Does Obama really want a second term?

I'm not sure.  Last night was a dismal failure.He hemmed and hawed to the point that I was embarrassed for him and for all of us who have supported him. What exactly was he trying to do?

I listened to the analysis this morning and there was little that could be said in his defense; that brings me to the question; what would happen if he just decided to "throw the race"? Has it ever happened before? After all, he is quite young and the taxpayers will support him and his family for the rest of his long life even after just one term..so does he really want to do another 4 years?

If he does, he had better get something to say before the next debate. Shame on you Mr. President, you let us down last night.

http://news.yahoo.com/after-the-debate-debacle-for-obama--we%E2%80%99ll-find-out-if-we-have-a-race.html

What does Mitt really believe?

Protestors Attacking American Embassies Across The Middle East

It is difficult for me to add to Cenk's rant and I should say I don't always agree with him. However, he does tell it like it is. He is not "beholding" to any network and he blows it out there. I would like to see more journalist reporting like this. He doesn't make any apologies for what he says. That's free speech at its best.

A Few Great Minds.

So much that gives me great hope. As I go through this world I continue to meet people who simply don't get it.
"The god that Christians believe in is amazingly stupid..." Matt D. The Atheist Experience

Not knowing is so much more exciting that being sure of something that may not be true. Christians are not interested in the truth and I do understand that...It is easier to just "have faith".

Love this video and I place it here not only to share but to preserve it for my personal collection.

Sunday Brunch

I started this group several years ago and thought I might have trouble finding ladies who would join me on Sunday morning. I work with the restaurant to provide a fine dining brunch experience for 8 to 10 ladies and then announce it. I thought, living in the bible belt, that folks would be going to church. What a surprise! I am going to have to expand the group limit just to include all the heathens!

So what do we do now?

We can vote for a team who made promises and didn't keep many of them in the last 4 years or we can vote for a guy who believes he will be god on his own planet and a VP who thinks Ayn Rand is a great model for good living. Oh and by the way they represent the same party as the guy who thinks a woman can prevent pregnancy during "legitimate" rape.

Where is our ballot with "none of the above"?

A Review of the Holy Bible

This review is from: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (with Cross-References) (Kindle Edition) I would like to be charitable and generous in my evaluation---even Christian, if you know what I mean---but I can't give this book anything more than ONE STAR because there are just too many unanswered questions in it. As examples: 1. Leviticus 25.44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided that they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Why can't I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21.7. In this bad economy, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. The Bible teaches that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her menstrual period, but how can I tell? Whenever I ask women I meet if they are menstruating, they take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor to the Lord [Lev. 1.9]. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35.2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination [Lev. 11.10], it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. Are there different degrees of abomination? 7. Leviticus 21.20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19.27. How should they die? 9. I know from Leviticus 11.6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes people unclean. Does this mean that Tim Tebow must stop throwing footballs, or that football should be abolished? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19.19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread [cotton and polyester blend]. He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary to get the whole community together to stone them [Lev. 24.10-16]? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family ceremony, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws [Lev. 20.14]? If the author of this book can clear up these issues, I'll consider buying the next edition.

What Atheist Blog About

A comment from Rick:

Atheists write Blogs and argue that the Bible is Cruel and Unfair, Yet These same atheists never blog about things people do now a days that are cruel and unfair, only things in the Bible that took place 1000's of years ago.

Atheist do say that the bible is cruel and unfair, that the god of the bible is a mean, egotistical, misogynistic tyrant. You say that atheist don't blog about the terrible stuff that goes on today and speak only of things that happened thousands of years ago. That may or may not be the case, since I don't read all the atheist blogs. However, I must address this statement of yours because you have failed to recognize the topics we are talking about. Most of my topics have to do with the implausibility of a belief in god. Although I do think that looking at crimes and cruelty of today is very much an argument AGAINST any god, that has not been my primary focus.

When an argument is presented against the god of the bible you and others, come back with quotes from the bible as "evidence" for your belief. That is the reason I speak about the bible and not about current events. It is amazing to me that so many believers have not really read the bible; they know a few verses that agree with what they believe but fail to mention the horrible stuff that is written there.

I remember a conversation in which you defended the flood story. If I remember correctly, you stated that god warned the people and that they did not believe him so he was justified in wiping out the population. Not that I believe this story, but even if it were absolutely true, it still makes your god cruel and tyrannical.

Suppose I told my neighbor that I was planning to build a pool in my back yard and that if he did not believe me and help to complete it, in 20 years I was going to burn down his house. Suppose I reminded him every day and that he saw my children and siblings working on the pool, getting it ready for the great summer. And suppose further that I prayed that god would help my neighbor to see his error. But in all the warning and all my attempts to convince my neighbor, he still refuses. I burn his house down. Am I not cruel? 

Whether or not god warns people of what he will do if they do not comply with his wishes, the acts are still cruel.  A warning does not nullify the cruelty.

So now, when an atheist addresses the cruelty of the biblical past it is only relevant as to the claim that god is a good and loving god.

Argument from Ignorance

I have heard this term quite often lately and I thought I understood it but decided to do a little research just to solidify in my own mind that I am correct. Although it may sound like an insult, saying that something is an argument from ignorance it is not calling someone ignorant. It is saying that because you cannot prove something (you are ignorant of the facts) that the claim is being argued out of ignorance, not being able to prove it.

 Definition:

Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma[i], since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) "Lack of proof is not proof."

For example, since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist. We can substitute almost anything for ghosts and have the same effect. Or another example, since scientist cannot prove that global warming is happening, it probably isn’t. Since I cannot prove that gods do not exist, they must exist.  I hear that one a lot.

This is what happens so often in debates and discussions about the existence of God. The person arguing that god does exist will attempt to shift the burden of proof to the non believer. I cannot prove that god does NOT exist so therefore he must exist.

 

In a court of law this kind of assertion would be laughable.  Circumstantial evidence is well known in the courtroom as being very weak evidence, if evidence at all. Yet in daily life it is used with impunity. Scientists largely assume something does not exist until it is proven to exist, which is the base position in any premise. i.e. innocent until proven guilty. So, where the burden of proof lie? In a court of law it is with the prosecutor.  

Therefore, until a believer can provide proof of the existence of god I will remain an atheist. I have no burden of proof and one cannot prove  that something does NOT exist.

For the top ten arguments for the existence of god see http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Top_ten_arguments_for_the_existence_of_God

 

---

[i] A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.

Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy. i.e. You are either for me or against me.

Democracy

I often think about the “shape” in which we find our country. It seems that our elected officials are little more than squabbling brats. They have lost the art of compromise and diplomacy.

Arizona passes some tough laws on immigration and the opposition takes it to the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS upheld the law and the President decides he doesn’t like that so he in effect, defies the SCOTUS. The congress passed a law, the affordable care act and the opposition takes it to the Supreme Court claiming it is unconstitutional. The SCOTUS declares it constitutional and immediately the opposition takes it to task to repeal it.

I guess that is democracy in action but it seems like we are headed down a rabbit hole.

 So what is democracy? The dictionary defines it:

1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives-
2. A state governed in such a way
3. Control of an organization or group by the majority of its members
4. The practice or principles of social equality

In a some what dated article, I found this definition:

“The concept of democracy is often expressed in terms of “thin” and “thick” definitions. At its most fundamental (or thin) incarnation, democracy is synonymous with popular sovereignty or majority rule: a system of governance in which the people choose their leaders by casting votes. Also known as electoral democracy, this definition describes the processes by which a government derives its authority or mandate. But, most agree that this is only one piece of the equation. What the government does with this mandate, how it rules, and the outcomes that are produced must also be factored into a (thick) designation of democracy. Thus, what we know as democracy in its ideal form generally also includes governance by rule of law and the protection of civil liberties, or liberal democracy. Though how these two basic components of democracy – electoral and liberal – are represented may differ, it is widely accepted that a truly democratic system of governance must comprise both. The extent to which it does so will determine its quality and durability. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, without liberal democracy, electoral democracy is “nothing more than mob rule where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”

Electoral democracy is the process by which leaders gain public office; liberal democracy results when clear limits are placed on what they can do when they get there.” http://worldsavvy.org/monitor/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=183&Itemid=297

Two of these seem to be at odds:

1. Control of an organization or group by the majority of its members
2. The practice or principles of social equality

How can we have majority rule and equality? Do we really have a country where the majority rules? i.e. the electoral vote  Do we provide equality for all members of our society. i.e. Gays and Lesbians, Transgender … atheist?  Are we working on it? I think so.

In spite of what John Adams said in 1763 our democracy is not perfect it seems to be better than anything else out there.

Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
John Adams
 http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_adams.html#ZeqPHvlp57YIRAsI.99

  

In my humble opinion, where we seem to have gone awry is in the power department. As I began this rant I was appalled that the SCOTUS has been so “dissed” but as I conclude I think another John Adams quote sums it up.

Sep. 5, 1763 - from a letter published in the Boston Gazette

Unbridled passions produce the same effects, whether in a king, nobility, or a mob. The experience of all mankind has proved the prevalence of a disposition to use power wantonly. It is therefore as necessary to defend an individual against the majority (in a democracy) as against the king in a monarchy.

Atheist are fools...really?

There is a huge controversy occuring in Tennessee about prayer at government meetings. I think this comment sums up a lot of what has been said about the Christian bible.

Matthew Arnsdorf · Berea, Kentucky

Your Bible states that atheists are fools, yes. However, you have no evidence outside of your own Bible (as Christianity has no basis outside its own holy book) to back up such a claim. Christians only believe in Christianity "for the Bible tells me so."

To blanket-sweep atheists as fools is to ignore the inescapable fact that people who entrust their entire lives to a series of books put together by oppressive governments in the name of God are actually disallowing themselves to live--a rather foolish act in any educated person's opinion.

The Bible also states that God loves all mankind and yet, simply for being born as sinners (i.e., apparently not intelligently designed), are condemned to death (Romans 3:23 and 6:23). The evidence that God loves all mankind is apparent in that he had his own son slain in a pretty nasty m...anner to cover the sins of humanity. At first glance, that's sweet and all, but if that's how he treats his own son, how can we expect to be treated?

If you would not mind thinking for yourself while you read the Bible, you'll find it is replete with gaps in stories, contradictions, unacceptable cultural norms, and ultimately a God who is unworthy of worship from anyone. Genesis 1 and 2, for example, from the outset give two totally different creation myths. Read closely and use your brain; stop parroting what others have told you is right and determine for yourself what is right.

The Christian version of the fate of my eternal soul is a wee bit secondary to immediate considerations in THIS life on EARTH and will remain so until I've been given sufficient reason to believe a fiery place of physical torment is going to make my non-physical soul miserable and it is more desirable to spend eternity with a mass-murdering split-personality maniac who kills his kid because he likes creatures he made with dirt.

Christian theology makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and there is no actual evidence to support any of it. It also rips off theologies of ancient pagans, even taking the festival of Yule to be the traditional birth date of Jesus and the fertility celebration of early spring, often called Ostara for western pagan cults, to be the time of Easter.

I will grant you that the conclusions I drew in this comment are, of course, only my opinions, but unlike you, I backed them up with actual examples rather than spouting off ignorant nonsense.

If you cannot engage in civil, intelligent discussion, why are you here?

Is a religious experience evidence for God?

So many of my friends and relatives who are believers tell me that they "know" god exist because he has spoken to them or they have been touched by the holy spirit  but I am not convinced. I think I understand that they are speaking of a feeling. A feeling of euphoria or peace or just incredible happiness. I have had it too. I have it when I hear a certain song or hear my grandchild cry for the first time. I have that feeling when my children tell me they love me  and when my dogs cuddle with me. Sometimes it is stronger than others but it is, nevertheless, a wonderful feeling. When I was a believer it happened in church and I called it a religious experience, but does it prove that god exist? I think not.

As I have grown in age and knowledge, I have come to understand that whatever the feelings we have in our bodies begin in our brain. Good or bad, pain or pleasure it is all in our heads, literally. I have a great deal of pain at times and though it is real pain, I can take a pill that blocks that pain by affecting my brain. I'm not a doctor but my understanding is that certain chemicals can interrupt the messages received by the brain. Pain medication does not cure the problem but interrupts the signal and therefore makes me feel that the pain is gone. I think religious experience is similar in that the brain is affected by some stimuli and reacts by flooding the body with happy chemicals.

I recently read an article by Dan Barker of FFRF fame and he has some interesting things to say:

God is imaginary.

But imagination is real.

So . . . the religious experience is a real experience. It happens to many believers in all religions. It happened to me.

It can STILL happen to me. Even as an atheist, I can make my mind go back into the “religious experience” mode and relive all those very real feelings. (What a weird sensation for a nonbeliever! I don't do it very often, but every couple of years, when I am all by myself, I will try it out, just to see if my brain has changed.) They are powerful and motivating feelings. When I was a believer, those experiences, though not necessary for my faith, were very confirming of my faith.

I particularly like his analogy to the monster at the window:

For example, you wake up one night screaming from a nightmare, sitting up straight in bed. You wake up the whole house. Your palms are sweating. Your heart is racing. Your breathing is quickened. No one can deny that you have had a very real and powerful experience. But there is no monster crawling through the window.
It is all in your mind.

So now what can I say to my friends when they say they "know" god is real because they have had a religious experience? Nothing, because they would only be angry because I am trying to spoil their fantasy, and they wouldn't believe me anyway.

Why do atheist even bother with the god question?

I have thought about this for sometime. Often my Christian friends will ask me "Why do you care?" so I want to try to answer that now. Not for every atheist because we don't all agree on much but only from my point of view.

First, I care about my friends. If you were being sold a bill of goods by a known con artist, I would not be a very good friend if I did not tell you what I know about the guy. In the end I can't make the decision for you but I do think that it is my responsibility as a friend to provide any information I have which might help you to make a decision.

Second, I care about my country. We have one of the highest crime rates in the Western world and in correlation to that we are the most religious! This country was found on principles of freedom. Europeans, sick of the stifling oppression of the church, sought a new world, a better way of life. Funny that, because now most of Europe is far ahead of us in the peaceful pursuit of happiness. They have lower numbers of religious people and lower crime.

Finally, I care about humanity. As we continue to evolve we learn more about what works to promote peace and well being for ourselves and our fellow humans. Humanity is not perfect and likely will not ever be. We continue to learn through trial and error, through our failures despite best intentions, and through the acquisition of knowledge. My hope as an atheist is that the myths that have ruled much of humanity will be exposed and that each individual will understand that he is capable of making a difference in the world without superstition and fear.

We have only one lifetime and doing all we can to make it better for ourselves and those who come after is a worthy purpose. What could be better than to know that I have helped someone to think for herself, to give up on fairy tales and seek out knowledge without fear?

This is the good one!

What the Heck?

Recently I have become somewhat more politically active. In thinking about this I have decided that, although part of it may be my age and the fact that I have experienced the best and the worst of years politically, most is due to the political climate at this time.

I have signed several petitions lately and written to several congressmen and state legislators. I think that is what riles me the most. I received a response from a US Senator signed, “God bless you”, an email from a state legislator signed “In God We Trust”. I found a card wishing me a “blessed day” in my mailbox, without any postage, signed by my postal carrier. I can’t go to the grocery store without being accosted by some “missionary” passing out religious leaflets and the clerk who checks me out wishing me a blessed day. What the heck? Do people have no decorum? What if I stood on the corner and passed out leaflets about atheism or made signs wishing everyone a secular day? How long before someone would call the cops and I would be removed from the property.

Be religious if you want, believe in fairytales, sky daddy and holy ghosts but please don’t bother me when I go about my day, please don’t try to bless my day, and most of all do not use my tax dollars to promote your religion.

Raped Moroccan Girl Forced To Marry Rapist

Why would you believe on faith alone?

This is the best I can do. I hope you will at least see it through.

Boloney Detection

I went to "church" on Sunday

I had the most marvelous experience. We all met at a local restaurant and talked about the lives we lead. There was no preaching, no threat of hell fire and brimstone, just love and peace. What a great joy it was to talk to people who feel the peace of life and love without the threat of hell. I am so happy to have the opportunity to meet with the interesting, intelligent segment of the society where I live. Thank you AOK. I am so glad to be a part of your group.

Teach the controversy

Worthless people who offer nothing

Well said Richard!

Evidence for Evolution

This is the most simple layout I can find. It is from NATURE|January 2009. Although it is several years old and much new evidence has come to light, this is a consise presentation.

Most biologists take for granted the idea that all life evolved by natural selection over billions of years. They get on with researching and teaching in disciplines that rest squarely on that foundation, secure in the knowledge that natural selection is a fact, in the same way that the Earth orbits the Sun is a fact.

http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

I don't see how anyone can watch the flu virus and not see that evolution is a fact. Every year a new vaccine must be created because the virus evolves and mutates to resist the vaccines.

Before you comment, please read the article and refute, if you can, the points.