ID Debate was today... Impressions

Today's debate on Intelligent Design went fairly well. Overall the debate itself was a clear victory for my side of the discussion, although there were a couple of things I would have done differently. Given the circumstances though, I think I did fairly well.

Things I would have done better
1. Memorization of material. The first part of my debate was unchanged from my practice debate. Mainly this was because of time constraints. Originally, I had written out, much like I would write my blog because I doubted my ability to craft a comprehensive narrative around the facts. Since I was handed the position of Second Negative (because my debate partner abandoned us), I had very little time to reform my original work. The result was that I looked down A LOT during the first part of the debate. It was difficult also to quote many official statements without looking like I was speaking to the paper.

2. I would have remembered to discuss how other policies like "abstinence-only education," which are based on rigid faith initiatives, are endangering current generations of high school children. I forgot to use this material in my rebuttal and I think would have added a logical parallel to my argument.

3. I would have tried better to remain calm during the Q&A. Because one of the dissident Creationists told me, in not such a concise manner, that I was ignorant, I was more quick to unleash a witty quip instead of dissect his argument. But the audience seemed more receptive to my part of the debate, and I think that even though he confused me by restating ID in an unfamiliar fashion, I wasn't able to interpret what his meaning was. I should really have been able to expose him for "begging the question." Nonetheless, I think my arguments remained solid, despite this minor disappointment.

4. I forgot the tax information on the Discovery Institute! I wanted to suggest that the DI disseminated their propaganda because their partners raked in six-figure incomes. Perhaps a little Mike Moore-ish, but it no doubt it would have been compelling. This was in my original draft, but was oddly absent when I printed it out at 2:30AM this morning. Damn!

Things I did well
1. More than any debate, ours drew the most attention. I received positive feedback from several of the audience members. Some of the language I used resonated well with the crowd and gave me a couple of cheerleaders from the crowd.
2. My cross-examination questions were scathing criticisms that really cut through the flawed arguments of my opponents. Cleveland suggested that my questions were unrelated and unfair at one point, but I persisted by explaining the significance of them. It was the equivalent of a trial lawyer silencing an objection with amusing results from the audience.
3. I tried to keep things amusing and funny, and part of that was actually, at moments, by being a condescending prick. Even Cleveland called me later to admit that he had to chuckle about it. You'll see what I'm talking about on one of the rebuttals.

I might post the video on YouTube at some point. I haven't actually decided.

Some notes on the Q&A section (SPOILER*** Don't read unless you either haven't watched or don't plan to watch the video)

I'm not sure who the gentleman and his fellow Creationist flat-earthers were, but I have to admit they did present somewhat of a challenge. For one, the guy got up there and bombarded me with such a laundry list of horseshit, I wasn't quite sure what I was supposed to respond to. Misconception A or the one that extends beyond the reaches of the alphabet. After he insulted me and "enlightened" me to the failure of science, the racism of Darwin, and the odd geological record that seemingly proved nothing about anything, I was having trouble tying his question (after he finally spat it out) to his previous statements. But I don't think he was trying honestly to engage me. He just seemed totally pissed and pretty disrespectful and about two steps away from trying to prove that someone can live a thousand years (as is suggested in the Bible). But his question was actually about an 'intermediary' in the process of evolution, which another person actually answered as 'natural selection.' This is basically a sound answer, which would have sufficed had I said it, but the idea of the intermediary seemed ambiguously loaded. Should I have answered it, it might have given merit to implying a guided process to some unknown force, which would clearly have worked against me. So I say touche, senor fuckface! You may have tripped me a little, but I still made it to the finish line, and the banner says "Creationists got PWNED!"

