The Atheocracy

A Christian group called “The Resistance,” having solved all other God-related problems in the world, has turned its considerable ire toward Starbucks, which recently re-introduced its original logo from 1971 as part of an attempt to …. well, I don’t know what, really. I assume it’s to make people nostalgic when they walk in and think they’re not paying $4 for a cup of coffee. Anyway, this guy Mark Dice had this to say about the old logo …

“The Starbucks logo has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute. Need I say more? It’s extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks.“

In addition, “The Resistance” is apparently calling for a Starbucks boycott, something I suspect would have considerable caffeine-related consequences across the country. And because I’m all about full disclosure, I thought I’d let you, my faithful reader, decide whether Dice has a point before I tell you why he’s an idiot …

It appears to me that it’s a topless mermaid, holding the ends of her fins, which look somewhat like fried shrimp (mmmmmmm …..). Does anybody besides Dice look at this and see something that looks like a “prostitute”? I mean, it’s a friggin’ mermaid. The entire point of a mermaid is that she doesn’t, ya know, have legs and, thus, is incapable of spreading them. She also appears to be some sort of queen mermaid, considering that crown on her head. Either that, or she just came from Burger King and is looking for her post-Whopper frappuccino.

But can this guy possibly be serious? And is anybody buying it? And does anybody else think the mermaid actually has legs to spread? And does anybody else think the mermaid is hot?

I thought this headline was fitting, seeing as Dinesh D’Souza used the header of “Atheism and Child Murder” to his post at AOL talking about some nutbag atheist named Peter Singer, who chose to debate D’Souza about the existence of God. D’Souza laments the fact that, in the debate, Singer wanted to talk about the chosen topic of God vs. No God, not his extremist views about abortion and killing children who are less than a month old. In his post, D’Souza says nothing about how the debate topic went but focuses on Singer’s opinions about killing children and then relates them to Singer’s lack of belief in God.

Given the connection that Singer draws between atheism and child murder, using the former as his premise to recommend the latter, I wonder if our atheist friends are going to rush to embrace this guy as one of their heroes. Is Singer showing us where the road to complete secularism actually leads?

Ooooo! Ooooo! I know the answer! No. Thanks for asking, though.

Of course, D’Souza doesn’t tell us anything about how Singer draws a “connection … between atheism and child murder,” unless his assertion is that the connection is innate since Singer is, in fact, an atheist. But if that’s the case, since I don’t think child murder is an especially good idea (unless that child is kicking the back of your seat on an airplane … then, all bets are off), that would seem to make a connection between atheism and not murdering children. Oh, those wacky Christians and their baby-murdering ways.

I suppose, though, that D’Souza is just trying to strengthen his case by saying something (well, several things, in fact) that aren’t exactly true. Singer, off his rocker as he is, didn’t make any sort of a connection, at least not one D’Souza mentions. D’Souza also says this …

Unlike the pusillanimous Richard Dawkins, who doesn’t dare to debate me even at his home campus of Oxford, Singer was brave to come to a Christian campus to dispute the resolution “God: Yes or No.”

There’s a fine line between brave and stupid, but this very post gives a pretty decent explanation for why Dawkins (whose methods and rhetoric I often don’t much care for) doesn’t take up D’Souza’s offer. D’Souza will try to change the subject if he can, then spin the results of the debate however he wishes. Nothing will be solved, and D’Souza gets what he wants regardless: an appearance of legitimacy in the eyes of science, or at least a famous scientist. Debating against faith is a worthless endeavor, and the faithful pretty much realize this as well. But it serves their purposes to appear scientific so they can strengthen their cause to muscle creationism into science classes.

Oh, and there’s one more interesting statement from D’Souza …

So while Christianity introduced into Western civilization the concept of dignity of human life, Singer explicitly says we have to get rid of this outdated concept. He contends that God is dead and we should recognize ourselves as Darwinian primates who enjoy no special status compared to the other animals.

That first sentence doesn’t seem quite right to me. Kant and Pufendorf both pushed forward the thoughts of Cicero that human dignity came from reason, and that lays obligations upon us. All this had nothing to do with Christianity, but whatever. As far as the second part of this statement, this seems like an overstatement to make Singer sound even more extreme than he is. No atheist believes God is dead. If they did, they wouldn’t be an atheist because, to acknowledge that God is dead is to acknowledge that God existed, even if he isn’t currently alive and kicking. And he falls back on the old trick to use “Darwinian” in a pejorative way, suggesting that Darwin would have approved of Singer’s thoughts on child killing.

Personally, I don’t think we have any “special status” on this planet, except in our own minds. It serves every specie’s purposes to think it’s special in some way, so they can concentrate on their own survival, all others be damned. Luckily, the food chain tends to favor egotistical actions, as long as some animal like people doesn’t have huge bombs that can just destroy everything. That could cause some problems. But I think it’s tough to say we’re some sort of favored specie when our behavior toward our own planet is rather parasitical in nature.

Anyway, can anybody find a Christian for me who strangles dolphins? There’s gotta be one out there. I’m looking to draw a connection.

I was reading along the Internets when I ran across this story from the Dallas Morning News about a guy near Chicago who wants to change his name to “In God We Trust.” Evidently, he wants to do this as a tribute to God “for helping him through a painful divorce, bouts of depression, money problems and other woes,” according to the story.

This made me think about how Christians make it a habit to attribute any good in their lives to God while dismissing any misfortune as “That’s life” or “The Lord works in mysterious ways” or “S-word happens (no, Christians would never use bad language).” Why is that? Couldn’t God have been even more helpful to this guy if he had, ya know, prevented the painful divorce, bouts of depression, money problems and other assorted problems in the first place? Of course, then, God might not have gotten the credit. We do know from Christians that God craves our acceptance, belief and worship. If we don’t give it to him, we’re doomed to an eternity of suffering and Savannah-in-July-type weather. So maybe God either causes these problems for Christians or at least allows them to happen so he can swoop in and save the day, thus receiving praise for his heroic actions.

Is God a narcissist? That’s speaking from the perspective that he actually exists, of course. If the world is as Christians presume, wouldn’t we all be better off not ever being born? We either wouldn’t know what we were missing or at least wouldn’t have the opportunity to think our way to hell. Is it wise to put your trust in an entity that has shown the ability and willingness to dole out an eternity’s worth of punishment if you don’t think the way he wants you to?

In the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I Trust. Ya know, personally speaking and all.

Well, I’ve read much of the blogosphere’s hand-wringing over the new Ben Stein documentary, “Expelled.” Some of the Atheist blogs have really gone nuts over it, and the Christian ones now think Stein is less than God but greater than a mere mortal. It’s all rather predictable.

But my question goes out to the Christians out there. Do you, having somehow found this blog after my sabbatical, like what Stein had to say in this documentary? Are you glad all this is out there? It all just seems so incredibly over-the-top and hyperbolic to me. He tries to draw a direct line from Atheism and evolution to the Holocaust. In a later interview, I heard him say the words “Science leads you to killing people.” Do you think that anyone who isn’t already desperately searching for validation for their anti-science views is buying this load of bunk?

If I learned that Stein was actually an Atheist mole trying to hurt the cause of Intelligent Design rather than help it, I wouldn’t be surprised. It’s almost like he’s trying to set himself up as a spoof of the silliest arguments IDers trot out in their own defense, like he’s putting on an elaborate Saturday Night Live-style skit, and Bill Murray is going to rip off his Ben Stein mask any minute and say “Gotcha!”

I would think that most Christians would prefer a documentary like this not even be distributed, rather than demonizing in such a blatant manner. I would hope that most ID supporters want to educate and inform, not use such harsh language that anyone on the fence has to turn in the opposite direction. It appears that Stein has become a reflection of every silly, self-righteous argument the IDers make, shining back in their faces like the monotone behemoth he is.

If his goal was to persuade those not in the Christians’ corner to support his views, it would seem that using extremely insulting and absurd hyperbole would run counter to that. And if his goal was simply to massage the egos of those who already supported ID, is that really a worthy goal? I’m curious. Thoughts?

The fine gentleman Richard Leo Jackson recently posted a comment asking where I’ve been, so I thought I’d check in. Yes, I’m alive and still keeping an eye on things. The reason I haven’t posted anything lately, for the most part, is because I simply haven’t felt like I had any original thoughts that fit into the somewhat narrow focus of this blog. Nobody wants to hear about the blueberry yogurt I’m eating right now (mmmmmm ….), and I haven’t felt like I had much to offer that the rest of the interminable blogosphere isn’t already offering. So I’ve laid off, not wanting to force the issue, which probably kills any chance anybody will read whatever I do choose to write.

So anyway, thanks to RLJ for the thoughts. And I actually do have a pondering that I’ll post now. It’s above. Enjoy.

So I’m watching all this political coverage because, well, I’m a junkie for such stuff, and I see Hillary pop on the TV with her claims that Obama’s campaign sent out mailers to voters in the next primary with lies about her stances on NAFTA and health care. Hillary said, “Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove’s playbook. This is wrong and every Democrat should be outraged… Shame on you, Barack Obama.”

Now, remember that my official, coveted endorsement has already gone toward Obama, so this doesn’t come from a Hillary devotee. But as I watch coverage of Hillary’s newest strategic move, I start to think not about whether she’s right (She isn’t) or whether Obama’s wrong (It may be a bit of spin, but he’s not lying) but whether the various reactions to this move are shaped more by the fact that she’s a woman than anything else.

Maureen Dowd has called her “Macho” and said she has been the “less feminine” of the two candidates. On TV and message boards, I’ve heard her statements described as “shrieking” and that she is “showing her desperation.”

It’s not so much that I think America “isn’t ready for a woman president,” as the TV pundits have enjoyed asking for a while. But what I do think is that America may not be ready for a woman to run for president. A president campaign is pretty dirty stuff. There’s going to be mud-slinging, there’s going to be spin, there’s going to be anger and there’s going to be more posturing than in a high school football locker room. Our stereotypes we seem to cling to almost without thinking about them say this is a “macho” activity, all these words going back and forth, this eye-gouging and rhetoric. I think a large portion of this country still recoils a bit at seeing a woman engage in these sorts of activities; they still expect women to be … not exactly barefoot and pregnant but at least some level of demure.

This all may have something to do with why Hillary is losing to Obama and why, the polls seem to show, Americans who see them both most often tend to drift away from her and toward Obama. I think America is unquestionably ready and willing to vote for a black man, as long as that black man is nonthreatening and barely admits he even is a black man. But there’s not much way to avoid the fact that Hillary is a woman, and we still have antiquated notions of how a woman is supposed to behave. She doesn’t fit those standards, especially when she fights dirty like basically every other presidential candidate of the past 75 years, and Americans are starting to reject her because of it.

Well, Dan at Fitness for the Occasion tagged me to try this blogariffic activity and … what the hell, I’m game. Here’s the Bible for this particular meme:

The rules are very straightforward and go as follows: 1. Grab the nearest book (that is at least 123 pages long).
2. Open to p. 123.
3. Go down to the 5th sentence.
4. Type in the following 3 sentences.
5. Tag five people.

Honestly, I don’t read books as much as I should or as much as I used to. Books are threatening to overtake my girlfriend in her apartment, but I honestly only have a handful that are readily available. The first one I saw was, in fact, one she has let me borrow and I have, in fact, read. It’s called “Stiff,” by Mary Roach. It’s sort of a memoir of this woman as she learned all about dead people. It’s really funny, gross and disturbing, all of which I enjoy thoroughly. Anyway, so here’s the quote that I get …

“The researchers concluded that the planes had broken apart at altitude, spilling most of their human contents into the sea. To figure out exactly where the fuselage had broken apart, they looked at whether the passengers had been clothed or naked when pulled from the sea. Sir Harold’s theory was that hitting the sea from a height of several miles would knock one’s clothes off, but that hitting the sea inside the largely intact tail of the plane would not, and that they could therefore surmise the point of breakup as the dividing line between clothed and naked cadavers.”

Not exactly poetry, but it does give you a decent taste of what the book is like. And I think we can all agree that Naked Cadavers would be a great band name.

Now for the tags. Here are a few people I think might have fun with this one: Et Tu?, Sea Hag, Matthew McCormick, DanGoldfinch, Brent TRF

I constantly see comments on my blog and exhaustive ramblings by Christians on other sites about how Christianity has the market cornered on morality, and that Atheists have no basis for morality of their own. So I have even reasonable Christians like Jerry (from the DanGoldfinch blog) make comments here like, “At some point, every standard of morality must be judged right or wrong and will be.”

Ya know what? I’m gonna go ahead and agree with them to the point that Atheists have no tangible basis for their morality, to the extent that Atheists have no book that tells them what to do, who to do, etc. They don’t have an authoritative figure watching their every move and judging them to make sure they follow a set of rules of morality. As far as Jerry’s quote above, though, well … he’s wrong.

I’ll get back to that in a minute, though. Back to Christianity …

I think this comes up so much because it’s very important to Christians. I suspect it’s one of the main reasons religion came about in the first place, to help control the masses and give them an otherworldly reason to keep their hands out of the proverbial cookie jar. If they must do so to prevent the eternal damnation of their beloved “soul,” then they damn well better do it. I also think there’s a certain trust among Christians of different sects, a camaraderie even. Because, despite whatever differences they may have, they know that another Christian has the same set of rules to follow and, basically, the same basis for their morality standards.

When Christians encounter Atheists, though, there’s an immediate instinct of distrust. Atheists don’t have the same basis for their morality, nor any discernible standard, as far as the Christians can tell. So what are their morals? Where do they come from? How can they even tell right from wrong? Is this person gonna shank me in the shower when I’m not looking?

I actually understand this distrust. I understand why Christians think this way. When I say there is no objective standard for morality and that people who feel they’ve found one are really just grasping to something invented by man for his own benefit, they find this troubling. How can they know that I have morals they would judge to be satisfactory if I have no tangible basis for those morals?

The answer is you can’t, and this is why Jerry’s quote (“At some point, every standard of morality must be judged right or wrong and will be”) is wrong.  My standard of morality will not be judged by anyone, nor should it be. Trust is a personal thing. In a life without objective morality, you can’t automatically know that someone shares your morality standards. In fact, you have no idea where his morals come from, nor what they are. Other people are unpredictable, and their motives may not be something you anticipated. They may not have an instruction manual for life and morality, and they don’t necessarily share your rewards in the afterlife.

You have to learn to trust in people, or don’t. It really doesn’t matter to me. But I feel no need to justify my morality to you, and no one should feel like they need to justify theirs to me. I have my set of what I think is right and wrong, I have my set of ethics and morals, some of it being situational, some of it being more rigid. I don’t need to explain where it came from because, well, it’s mine. It doesn’t matter where it came from. I can’t speak for anyone else, only myself. Any explanations I might have probably aren’t going to ring true for someone else who didn’t have the same life experiences, didn’t have the same parents, didn’t have the same friends, didn’t make the same stupid mistakes that he may or may not have learned from. Your basis for morality may be what you believe “God” wants you to do, and that’s fine. You may want me to justify my morality in a similar manner, but I can’t, won’t, shouldn’t.

A large part of Christian culture is to know people’s basis for morality (the Bible/God) and what their morals include (the Ten Commandments, etc.). It gives them comfort and leads to more trust among people. People outside this circle make them suspicious, and they want to hold these people to this same standard. I understand it, but I won’t participate in it. I have my morality. I have my right from wrong and my truth from my falsehood. It may not be the same as yours, but it doesn’t have to be. Where did it come from? Many different places. But it doesn’t really matter in the end, because all I need to know is it’s here.

At the blog de-conversion, evanescent wrote today about why he’s not just an atheist but an anti-theist as well. Personally, I wasn’t exactly sure what he meant by that, so I read on, curious if I also shared such heightened negativity. He describes an anti-theist as someone who doesn’t just not believe God exists but opposes the very principles religion is based upon.

Now, we all love labels. Atheist. Anti-theist. Anti-atheist. Anti-anti-theist atheist. How many times do you think I can put the prefix “anti” in front of the word “atheist” and have it still make sense? It’s a challenge I’ll be up to one day. That day is not today. Anyway, I still think the label “atheist” should be largely unnecessary and is really only there to be descriptive and not to define a group, per se, but now we’re tossing out “anti-theist” too? To what end?

Well, when evanescence says he opposes religion’s main principles, he sets out to define those principles. Unfortunately, he uses the words of Christopher Hitchens, which is akin to asking Howard Dean what the Republicans stand for. So what does Hitchens say are the defining principles of religion?

“The following are notions that all monotheisms hold. From Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great, Chapter 15, page 205:   * Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent and credulous
* The doctrine of blood sacrifice
* The doctrine of atonement
* The doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment
* The imposition of impossible tasks and rules

I am not just an atheist. I’m an anti-theist because I am strongly opposed to the very foundations of religion itself.”

Apparently, those are the “foundations of religion itself.” Right? And if you oppose them, you’re an anti-theist, right? Well …. ya see, those may all be technically true, but they’re filtered so heavily through the Hitchens anti-religion prism as to be rendered almost meaningless. You could just as easily say the principles of religion are as follows …

• Discipline
• Self sacrifice
• Love for your fellow man
• Forgiveness
• Family cohesiveness

Seems like it’s all true as well, though perhaps spun a bit in the opposite direction. My point being it’s difficult to oppose the principles of religion when you don’t really know what the principles of religion actually, ya know, are. The way Hitchens presented them, who in the world wouldn’t oppose them? The way I presented them, who would? OK, maybe me, because I’m a cynical, heartless bastard. But generally speaking, 99% of the sane population would get behind the principles as I stated them.

But even if Hitchens’ stated principles of religion are, in fact, the correct ones, what is the point of announcing that you disagree with them and, therefore, are an “anti-theist”? Does that make religion people anti-atheist? Do these labels serve any purpose?

I’d say I don’t particularly like the fundamental purposes of religion, but I recognize that it also does a lot of good for a lot of people. I’d say I more wish it never existed than that it ceases existing. I don’t wish to snuff it out or convince anyone who is religious not to be. If it serves a positive purpose in your life, so be it. I will absolutely hold Christians accountable for what they say and do; I won’t let them hold up the Bible as some sort of shield against criticism. But I’m not criticizing their faith or the fact that they’re Christians. Perhaps that makes me anti-anti-theist. Or just a-anti-theist. Aren’t labels awesome?

Well, I voted for Obama yesterday in the primary. Early voting is a great thing because it allows me to avoid the masses on Super-Duper Tuesday, though you do get an inevitable chance to see old people. Old people love them some early voting. I think they get a senior citizens’ discount.

Anyway, someone asked me in a recent comment about my political affiliation, so I thought I might go into my philosophy on choosing which candidate to vote for.

Normally, I tend to “logic” things to death. I’m one of those dweebs who will actually make a “Pro vs. Con” list when trying to make a big decision, and I usually abide by it. So this is normally the way I choose who to vote for as well, and it usually has to do with who shares my views most closely. I enjoy the On the Issues site, which gives you a quiz where it will match you with the candidates on the issues by percentage. So you can see who you agree with the most often and where you fall on the political spectrum (Evidently, I’m a liberal libertarian, which I can live with … shockingly, I wasn’t a far-right wingbat). I’ve decided who to vote for largely by that site before, but not this time.

The candidate with whom I agree most strongly is almost certainly Ron Paul. After that, it’s probably Hillary. In past elections, I probably would have voted for one or the other and been done with it. But maybe dealing with combative, divisive governing style for 8 years has changed something in me. I’ve come to the conclusion that you shouldn’t choose a president of the United States in the same way you choose the president of your local Hannah Montana fan club. That is, to choose someone who most-closely agrees with you.

That’s a fine way to pick local leaders. You want a mayor, a city official, a state senator to represent your interests at the city/state level. These people represent a relatively small group of people, and you might as well seek your piece of the pie. But the president represents a very large, wide-reaching group of people, many of whom will be hurt by what benefits you. It’s selfish and foolish to choose a president because he agrees with you; he’s not likely to pass much legislation anyway, so whether he agrees with you or not is almost irrelevant.

So I decided to choose not the candidate who most-closely agrees with me but the candidate who I think would make the best president for this country at this particular time. This is a tough thing to quantify, and that may be part of the reason many people don’t do it. It’s more of a gut instinct thing than a logic thing, and that’s why it’s a departure for me. But there’s something about the way Obama carries himself that makes me think he is the type of president we need right now. He’s smart, isn’t tarnished by the DC establishment and seems genuinely interested in not drawing everything down party lines. I think he would be an excellent ambassador, something this country desperately needs right now. Just the very idea that we would elect a black man named Obama to the highest position in our country would speak volumes to the world about the American people, I think. It would show that we may not be as insular and narrow-minded as people in other parts of the world think; having Obama as the face of this country could be a boon for international relations, which appear to be at an all-time low at the moment.

Could I be wrong? Sure. Obama doesn’t have Hillary’s political experience or McCain’s military experience. He’s young, maybe too green to step seamlessly into a job this big. But McCain (my No. 2 candidate, for the record) is already in his 70s, and he wants to wait out another Ice Age in Iraq. Hillary is the best politician, but we’ve seen what having master politicians as president has gotten us. That’s not to mention that it would continue this Bush/Clinton monarchy we’ve had for too long now, and I think Hillary is the most Bush-like of all the candidates, in terms of governing style.

And so, I chose Obama. Against all previous voting rationale. If it doesn’t work out, I might just have to throw a dart at a board next time.