I didn't want to blog about this, but since the Freedom From Religion is taking a stance of willful ignorance, by not backing down despite hearing and viewing actual facts as to why their stance against the Holocaust Memorial in Ohio is simply wrong, I just have to add my two cents.
Nobody is more for separation of church and state than me, but when it comes to the Star Of David, an idiot can research it and find it is neither biblical or religious. Jews are a religion and/or ethnicity. When Hitler murdered Jews in Nazi Europe, he didn't ask if they were religious, let alone if they believed in God. So the argument that the Star violates of the First Amendment or separation of church and state is hooey, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't promote Judaism, nobody is going to see the Memorial and say, the USA has become a Jewish nation, nor will it in any way make anyone want to convert to Judaism.
David Silverman, President of American Atheists usually gets things right, but he overcompensates against Jews for being born an ethnic Jew (some sort of dissociation psychological disorder I think), and common sense gets thrown aside.
Here is a rational atheist, David Fincke's (Camel With Hammer) take on the subject.
Here is an irrational rant by David Silverman:
When a Fox News hot blonde wins a debate, it is time to reassess your position Silverman.
His point, and only point it seems, that more than one group were Holocaust victims and that they should be represented in the same way is ridiculous, and here is why: The Nazis put out a lot of propaganda, but the only films I remember seeing were those which made Jews out to be subhuman and the cause of every wrong in the world. There weren't films about blacks, gays, or Gypsies, just Jews.
Films like this, the Eternal Jew, not the Eternal Homosexual, were used to get the German people to go along with Hitler's plan:
As for the Star of David making the Memorial look like a synagogue, again just pure foolishness by Silverman. Did the Stars that Jews were forced to wear make the Jewish people look like synagogues.
Freedom from Religion Foundation, wake up and GET A LIFE!
Another excellent read on the subject: Atheists against the Ohio Holocaust memorial: How not to fight for separation of church and state
August 2, 2013
June 20, 2013
Wrong Rev, Non Believers Are Not Confused
Went to a funeral yesterday. My neighbour's brother died in a car accident. I met the him a few times at BBQs. He seemed quiet and nice. Struck down in his mid fifties. He got ripped off, he should have been on this planet longer.
The funeral service, unfortunately, was not about him very much, but was focused on Jesus and the afterlife.
The Rev told the crowd of 300 mourners that we were not there to mourn, but to embrace the fact that the deceased guy was now in heaven enjoying eternal bliss.
He might have been right about me, I wasn't really there to mourn, because I really didn't know the guy. But I wasn't there to celebrate nonsense either. I was there out of respect to my neighbour, and to support my wife who is good friends with the neighbour.
I found the "sermon" to border on the ridiculous. Rev mentioned non believers. He said that we are confused about life and death. I'm not confused at all. Science pretty well answers everything out there regarding life, and the idea of an afterlife simply makes no sense and has no evidence supporting it.
I really bit my lip, as I stood right in the back of the second room (big turnout), when Rev told everyone how we know Christianity is the right religion. Of course, it is because the Gospels tell us so. The same way it is the Gospels which tell us that there is eternal life. Rev used the story of Lazarus to make his point. I found it odd that he didn't know if the name of the sister that Jesus said "he is the resurrection" to was Mary or Martha. You'd figure he has used the example many times. It actually motivated me to look it up when I went home. Turns out that Lazarus had two sisters, one Martha and one Mary, but it was Martha who Jesus spoke with, according to the myth. I'm going to give Rev credit. I think he pretended not to know on purpose, to get his flock talking, and to get his non flock, like me, to look into it more. Or maybe he just didn't know.
So that is the Christian's evidence for life after death: A book written at least 200 years "after the fact." What I really giggled to myself about was when he said that Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life, proves the afterlife, and that Jesus could walk into this room right now if he wanted to.
Weird, that these people buy into a crock like this. Jesus apparently had the need to prove the afterlife just the one time, and ever since, doesn't seem to have the need, despite the growth of Islam, but more importantly the rise of the dreaded atheist population.
When you listen to stories from the bible from the perspective that they are children's fables for adults, it all makes too much sense.
The reality is that there is no more contemporary evidence for Jesus than there is for unicorns or Leprechauns. In fact, the earliest known Christian bible mentions nothing of a resurrection. The first believers in Jesus were Gnostic. He was a myth, so was Moses. When you die that is it. I'm OK with it. As time goes by, I'm more OK with it. Live your life to the fullest, it is your only one.
I did agree with Rev when making a point about forgiveness. Most of the things that we have anger over are trivial. Forget about it. But there are some things that are unforgivable (like terrorist acts), and even the Rev should acknowledge that, but he didn't, because it would hurt his narrative that pretty much whatever is done on earth is trivial because it is only a speck of time in relation to your eternal life, but you need to accept Jesus to ensure that life.
From the back of the service I could easily notice who was praying and who wasn't. I'd say that 1 out of 12 or 13 didn't bow their heads at times they were told to. Were they atheists or simply non religious? I don't know. They weren't likely to be Muslims or Jews, not in my neck of the woods. My wife, who is atheist (at least that is what she tells me) did bow her head, but she explained it was to not bring attention to herself. Makes no sense, because anyone who catches you is obviously not bowing their head and closing their eyes like a good little boy or girl is supposed to.
One last thing. Guys do think about sex at inappropriate. Near the end of the service, I had a vision of the Sopranos scene when Tony humps a Fundamentalist Christian at the work place over a desk. I don't know what prompted that, but a few hours later, we were all stunned by the news of the death of James Gandolfini. Was that some sort of sign? Now that would be confusing.
The funeral service, unfortunately, was not about him very much, but was focused on Jesus and the afterlife.
The Rev told the crowd of 300 mourners that we were not there to mourn, but to embrace the fact that the deceased guy was now in heaven enjoying eternal bliss.
He might have been right about me, I wasn't really there to mourn, because I really didn't know the guy. But I wasn't there to celebrate nonsense either. I was there out of respect to my neighbour, and to support my wife who is good friends with the neighbour.
I found the "sermon" to border on the ridiculous. Rev mentioned non believers. He said that we are confused about life and death. I'm not confused at all. Science pretty well answers everything out there regarding life, and the idea of an afterlife simply makes no sense and has no evidence supporting it.
I really bit my lip, as I stood right in the back of the second room (big turnout), when Rev told everyone how we know Christianity is the right religion. Of course, it is because the Gospels tell us so. The same way it is the Gospels which tell us that there is eternal life. Rev used the story of Lazarus to make his point. I found it odd that he didn't know if the name of the sister that Jesus said "he is the resurrection" to was Mary or Martha. You'd figure he has used the example many times. It actually motivated me to look it up when I went home. Turns out that Lazarus had two sisters, one Martha and one Mary, but it was Martha who Jesus spoke with, according to the myth. I'm going to give Rev credit. I think he pretended not to know on purpose, to get his flock talking, and to get his non flock, like me, to look into it more. Or maybe he just didn't know.
So that is the Christian's evidence for life after death: A book written at least 200 years "after the fact." What I really giggled to myself about was when he said that Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life, proves the afterlife, and that Jesus could walk into this room right now if he wanted to.
Weird, that these people buy into a crock like this. Jesus apparently had the need to prove the afterlife just the one time, and ever since, doesn't seem to have the need, despite the growth of Islam, but more importantly the rise of the dreaded atheist population.
When you listen to stories from the bible from the perspective that they are children's fables for adults, it all makes too much sense.
The reality is that there is no more contemporary evidence for Jesus than there is for unicorns or Leprechauns. In fact, the earliest known Christian bible mentions nothing of a resurrection. The first believers in Jesus were Gnostic. He was a myth, so was Moses. When you die that is it. I'm OK with it. As time goes by, I'm more OK with it. Live your life to the fullest, it is your only one.
I did agree with Rev when making a point about forgiveness. Most of the things that we have anger over are trivial. Forget about it. But there are some things that are unforgivable (like terrorist acts), and even the Rev should acknowledge that, but he didn't, because it would hurt his narrative that pretty much whatever is done on earth is trivial because it is only a speck of time in relation to your eternal life, but you need to accept Jesus to ensure that life.
From the back of the service I could easily notice who was praying and who wasn't. I'd say that 1 out of 12 or 13 didn't bow their heads at times they were told to. Were they atheists or simply non religious? I don't know. They weren't likely to be Muslims or Jews, not in my neck of the woods. My wife, who is atheist (at least that is what she tells me) did bow her head, but she explained it was to not bring attention to herself. Makes no sense, because anyone who catches you is obviously not bowing their head and closing their eyes like a good little boy or girl is supposed to.
One last thing. Guys do think about sex at inappropriate. Near the end of the service, I had a vision of the Sopranos scene when Tony humps a Fundamentalist Christian at the work place over a desk. I don't know what prompted that, but a few hours later, we were all stunned by the news of the death of James Gandolfini. Was that some sort of sign? Now that would be confusing.
February 28, 2013
Fox News Employs An Atheist
John Stossel may state he is agnostic, but he is as atheist as they come. It is surprising to me that Fox News would allow someone with a rational overall point of view to have pretty good air time:
Since the Pope and the Catholic church are back in the news, it is a good time to revisit the classic Louis CK exposure mockumentary about the Vatican:
Since the Pope and the Catholic church are back in the news, it is a good time to revisit the classic Louis CK exposure mockumentary about the Vatican:
February 4, 2013
41% of US Democrats Are Young Earth Creationists
I read an article by Michael Shermer, The Liberal's War On Science. I'm not going critique the article, just the title.