4:02 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

America: Land of the Stupid
Category: News and Politics

Some of you may well know about my upcoming debate at Florida Atlantic University on the subject of Intelligent Design versus Evolution. Although I had always been interested in the subject, I found it very telling that we even have presidential candidates (all Republican of course) who aren't convinced that evolution is at least a probable explanation for our existence. I thought that surely they must be pandering to the religious fundamentalists of this country for political gain. It worked with Christian homophobia for Bush's campaign, why not another brand of ignorance?  Much to my unfortunate disappointment, I overestimated the intelligence of the American people; a habit I can't seem to break. In multiple polls, a majority of Americans report that they believe God made them in their complete form, rejecting evolution as the plausible explanation for our existence. All of my friends have been trying to convince me that humanity isn't worth the spunk that created it... is this true? 

Let's observe the evidence for America's stupidity. 

Exhibit A:  Americans still can't figure out who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.  Even today, the latest poll results indicate that about a third of our citizens think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.  Although the numbers have been on steady decline from almost half from the beginning of the Iraq War, it just further goes to prove that our ignorance is not only obvious, but published in magazines that anyone from any country can read and find out just how incredibly stupid we are.

Exhibit B: Americans think that it is appropriate to display the Ten Commandments on government property.  Civics lesson anyone?

"When asked in a Feb. 25-27 Gallup Poll* if the Supreme Court should or should not allow the display in Texas, 76% of Americans say the display should be allowed, compared with 21% who say it should not."

Exhibit C: The most watched television shows for the past 7 years.

..>































..>

2000	Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?	ABC
2001	Survivor: The Australian Outback	CBS
2002	Friends	NBC
2003	CSI: Crime Scene Investigation	CBS
2004	CSI: Crime Scene Investigation	CBS
2005	American Idol	Fox
2006	American Idol	Fox
2007	American Idol	Fox

What a surprise....ALL SHIT!

Exhibit D: Visual evidence.. observe...

 (to be continued)

10:35 AM - 1 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

The award for shittiest blog of GA (Godless America) goes to....
Current mood: aggravated
Category: Blogging

My last post (besides this one)! What could have been possibly the latest sign that I am slipping in relevance? Well apart from my readership going down significantly, my post "In Lucifer We Trust!" The good thing, I guess, is at least barely anyone read it. Instead of censoring by deleting it from the collective memory of the internet, I've left it up as a trophy to remind myself of just how terribly uninspired I can be and how I must struggle to be increasingly creative, logical, and most of all humorous! That's the only reason people want to read this fucking shit in the first place! If anyone feels the need to kick me while I'm down, I sincerely appreciate it. Don't let me get away with writing bullshit. Especially this pile I just wrote.

1:13 PM - 2 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

In Lucifer We Trust?
Category: Religion and Philosophy

Often atheists are perceived as being hostile and petty toward even the most benign mentions of God or religion. On a few occasions I can agree with this, but what the believer should try to do is place themselves in the position of the atheist. Thankfully for you, the majority of people in the United States are believers with a large proportion of those people being Christian.  However, imagine waking up to a world where you are the religious minority and the government endorses the view opposite yours. 

You travel on your way to work, hoping to find something amusing on the radio. Every station on the lower end of the spectrum invites you to the warm inferno of Hell, but the passionate preacher with a vitriolic Southern drawl informs you ...

"Your misguided path of sobriety and monogamy do the Dark Lord no good... Thank Satan that the right for breeders to marry is not extended to them."

Thanks Jebediah Xavier Luciferoious the 666th!  Upset with the filth that fills the lower recesses of the radio, you finally arrive to your office job in the city and begin to walk into your building when you are approached by a half-crazed hobo telling screaming "Damn you!"  The passersby politely thank him, throw him a few dollars, all with the revised national motto printed on them "In Lucifer We Trust."  In 1954 Senator McKarthy persuaded the government to adopt the phrase to prove to the Communists that we are a nation of faithful people.  In fact, you can't even say the pledge of allegiance in its current incarnation without uttering "Under Satan," but why deny the majority their right to faith? 

But I told Brother Jebediah of your predicament and here's what he had to say:

"You simply are being intolerant of our beliefs!  You can still believe whatever you choose, but we can't guarantee the judge will want you to have the kids should you divorce your "succubus"* because they would clearly want someone who involves their child in the distinguished and moral community of devout people of the Devil.

*[solely allowed because you agreed to let some dude bang you, and someone had to carry the fetus.  Once we figure out the mechanics of "Junior," this tolerance of hetero crap is over.] 

Clearly all [worthwile] morality is founded on the basis of belief in evil!  How do they know you will be a contributing member of society?  You are a sick individual who lacks respect for people of a different belief than you, and if you simply chose to believe in the traditions that shaped our society [even though I can't prove that this is specifically the cause for our progress], you would be a better person. Now excuse me while I go pack my ass with hot coals. "

Don't worry man.  There's this thing called "Separation of Church and State."  Kinda sounds like a good idea now, doesn't it?

3:27 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

DEBATE: Intelligent Design versus Evolution
Current mood: amused
Category: Religion and Philosophy

On April 17th, 2008, my debate group and I will be debating the following:
Resolved: Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught alongside Evolution in public schools.

Affirmative Team:
1st Affirmative: Cleveland Sainpreux
2nd Affirmative: Edlyna Carter

Negative Team:
1st Negative: John Campbell (me)
2nd Negative: Eric Van Voorhis

This will be a structured debate taking place in the Free Speech Zone (between the Social Sciences building and the GCS building) at Florida Atlantic University at 11:30AM. Instead of the usual preacher condemning everyone to Hell, a discussion of the (in)appropriateness of ID in the classroom will be taking the place of hellfire and brimstone. Each group member is respectful, yet unafraid to attack from whatever perspective necessary. The Affirmative is unashamedly Christian, while the Negative, my team, is a couple of pro-science heathens. We'll try to keep the conversation civil and on topic. Despite our connections to atheism, we're both more concerned about the injection of religious thinking into secular science education rather than debunking illogical religious perspectives.

Official Flyer for the debate:

4:31 PM - 4 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Walk for the Animals 2008
Category: Life

My wife Kimmy and I will be joining The Humane Society's Walk for the Animals 2008 this year on March 1st. Please visit our website so you can donate money to the cause. Ebony and Sheeba will be joining us for this wonderful occasion.

I apologize for not writing to my blog lately. Full time work and school have been taking a toll on my writing activities. I still have many ideas floating around in my head. It will be great once this semester is over and I can commit them to my online posts. At some point I will build my own Myspace-free weblog.

4:20 PM - 1 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Theo is Not Great: How the Defense of Religion Makes People Look Foolish [part II]

I mentioned in the first part of my analysis of Theo Hobson's angry smear on 'Atheism', that an ignorance toward (or blatant disregard of) the subject of American religiosity contributes largely toward his failure to put the polemics of Harris, Dawkins, and whatever other best-selling atheist authors Hobson smears, into a meaningful context.  The political landscape of the United States is undoubtedly affected by a desire to appeal to the values of its people.  As a result, it is hard to find a politician who does not mention God somehow in his or her speeches.  Add to this, the disturbing poll data from University of Michigan, that atheists are the least trusted religious minority, and you have reason for atheists to be as 'militant' as they are today.  They didn't fly planes into the twin towers.  It was two men of faith - a faith stronger than most have the ability to ponder.

Of course, it would be unfair to charcterize all Muslims, or even all believers, as terroristic murderers.  Unfair also is to speculate that all atheists agree with the presentation of the ideas written by these popular atheist authors.  Where I have a problem with these books, and I'm sure it has troubled theists even more, is the absence of positive progressive experiences that have been achieved through religion.  Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. comes to mind.  He was a religious authority and a hero for civil rights.  The Civil Rights movement was motivated through churches to rise up against oppression.  How do atheists explain this?

Well, it's actually quite simple.  If you can blame the pitfalls of human nature for the worst things in the world, you can similarly credit the greatness of human nature for the best things in the world.  If Martin Luther King were Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, or atheist, do you think his commitment toward seeing people peacefully achieve equality would be any different?  In fact, I don't recall many Bible passages which openly condemn racial prejudice, but there seem to be plenty of passages in the Old and New Testaments that regulate the proper conduct of a slave-owner.  Hardly a condemnation of the practice, don't you think?  Somehow I don't think Martin Luther King, Jr. thought those were necessary tenets to his beliefs.  Similarly there are those people who dismiss the backward bullshit of the Bible, or simply block the harmful implications out of their heads using some fantastically delusional apologetics.  Good religious people do good things in spite of the immorality mandated by the Bible, not because of the Bible's popular-but-universal moral imperatives.  What other bullshit lurks in its pages that will be a hindsight revelation in tomorrow's politics?

Theo does us the favor of exposing where atheists fall short yet again.  On the definition of religion itself.

Let me take a step back, and ask a rather basic question. What is this thing that the atheists hate so much? What is religion? Believe it or not, I don't know the answer. Indeed it seems to me that anyone who does claim to know is underestimating the complexity of the topic considerably. If the atheist deigns to define religion at all, he is likely to do so briskly and conventionally, as belief in and worship of some species of supernatural power. It's a terribly inadequate definition. Dictionaries would do better to leave a blank, to admit ignorance.

Just because Theo prefers the term to remain ambiguous for apologetics purposes, does not mean that writers of dictionaries should be forced to exclude a rather ubiquitous cultural phenomenon.  Religion simply is a system of beliefs that seeks to explain the unknown by supernatural means, usually suggests a code of conduct, and is sometimes based or depends on documents of alleged authority.  There, I came up with a definition that pretty much explains it...  Of course, I know what Theo is getting at, but it's a weak case.  In fact, it only lends itself to the notion that religion isn't worth discussing.  If it cannot be defined, then how are we in consensus that any of us are talking about the same thing?  Another hypocritical stance by Theo:  Accuse the atheist of not knowing what he is talking about, and then admit to not knowing yourself.

In reality, "religion" is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power. This is only one aspect of what we mean by "religion". For example there is surely something religious in the communal ecstasy of a rave, or a pop concert, or a play, or a sporting event, or a political rally. Some would say that these events are quasi-religious, that they echo religious worship, but are distinct from it. But how on earth is one to make the distinction? Is a yoga class "religious"? What about a performance of a requiem? What about Hitchens' own belief in the saving power of literature? In practice, "religion" cannot really be separated from "culture".

That "something religious" about the communal ecstasy of a rave is the ecstasy.  At some point down the road (well after MDMA had been synthesized), people were popping pills in therapy sessions moderated by psychologists.  If one is to feel a religious experience from ecstasy it is because their receptors are absolutely flooded with serotonin, the mood nuerotransmitter, producing a feeling between elation and euphoria.  As an entactogen, meaning "feeling within" it's probably the only drug that induces a unique sense of empathy in its users.  It's a drug that has dangerous psychological consequences for frequent users because it fails to work if there is no serotonin left.  At a setting like a rave, with tribal-sounding 4/4 thumps, it is not unlike the Native Americans' relationship between peyote, dance, and drums.  But our attachment of the words "religious experience" is entirely colloquial.  I need not have the same religious beliefs of a Native American to experience some mind-blowing hallucination that might change my life.  Nor in the case of the rave, must I adhere to the multitudes of belief systems or even the neo-hippie PLUR (peace.love.unity.respect) mantra to have a "religious experience."  What it entails is an experience outside the scope of typical conscious perception.  Our perception, mood, and consciousness are inextricably connected and therefore prayer, meditation, ecstasy, or even sleep deprivation can lead to a multitude of religious experiences. 

The atheist will doubtless call these reflections irrelevant. Yes, there is an affinity between religious worship and various secular cultural practices, he may say, but so what? The issue is belief in the supernatural. Religion, in the full and harmful sense, exists when people cringe under the illusion of a celestial being, and when people propagate teachings that are not true. This leads to superstitious ignorance, and to immoral actions, for example the persecution of homosexuals.

Remind me to rip out Leviticus then.

I consider the atheist's desire to generalise about religion to be a case of intellectual cowardice. The intellectual coward is one who chooses simplicity over complexity and difficulty. The militant atheist chooses to uphold a worldview of Animal Farm crudity: atheist good, believer bad. He has to believe this; it is his claim to the moral high ground. Christopher Hitchens sounds like a man who is desperate for a big cause, for an agenda that will give him one last chance of some high significance, a last stab at prophet status. By seeking his grand purpose in atheism he exhibits the sort of intellectual timidity he claims to despise.

Then I would have to conclude Theo is an intellectual coward regarding generalizations on atheism.  Obviously the most general discussion on the effects of religion should be more complex than a simple laundry list of errors and abuses.  We can't, for instance, ignore the contributions to the arts, architecture and music since much of it was commissioned by the Church.  We can't obvously forget the contributions by the Muslims in Algebra (and architecture).  There are many cultural contributions religion has made and to give credit where it's due, it has been a vehicle for justice for some oppressed peoples.  But now we are advancing farther, and we should acknowledge that our moral compass is not from some tome.  It is a by-product of our societal evolution.  In several instances we have outgrown our books as they diminish in scientific, and ultimately moral value.  It isn't that we have taken this ultimate morality from the Bible.  It's that we've found it in ourselves first.

1:26 PM - 1 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Theo is Not Great: How the Defense of Religion Makes People Look Foolish [part I]
Category: Religion and Philosophy

Perusing through the many editorials on Yahoo's News section, I came across an article by Theo Hobson of the Guardian (UK) entitled "Atheism is pretentious and cowardly."  I chuckled to myself while I clicked on the headline.  Cowardly…  Hobson must be ignorant to the dominant religious climate in the United States, and it shows.  Atheism exists beyond the borders of the United Kingdom, Theo.  As a critique of Hitchens' latest book, God is not great: How religion poisons everything, Theo bangs out an excerpt that derides religion on its absurdities, painfully obvious errors in both science and rational process, and its stifling of human sexual psychology.  He parries with utter weakness:

Never mind that only a tiny proportion of British Christians are creationists; there is no room for such awkward facts in the atheist system.  And as for the evil of "sexual repression", well, maybe some day all men will be as liberated as Hitch.

I've never wanted to defend Hitchens in my life, especially given his hypocritical political positions, but in the case of religion, Hitchens gains more points in astute observation than does Theo Hobson.  Of course, Hobson's affiliation with the Church of England could have something to do with the reason why he has such contempt for Hitchens in the first place.  But enough ad hominem.  I have to protest his counterpoint regarding Creationists. 

In America, there are a startling number of Christians who DO believe that God created man and without the mechanics of Evolution (43% of Americans).  Equally disappointing, is that a remarkable number of Americans (29%) regard the Creation account as "definitely true."  Never mind the mountains of evidence we have to support the contrary on the age of our planet.  Despite the controversy surrounding Evolution, we are taught in schools (and through the Discovery Channel), that our Earth is much older than the Biblically purported 10,000 years.  There must be something more to these rejections of scientific fact than the idea that we are simply not educated in these matters.  We exist in an environment that is saturated with this knowledge from science books, to popular magazines and educational television programs. (Polls were taken from Gallup)

My point is that Hobson contextualizes his experience of the more common moderate religiosity found in Britain to arrive at the conclusion that Hitchens has mischaracterized people of faith.  These caricatures of Christianity are Christianity to many of us who live in America.  I acknowledge that many Christians are progressive enough to respect scientific truths. In fact, many of them are friends and family.  I am inclined to believe though that they find my perspective on religion as troubling as I find theirs.  There's a mutual respect which prevents us from doling out these arguments, and perhaps we've never been curious enough to instigate such situations.  There is a simple fact that should remain uncomfortable to progressive (or moderate) Christians and that is that these ideas didn't come from some extraneous literary complement to the Bible; they come from the Bible.

So I must challenge the original assertion that atheists are cowardly, especially when given the fact that there is a large proportion of Biblical literalists and moderate enablers.  Given the statistical contrast, the culture in support of religion (in America) is clearly dominant, and as such any challenge toward the praised establishment of faith is perceived as pure intolerance rather than honest intellectual debate.  In the face of this, and threats of damnation (or even death threats to those public about their atheism), "cowardly" must have an alternate definition in England.

This is not even the meat-and-potatoes of Theo's half-assed diatribe against the popularization of "militant" atheist polemics.   No, he skips over an analysis of Dawkins or Harris betraying the notion that he is openly discussing the pitfalls of atheism.  From his mention of "god knocking" becoming popular, you would think the discussion would include the opinions of other well-known "god knocking" atheists.  We already know he has a problem with basic definitions based on what he thinks "cowardly" means.  His incompetence in comprehending and explaining basic definitions only continues:

Atheism is the belief that the demise of religion, and the rise of "rationality", will make the world a better place. Atheism therefore entails an account of history - a story of liberation from a harmful error called "religion". This narrative is jaw-droppingly naive.

This is more an interpretation of John Lennon's song "Imagine,"-- where we imagine a world with no countries, Heaven or Hell and "no religion too".  It's a beautiful idea really, but not representative of the simplicity of atheism.  Atheism doesn't involve the belief that a society would magically transform itself into a beacon of progressive ideals once supernatural concepts are abandoned.  Murder and theft would obviously exist in a godless world just as it would in one that believed in God.  Religion would just be one less reason people discriminate, maim, and kill each other.  For atheist activists, that seems to be enough.

Some will quibble with the above definition. Atheism is just the rejection of God, of any supernatural power, they will say, it entails no necessary belief in historical progress. This is disingenuous. The militant atheists have a moral mission: to improve the world by working towards the eradication of religion.

And this paragraph represents the hypocrisy of the article's author.  He claims atheism is disingenuous and yet he has redefined the rather simple definition of atheism and blamed the opposition for his own intellectual failure.  There are atheists who think the world would be a better place without religion, just as there are Christians who think even more naively think the world would be a better place were everyone Christian (despite that the Christian-dominated Western world has more than proven itself capable of atrocity in light of its 'revelation').  The danger of any unquestioned ideology is the greatest threat, whether it is political, religious, or some wicked combination of both. 

1:25 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Why the iPhone will suck.

There are a few basic lusts I have that don't involve fucking.  You can see by the rolls on my forehead that food is obviously one of those.  Music another.  Drugs?  This is a public forum in which I choose only to smear my reputation by my filthy fucking mouth.  And despite my aspiring status of left-wing socialist asshat, an obsession with consumer electronics makes the list with flying colors.  If I weren't employed, didn't have a girlfriend, and didn't enjoy some level of normal human communication, I might be one of those greasy, nasal-sounding jerks whose rants give way to uncomfortable silences, or worse yet
don't result in silence at all, but a continued stream of fanboy consciousness laced with the ripe stench of plaque and Funyuns (both of which will be spontaneously projected toward you should you accidentally engage in conversation).  These are the kinds of people who attend the Consumer Electronics Show (CES), and E3 (R.I.P.) who don't already work for IGN and various magazine publications.  If you even hear the words George Lucas or Gene Roddenberry, run the other direction as quickly as possible. Attention aspiring messianic cult leaders, these are your minions.  Incorporation of science fiction and fantasy literature required.  You may find your flock to engage in castration and mass suicide. 

In the meantime however, it is Steve Jobs who leads the masses in Apple worship.  I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone, even those outside the socially challenged and visually deformed Apple cult, who isn't so thrilled at the iPhone that they wouldn't gulp down Steve Jobs' iPud just to touch one.  But he isn't fooling me.  There's an obvious reason the iPhone will be a piece of shit.  Let's see if you follow my logic.

What's the one device, besides your computer, in your collection of electronics that consistently fucks up (and usually at the most important times)?  What's the one thing you find most annoying about hanging out with "certain" friends?  What's the one thing that destroys any reasonable commute because people aren't paying attention?

If you guessed the gas-powered 26-speed Raging Rectum Ruiner, you'd be partially correct but no.  It's the fucking fucking fucking fucking cellphone.  A feature-laden piece of shit that by today's standards can do everything a multimedia internet enabled device with a camera can do, with the excecption of behaving like a goddamn telephone.  Let's see what today's phones can do:

E-mail? check
Camera?  Check
Bluetooth? Check
Calendar? Check
Calculator? Check
Videogames? Check
Maintain a telephone conversation without your mother without her voice changing into a fucking Decepticon?  Not even close.

The basic reason the iPhone will suck is because it has cellphone techonology built into it at the expense of what it should probably really have... more memory and a different name.  Another reason it will suck, is that because it is a phone, jackasses whose social etiquette has already been warped by "texting" in the middle of a real in-the-flesh conversation have a new toy to play with to upstage decent human communication.

  I want to kill you fucking assholes.  It takes less than thirty seconds to say "hey, wut r u doin? i'm getn outta here in 30 mins" and yet it takes minutes to  ignore the friends around you, press numerical keys multiple times just to get one letter, but ironically less time for all of your friends to realize, as inconvenient and disgusting as it is, they'd rather you had a tendency to accidentally shit yourself every five minutes than incessantly and inefficiently communicate with some loser.

So I can only imagine what other diversions this newfangled device will create.  Let's not forget that it's also an iPod.  Maybe they'll send a text with a song excerpt, and "oh wait. I want to listen to this, do you mind?"  Yes, I mind.  I don't need to hear the next overplayed, badly sequenced rap song with lyrics an inbred alcoholic could have written and a tonedeaf crackhead could have sung. 

So I say fuck this stupid iPhone.  We don't need these one-thing-does-everything devices.  It really just brings down the value of the initial product.  Putting a cellular phone in an iPod is like welding a dick-pump to your coffeemaker.

11:26 AM - 5 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Merry Christmas, Atheist Assholes! [part I]
Current mood: pissed off

It's that time of year once again, and thanks to the weather system which brought us this miraculously unremarkable hurricane season here in Florida, we're also graced with something we haven't had in years... a nice winter chill that will lift your sack up a bit.  No, I haven't gone soft or converted to Christianity, much to the dismay of my evangelical activist readers, but I have a soft spot for Christmas.  Put down your highlighted Bibles or close your skepticsannotatedbible.com window (better yet, don't.  just get out of your chair, but not yet... you're still reading my blog, asshole.)  Roll a fat one, spark it, walk outside and enjoy the view.
Just maybe you'll understand the significance of it all, but if not, repeat the process until December 25th.


I've been vocal about my atheism for a number of years, and within the past year or so, have dedicated this blog to the discussion of religion and its involvement in American politics.  It is a discussion that is vital to our survival as a progressive nation, and even as a global community.  Atheist figures have been more prevalent in the media and have been voicing their opinions regarding church-state separation issues, and Harris even has had the opportunity in some instances to explain his thesis: that faith is too dangerous in theory and practice that it threatens our existence on a global scale. 

So, I'm reading through my Mypsace messages and bulletins, and come across these posts by the Rational Response Squad (whom I've obviously friended, but now I'm not sure why):
Rational Response Squad
"Do it now... make a blasphemy video for the War on Christmas
We are officially live with our blasphemy challenge! Thanks to everyone who has gotten involved! Do you have the kahunas to show the world how sure you are that the Christian God doesn't exist?"

The War on Christmas....  Great.  Researching the project further, it seems that this activist 'project' is based on the humorous proposition by John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly at FOX News, that there is some sort of movement to uproot Christmas and all Christian holidays from public life in America.  Thankfully, we have atheist activists from Beyond Belief Media and its online following to only further prove their point.

It isn't enough that atheists are least trusted minority in the United States, according to a recent survey done by the University of Minnesota Sociology Department:

Based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households and in-depth interviews with more than 140 people, researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other groups as "sharing their vision of American society." Americans are also least willing to let their children marry atheists.

Well, fuck, I wonder why.  After all, it's not like we've positioned ourselves to respond in a way that mirrors the very image of what the Christian Right is accusing... oh wait.. I guess we have!  Thanks guys!

It's time that atheists appreciated the secularization of Christmas that has allowed the inclusiveness of the tradition to become so expansive.  No, I'm not talking about presents either.  The commercialization of Christmas is really just this ugly side effect of any holiday, secular or otherwise, to market accordingly.  What we're left with is this wonderfully conceived fantasy that leaves Jesus and his manger on a planet left of fucking Buttfuck Egypt.  A Winter Wonderland....

Now imagine with me, Frosty the Snowman, Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, and finally the big jolly fat fuck that made it all happen for us when we were too young and stupid to know any better, Santa Claus.  If this evokes a horrific, angry response, immediately punch yourself in the balls.

You're like the Jerry Falwell of the atheist flock, but instead of getting mad at imaginary cocksucking Teletubbies, it's the facade of Santa's Workshop that has you foaming at the mouth.  If you are angry at reading that, punch yourself in the balls again for good measure (If you are a female, slam your tits in the door of a microwave, or simply light your clit on fire).

Now I've always thought atheists would benefit by taking the high road (as I have so obviously done through my mention of tits, balls, and clits... actually, just one clit).  But how does that make us any better than the fruitcakes we allegedly despise.  Maybe I'm mistaken, but part of what I've despised in the religious right is this outrage over lame and benign figures in mainstream culture.  It has only served to distance the public from that perspective.  Similarly, such attacks by atheists, whether done as a tongue-in-cheek publicity stunts or not, essentially do the same thing in the eyes of the public.  It proclaims this hatred of something that has provided opportunity for families to unite, eat, drink, and be merry... and perhaps with some materialism thrown in being its worst trait.  The worst effect of this is the proliferation of the idea that somehow all atheists wish to destroy positive American traditions.  I consider myself an atheist and an activist, maybe not so much the combination of the two.  Nonetheless, we need to check our priorities when it comes to how we convey ourselves and our causes to the media.  We have valid reasons to explain our position on religion and how it affects national and global politics.  9/11, biological research policy, science education, faith-based funding: these are the issues we should focus on.  I can understand the desire for these activists to use such an issue to generate hype, since atheists don't often get heard, but I think this is the wrong kind of attention.  Last I checked, people haven't had their genitals disfigured by branding irons for denying the existence of Santa Claus.

So, the Pilgrims may not have sat down with the Native Americans and feasted on Stovetop Stuffing.  And Jesus may not have ever existed, though we know he definitively was not born on December 25th.  And reindeer can't fly, and snowmen can't miraculously come to life and blow you.  Congratufuckinglations.  You're one of the smarter ones.  But guess what..
There are a certain number of freedoms we are granted by this tradition.  I can't see much negative in the following proposition:  Setting a day or two aside to get loaded with your family, eating copious amounts of rich food that would probably make your heart stop if you ate it every day, and getting presents you know you wouldn't have receiced and probably don't deserve anyway.

So, as a contributor to the evil atheist manifesto, I'm afraid I will have to step out on this ignorant charade.  I won't be participating in the War on Christmas.  My house will have lights up, and perhaps even a tree.  I still give props to Brian Fleming for his "God Who Wasn't There" documentary, but let's stop perpetuating the culture war myth.  There will come a point when we will be unable to accuse these Fox News assholes of distortion, when we ourselves become the opposition in these alleged culture wars.  If religion is what you dissapprove of, then it isn't Christmas that you're after:  it's Christianity.

2:57 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment