Well sort of. This shouldn't have been an issue in the first place:

December 20, 2006
Cobb County, Georgia gets unstuck

Cobb County, the affluent suburb of Atlanta that made news by plastering "warning stickers" on textbooks telling students that evolution is "a theory, not a fact" has abandoned its legal battle to keep the stickers. It's a small victory for common sense and rational thinking.

In a settlement announced Tuesday in federal court, the Cobb County Board of Education agreed never to use any similar "stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions or other warnings," or to undermine the teaching of evolution in science classes.
MORE here and some MORE here.

It is mind numbing that this sticker was even placed in science texts:


The Cobb county debate was a highlight of Penn and Teller's Creationism is Nonsense show. At the time it was filmed, the creationists had won the right to put those retarded sticker on the science books. This is fun to watch again. It shows how little creationists know about science and how much they'll evade or chastize science that doesn't agree with the written "word of God"(the biggest scam perpetuated on mankind):

"Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion." - Superintendent Chalmers

Now for some absolute MIND NUMBING NEWS (H/T Louie from Everything Is Pointless):

How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say
Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology
By: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
Published: Dec 28, 2006 at 08:34

Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is �no comment.'"

MORE and some MORE about the background here.

This has to be embarrassing for the majority of Americans. At least I hope so.

What is next? Will NASA not be allowed to publicly state how old the universe is? Will they have to state light years in ranges between 6,000 and hundreds of millions(for example), every time they refer to a measurement?

Here is some satire on the Grand Canyon story.

And watch how Dr. Dino (Ken Hovind) deals with the issue in front of the mindless sheep in his audience:



Finally, real science, for those interested in the "debate" about the age of the Grand Canyon.

Back To Morality

A couple of posts ago I did a piece on morality that got pretty good response.
I gave readers a rating system and a series of 11 questions that pretty much popped into my head over a 20 minute period. I'm not trying to pretend I'm a philosopher or an expert on morality.

Two things. It was not an empirical study; it was a casual quiz. I was not collecting data, merely openly comparing results. Secondly, the purpose of the quiz was to prove that everyone has a different concept of what the DEFINITION of morality is. I wanted to illustrate that the DEFINITION of morality is SUBJECTIVE, not that morality is subjective....this is a different idea. My point is that unless we can make the DEFINITION of morality OBJECTIVE we cannot even attempt to answer whether morality in itself is objective or subjective.

I hope that isn't confusing.

Speaking about confusing, I think I sort of confused a few people like The Ethicist Atheist (he is really the Atheist Ethicist, but he calls me the Jewish Atheist, so this is my revenge). He wrote a blog entry ripping me to shreds I think, and I think he was implying I'm stupid or something like that, but I can't really tell because I can tell by his writing that he is smarter than me, and by the fact that I find a lot of what he writes hard to comprehend and follow. I believe he was confused about what I was trying to prove (once more, that the definition of morality is subjective). He wrote a further piece that gives me the impression that he finally got what I was trying to say. I did leave a few comments on his blog. And even though I was tempted, I didn't whip out the thesaurus to sound smarter.

I started a thread about the definition of morality being subjective over at Raving Atheists. Feel free to read it. It does get off topic and bizarre at one point.

If you are still here, now for the fun part. I would like to see your definition of morality. Try to make it as broad or concise as you feel you need to make it, and post it in my comments.

To help everyone along, I'll give you my refined definition:

The parameters in my definition are that any act that anyone on this planet deems to be a moral or immoral act is one that I have to address as either moral or immoral to at least some degree.

That being said, to me, a moral act is an act that is not immoral. And an immoral act is an act as an act that causes the individual committing the act any degree of guilt and/or an act that was done maliciously or selfishly or unlawfully that causes any degree of hurt or grief onto another living being.

Oh and the guilt can't be caused by failure of motor skills (a dropped ball in a football game) or the guilt caused by failing to do a job properly when the intent was to be successful and not to screw up.

Now, your idea of of what morality might be what you think God or Jesus or Allah thinks you should do in any given situation, or it could be simply not breaking the laws of the state, or it might be a combination. It could also have to do with what is evolutionary beneficial.


Besides giving an exact definition of morality, you can also mention where you think morality comes from. To me, I think it is mostly innate and evolutionary in origin, and partially based on societal laws (that are really offshoots of what is innate).

Oh and the point of this. Unless someone defines morality, they have no business making statements like "Atheists have no morals," or "Atheists have no real basis or guidelines for morality."

Reached The 100,000 Visitor Mark

Click cartoon to enlarge it:



The first year of blogging was slow. I made a post a week, and got very few visitors. Here is my 50,000 visitor post from June 30th this year.
Things changed early this year as some of the bigger bloggers out there discovered me, and now I get between 200 and 300 visitors a day on average. I probably get a good 20-30% of visitors from Google searches. Number 100,000 was doing a "Steve Irwin atheist" search. There is no indication Stevo was an atheist, but obviously I am, and I wrote a tribute to him when he died.
Some of the word searches that have got me visitors are hysterical, but I haven't written them down, so you'll have to take my word for it.




Thanks to everyone, especially my regular visitors. You two know who you are:)

Casual Morality Test

It is tiresome when I read that Atheists are not moral, or cannot be moral, or have no moral code. The biggest problem with the idea of morality is that, like snowflakes, no two people agree on what exactly morality is, and what exactly is an immoral act. The definition of morality is totally subjective.
I define an immoral act as an act that causes the individual committing the act any degree of guilt and/or an act that was done maliciously or selfishly that causes any degree of hurt or grief onto another living being.
I'm 100% certain that everyone who reads this has a different idea about what is moral and immoral. But that is my premise.
Now, to prove it. Here is a casual quiz. You can put your answers into the comments here, or just walk away knowing I'm right:)...............as usual.

Rate every statement from 1-10 where 10 is a moral act and 1 is as immoral as you can get. Also, a 0 would mean the question doesn't have enough info. And NA would mean you don't find the question to be a moral issue. An 8 or 9 would be slightly immoral.

1. An unmarried woman had sex with a man who she is no longer seeing and became pregnant and has an early abortion. How immoral or moral was the act of the abortion?

2. An unmarried woman gets violently raped by an escaped convict and becomes pregnant and has an early abortion. How immoral or moral was the act of the abortion?


3. Premarital sex?

4. You are 18 and you take a few tokes from an illegal marijuana joint?

5. You are married with young children and walking the dog, and see a really sexy person. On your way back home you start fantasizing about having sex with this person, and when having sex with your partner, you pretend your partner is that person?

6. Killing a a career criminal who is caught on tape robbing and killing a clerk in a convenience store, by lethal injection?

7. Killing a harmless daddy long legs spider that was in your bedroom?

8. Living together before marriage?

9. Telling a loved one he or she looks great when you don't think that is the case, just so that person won't spend money at a spa because you don't think the spa will help?

10. Finding $5000 in the attic, 3 years after you moved into a new home and not trying to contact the former owner?

11. Not feeding a dying relative who has terminal cancer and is in endless pain when it is their wish not to be fed.


I had to do this post after losing a few braincells "debating" with a couple of theistic "scholars" over at Christ Matters: Politics That Matter To Him.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

Christmas to me, is as relevant as Halloween. I'm not for banning either. It is a great time for Christians on the planet to hook up with their families and boost the economy by buying presents. It is also a good time to diss certain relatives (by not buying them gifts or not inviting them to Christmas gatherings).

Most people who have done any research at all realize that Christmas can't be Jesus' birthday, by the way the NT is written and the "clues" of his birth. Of course, no date was mentioned in the bible to make it easy for the Christians to have a date to celebrate Christ's "real" birthdate....this would make things too easy.

Maybe, it is because the NT is just a story. Finding Christ's birthdate in the NT is like finding the state that the Simpson's hometown of Springfield is located in. The difference being that it is a running joke in the Simpsons.
The real reason that December 25th was picked as Jesus' birthday was to usurp the Mithra celebration for the birthday of the sun....that is sun, not son.

As far as Christmas being an American constitutional or even Protestant thingy, I think you should read this from Wikipedia:

The Reformation and the 1800s

During the Reformation, Protestants condemned Christmas celebration as "trappings of popery" and the "rags of the Beast". The Catholic Church responded by promoting the festival in an even more religiously oriented form. Following the Parliamentary victory over King Charles I during the English Civil War, England's Puritan rulers banned Christmas, in 1647. Pro-Christmas rioting broke out in several cities, and for several weeks Canterbury was controlled by the rioters, who decorated doorways with holly and shouted royalist slogans.[21] The Restoration of 1660 ended the ban, but most of the Anglican clergy still disapproved of Christmas celebrations, using Protestant arguments.

In Colonial America, the Puritans of New England disapproved of Christmas; its celebration was outlawed in Boston from 1659 to 1681. At the same time, residents of Virginia and New York celebrated the holiday freely. Christmas fell out of favor in the United States after the American Revolution, when it was considered an English custom.

By the 1820s, sectarian tension in England had eased and British writers began to worry that Christmas was dying out. They imagined Tudor Christmas as a time of heartfelt celebration, and efforts were made to revive the holiday. Charles Dickens' book A Christmas Carol, published in 1843, played a major role in reinventing Christmas as a holiday emphasizing family, goodwill, and compassion over communal celebration and hedonistic excess.[22]

During the early part of the 19th century, interest in Christmas in America was revived by several short stories by Washington Irving in The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon and "Old Christmas", which depicted harmonious warm-hearted holiday traditions Irving claimed to have observed in England. Although some argue that Irving invented the traditions he describes, they were imitated by his American readers.[23] The numerous German immigrants and the homecomings following the American Civil War helped promote the holiday by bringing with them continental European Christmas traditions still upheld in Catholic and Lutheran countries on the continent. Christmas was declared a U.S. federal holiday in 1870.

Any hoot, I don't celebrate Christmas because I'm a Jew. In fact, I'm the only house on my block without Christmas lights. But I do understand the meaning of Christmas, probably a lot more than most Christians.

Once again. MERRY CHRISTMAS: