Quantum Sagas

Richard Dawkins Interview

Salon.com has a fantastic interview with evolutionary biologist (and atheist) Richard Dawkins in which he discusses the weaker traits of religion, the dangers of non-thought, and mentions his upcoming book: The God Delusion. A very admirable man, indeed.

[S] What are the dark sides of religion today?

[RD] Terrorism in the Middle East, militant Zionism, 9/11, the Northern Ireland "troubles," genocide, which turns out to be "credicide" in Yugoslavia, the subversion of American science education, oppression of women in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and the Roman Catholic Church, which thinks you can't be a valid priest without testicles.

A perfect example of the inability to apply reason: The Magi Society (Interestingly enough, I happened across this link while searching for more info on Dawkins. Someone is wasting their money on advertising.)

Not sure if this is a shill for religion or not, since you would have to buy the book to know what it is even about (the creator of this marvelous doorstop precociously claims that the book will resolve all of the unknowns for which current scientific theories fail... but if you read the website, it becomes clear that the author doesn't understand the very theories that he claims are failing our understanding. Ironic. This is what happens when people can't comprehend dimensions greater than three or numbers higher than 10. Judging by the incredibly cheesy image of a sunset on the front of the book, I'm sure the the almighty workings of a god pop up somewhere in the text, the sunset being a testament to beauty that can only occur when divine beings are involved, despite the fact that colored skies at sunset are easily explained.): Something to wipe your ass with when you run out of Charmin.

One more... $1 for every instance of hypocrisy found on this page. (I'm just kidding, of course I'm not that rich): Bibleland Studios (aka - Prime candidate for Something Awful's "Awful Link of the Day.") Just one question, why is the directory for the main page called "nuke?"

What shitty logic we have in Jesus.

Apparently, 1 + 1 = 2, but it could also = 6, depending on how senseless you are. Oh, and also, 2 + 2 = Jesus, and 6 + 6 + 6 = 0, or Islam.

Critics of Intelligent Math are concerned that it is erroneous and should not be taught in schools since it will lower the educational standards of the nation's children. However, Professor Gibbet was defensive: "On the contrary, using Intelligent Math, it is possible to show that all numbers are equivalent and so, in the context of an exam, there are no wrong answers. Hence each pupil will increase their score to 100 per cent ...which of course equals 300 per cent."

What??!!! Why bother even taking the test, then, since you are guaranteed to pass no matter what answers you use? For that matter, let's just stop educating children in schools altogether. After all, everything you could possibly know about the universe can be fed to you by evangelists. Let's see them try to convince the bank that 1 = 3, next time they need a loan to build whatever denomination church is popular at the moment.

What is happening here? Why are these religious kooks trying to undermine all of the accepted standards that society has adopted to make sense of the world around them? They already have their own set of standards, and yet they push to consume the rest. I can almost hear Descartes spinning in his grave.

While slightly unnecessary...

...the UCC has willingly accepted Spongebob. While the video featuring Spongebob Squarepants is relatively innocuous, somebody needed to put James "Contemptible" Dobson in his place.

If people choose religion as a structure for living life morally, and do so in the interest of the good of humanity, then I can respect that. When, however, people choose religion as an apparatus for exclusion and isolation, we should not consider them faithful. We'll not get tangled up in the lack of deductive and inductive reasoning in the existence of a deity.

The greatest irony.

As if the existence of this site (The Presidential Prayer Team) wasn't enough cause for lament, the group invokes the names of great men (quite unlike Bush) who wrought this country out of utilitarian ideals, and for the good of humanity, in an effort to support the necessity to pray for the Administration. These are men who immediately recognized the need to refrain from mixing politics and religion, realizing the dangerous implication that a government based upon religious conviction would be improperly compelled to issue policy based upon personal, ill-adopted ideals rather than for the good of the society.

There is an especially broad misuse of quotation in this, featured as the "Presidential Quote for the Week":

Enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter - with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? --Thomas Jefferson

Would that the combination of current Administration policies and the religious application thereof be instrumental in "inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man," then perhaps the quote would be applicable -- but clearly these are virtues all but unknown to the current State. But, as sociologists will tell us: monkey-see, monkey-do, monkey-deceived, monkey-believe, and so any sense of honesty intended to be instilled throughout society has been nullified by lack of proper example-setting on the part of those who would profess to carry out unethical acts in the name of the State and of God. Thomas Jefferson also stated, (1782, "Notes on the State of Virginia"):

The first elements of morality too may be instilled in their minds; such as, when further developed as their judgments advance in strength, may teach them how to work out their own greatest happiness, by shewing them that it does not depend on the condition of life in which chance has placed them, but is always the result of a good conscience, good health, occupation, and freedom in all just pursuits. --Thomas Jefferson

In that happiness depends upon health (whose hyper-priced, essential service all but requires government assistance), occupation (that depends on the status of the economy and the willingness of the government to assist those who struggle find work), and individual freedom (which can be and commonly is restricted to a limited range of those acceptable freedoms not in conflict with extra-personal ideals), we are not supporting a government which fosters these core values of the intended American culture.

So perhaps the greatest irony of the situation is the fact that the faith with which these prayers go out is going out to a political leader whose "faith-based" policies are, in fact, of a different kind of religion (quite the antithesis) then that which these prayers would espouse. I am no Christian, but neither is George Bush.

"Children are supposed to be whiny, foaming-at-the-mouth, Xtian bigots (redundant); just like us!"

Admittedly there are some questions about Spongebob's sexual orientation, having a starfish for a best friend, but as someone who has watched the show frequently, never have I considered it as being a secret advocate for 'gay propaganda.' The show itself is humorous and bright, in a silly way, and is meant to be fun. The description of Spongebob's character from the Nickelodeon web page:

SpongeBob is a sea sponge who lives with his pet snail, Gary, in a fully furnished, two bedroom...pineapple. SpongeBob's dream in life is to be the ocean's ultimate fry cook, and thanks to his job flipping Krabby Patties at the Krusty Krab, he lives that dream every day. SpongeBob is as optimistic and earnest as a sea-dwelling sponge gets, but he can't seem to avoid getting himself - and usually everyone else around him - into trouble. While trying too hard, he tends to do things wrong - really wrong - which usually spells disaster. But SpongeBob's always looking on the bright side of life, and his enthusiasm about just about everything make him downright irresistible.

Just because he's enthusiastic doesn't mean that he's gay. I've never seen an episode where Spongebob admits a 'most intimate secret' to his best friend, Patrick, in an effort to deal with the eternal struggle that is being homosexual. The most serious episodes usually deal with something like Spongebob unable to get his driver's license...

But Xtians are not talking about the show or Spongebob in vague terms, but more specifically, a video where Spongebob and other cartoon characters are dancing to the tune of "We are Family," intended to teach children about multiculturalism. The problem, according to the We Are Family Foundation, is that to promote tolerance for everyone (race, gender, culture, etc.), you have to include ALL walks of life, and if that means including homosexuals, then so be it. Despite the fact that the video's intention is not to "brainwash children," as the crazy Xtians would have us believe, it also includes other characters from popular children's programs -- like Big Bird. Why would the defensive Xtians choose Spongebob? Sesame Street has been around for so long, and has ALWAYS promoted the family spirit among people from all cultures. There would be more of a question in my mind about Bert and Ernie than about Spongebob Squarepants. But that's not the point. The point here is that it doesn't matter. If the foundation sees it fit to promote tolerance, they are doing society good. We don't want children growing up to be Xtian bigots, we want them to have love and respect for one another as true Christians would. But I guess when your Xtian ideals don't look so good to newcomers, your religious base is on the decline, and you are upset about it, you need to get defensive and claw at the quicksand for a brief breath before re-descending into the dark depths that is the Xtian mind view.

A Creation Museum... Really??

In Petersburg, KY, in the near future, everyone will be able to visit the Creation Museum, a collection of historically inaccurate displays (including dinosaurs??), which are presented as being historically accurate (while having no problem with being represented as such, by the creators of the museum.) This can be shown in the following statement on the "FAQ" page:

2. What is so different about this museum? Almost all natural-history museums proclaim an evolutionary, humanistic worldview. For example, they will typically place dinosaurs on an evolutionary time-line millions of years before man. AiG’s museum will proclaim the authority and accuracy of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and will show that there is a Creator, and that this Creator is Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:15-20), who is our Savior.

In other words, while verifiable information (evolution) would hope to display the natural order of history within the past 250 million years, the Creationism Museum seeks to undermine that information by supposing that natural history took place in, say, the past 6,000 years or so. It is a sad, sad, day for Christianity when its supporters feel the need to materialize defenses of their beliefs. What is even more sad and sadly ironic is the fact that, were Christians really to uphold the teachings of their Jesus Christ, the $25 million that goes towards the erection of the "museum" would go to help those less fortunate, who might better benefit from it. After all, AiG (Answers in Genesis, the group who is at the head of this project) is "thoroughly committed to proclaiming Biblical truths and reaching the world for the cause of Christ." Another aspect of this irony is that AiG's board of directors is entirely composed of 10 men. No suffering from lack of creativity there. I can just see the "exhibits" now:

And over here, we have the history of women from biblical times (you know, the beginning of everything), to modern day... Notice the transition from being barefoot and pregnant over a live-fire hearth, to being barefoot and pregnant over an induction stove.

Your tin-foil hat is blocking your chakra.

Ten dollars says that this guy has blaze-orange boulders in his yard. My personal favorite is the section entitled "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People?" (Is it a question or a statement?) In this gem, there are (seemingly) external links to other sites of various high levels of web-graphic gag-factor in which the author(s) (whose "prose" is suspiciously like the original site's) both prove(??) that "science proves religion [sic]", and attempts(??) to explain whether or not humanity has free will. Honestly, I couldn't slog through all of the approximately 13,203e+104 adjectives, new-age buzzwords, and meta-physical car-salesman talk, and the repeating pictures of Jesus were enough to make me avert my eyes. I see many references, however, to both science being intuitive and counter-intuitive to religion. It is my belief that even if one were to spend 3.7 years (Alert all Senators! That is perfect filibuster material.) reading all of the verbatim "How to Find Jesus through Crochet and Meatpacking" text, after five minutes of mental reflection, the reader would simply think, "What?!"

These smoke & mirrors tactics serve to confuse the impressionable, and through the appearance that understanding is a challenge, would seek to recruit the simple-minded in envy of understanding.

Directed from here: Something Awful

A Note on Xmas

Here is a short piece on the better 90% of Xmas, written by Robert Ingersoll, as posted on ffrf's Freethought of the Day:

“The good part of Christmas is not always Christian..."

Is it sensible to go our separate (a)religious ways?

In some sense, I agree with John Horgan of the NYT when he says that we "unbelievers" should all "...set an example by going in the opposite direction," for the simple reason that, by banding together, we look like activists doing no better than pushing (defending out of doubt) our "values" upon others. However, what is the church of the religious, but a social convention where people of similar faith can join together in reinforcement? The reason that religious "values" seem so appealing at the moment is merely because those "values" are currently being misrepresented. For this atheist is more of a christian than most christians I know. It's the altruism, stupid. That aside, I believe the "unbelievers" should focus on gathering for betterment, rather than squabbling for (a)religious majority. For we are the informed explorers who can serve to better humanity through reason and purpose, and should never need to seek out vindication of our ideals. Knowing the truth, one does not have a necessity to inform the ignorant. If we are to become a majority, we should do so out of the common factor of our knowledge, not striving to become king of the hill.

It's wonderful to have purpose, but with so many activist groups, it might as well be every individual voice screaming at each other in unison.

The future is just around the corner, but we can't make that turn until we stop pulling each other in different directions.

Notes on the "Founding Fathers"

For those who invoke the ubiquitous names of the founding fathers to support church-state integration:

Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State