The paragraph that got my eye was this:
I'm going to assume that this poll includes the old age creationists as well, because it is my understanding that most of them accept dinosaurs were here first, but do not accept evolution because they too believe God created man less than 10,000 years ago.
Because of its anti-science platform, the GOP attracts Creationists, those against gay marriage, and those who want prayer in school. Since around 48% of Americans don't accept evolution, it is not shocking that 58% of Republicans are willfully ignorant YECs. Based on the US anti-evolution numbers, it isn't a shock that 41% of Democrats are YECs as well.
The biggest problem I have is that lets not confuse all Democrats with pro science liberals. Sure, most pro science liberals vote Democrat, but there are a lot of reasons to be Democrat, especially if you are poor and struggling. And yes, there is a correlation with being poor and being poorly educated.
How many welfare moms are going to vote Republican? Not many. Yet my guess is that many are churchgoing and/or collectively are not as well educated on average.
There are others who vote Democrat. Union members generally stay away from the GOP. And then you have government workers. It is natural to protect your livelihood and/or your personal needs ahead of your religious and worldview beliefs in many cases, especially if you lean towards the idea that government and religion should be separated.
There are gay Republicans, but not very many. But being born gay doesn't mean you automatically except evolution over the fairy tale ideas that God poofed Adam and Eve on this planet.
The main thing is that the Democrat platform and its leaders stand for separation of church and state light years more than the Republicans do. But not all Democrats are Progessives, or Liberals or whatever other name the marginalized Right wants to attach to someone who accepts reality versus those who don't.
What I find encouraging is that 42% of Republicans are not knuckledraggers when it comes to evolution.
The paragraph that got my eye was this:
A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer.
I'm going to assume that this poll includes the old age creationists as well, because it is my understanding that most of them accept dinosaurs were here first, but do not accept evolution because they too believe God created man less than 10,000 years ago.
Because of its anti-science platform, the GOP attracts Creationists, those against gay marriage, and those who want prayer in school. Since around 48% of Americans don't accept evolution, it is not shocking that 58% of Republicans are willfully ignorant YECs. Based on the US anti-evolution numbers, it isn't a shock that 41% of Democrats are YECs as well.
The biggest problem I have is that lets not confuse all Democrats with pro science liberals. Sure, most pro science liberals vote Democrat, but there are a lot of reasons to be Democrat, especially if you are poor and struggling. And yes, there is a correlation with being poor and being poorly educated.
How many welfare moms are going to vote Republican? Not many. Yet my guess is that many are churchgoing and/or collectively are not as well educated on average.
There are others who vote Democrat. Union members generally stay away from the GOP. And then you have government workers. It is natural to protect your livelihood and/or your personal needs ahead of your religious and worldview beliefs in many cases, especially if you lean towards the idea that government and religion should be separated.
There are gay Republicans, but not very many. But being born gay doesn't mean you automatically except evolution over the fairy tale ideas that God poofed Adam and Eve on this planet.
The main thing is that the Democrat platform and its leaders stand for separation of church and state light years more than the Republicans do. But not all Democrats are Progessives, or Liberals or whatever other name the marginalized Right wants to attach to someone who accepts reality versus those who don't.
What I find encouraging is that 42% of Republicans are not knuckledraggers when it comes to evolution.
January 9, 2013
Pat Condell On The Palestinians
Pat Condell hit another home run in the following video where he points out that Palestinians get a free pass for their behaviour because they are not held to the same standards as Israeli Jews:
Condell blames the collective attitude by the West as racism. The West doesn't expect Palestinians and other Arabs to behave like normal Western human beings would.
I agree with that this is a major element but I also agree with Why Evolution Is True that there is a "traditional sympathy of liberals for the perceived underdog."
I also believe that there is also a faction of anti-semites within the Far Left that overlook "inconvenient facts" when it comes to Israel.
If you don't agree with Condell, then why is Israel such a focus of hatred and criticism when a lot more deaths and murders or innocents have come out of Darfur and more recently Syria? It is because we collectively expect barbaric behaviour from Arabs and/or Muslims. And besides, there aren't many if any Jews involved in the Syria or Darfur conflicts either.
Condell blames the collective attitude by the West as racism. The West doesn't expect Palestinians and other Arabs to behave like normal Western human beings would.
I agree with that this is a major element but I also agree with Why Evolution Is True that there is a "traditional sympathy of liberals for the perceived underdog."
I also believe that there is also a faction of anti-semites within the Far Left that overlook "inconvenient facts" when it comes to Israel.
If you don't agree with Condell, then why is Israel such a focus of hatred and criticism when a lot more deaths and murders or innocents have come out of Darfur and more recently Syria? It is because we collectively expect barbaric behaviour from Arabs and/or Muslims. And besides, there aren't many if any Jews involved in the Syria or Darfur conflicts either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)