My $%^& Back

I seemed to have injured myself somehow so I'm going to be mostly off my feet for a couple of days trying to recuperate. I realized today that I have long held an irrational though barely conscious belief that drug side effects don't apply to me. Today I learned that even I am susceptible.

I also learned that doctors hold an irrational belief that anyone complaining of back pain must only be in it for the drugs. I almost lost it so many times today. The combination of pain and insult do not go well together. I just wanted to scream at several medical "professionals" today to drive home the possibility that just maybe my back really does hurt?

Quacks!

Anti-Pascha Post

I must admit that school is kicking my butt right now so I have been shirking my blogging duties somewhat. However, I would be completely remiss as an atheist blogger to not blog today, on what is perhaps the most sanctimonious of Christian holidays.

That's right today is Easter, a day when all the merry Christians assemble just like every other Sunday to compare clothing , with one noticeable exception, today they bring their 'A' game. (h/t George Carlin)

According to Christian mythology Jesus rose from the dead three days after being entombed, never mind that according to the bible resurrection wasn't an entirely unusual happening, never mind that no one has ever proved that any supernatural event has ever occurred or ever could occur, never mind that the facts just don't add up, and last, but certainly not least, never mind that the word "sacrifice" kind of loses its meaning when the sacrificer doesn't, well... sacrifice anything?

Also, how convenient is it that those lucky Christians get to have their celebration right at the beginning of spring? We need an atheist holiday that occurs on the spring equinox. I nominate, as a name for this holiday, “Anti-Pascha” for the etymological significance and because it sounds like a light and refreshing appetizer that might be served in the springtime. Others have suggested that we celebrate “Zombie Jesus Day”.

Actually, I don't care what it is called as long as it has, as its first and most important tradition, the ridicule of the Easter holiday. Let's face it, ridicule is the only way we can combat such nonsense. If you consider yourself a thinking person celebrate this holiday with me today. Just remember, it is your duty to find some time today to mock and ridicule the silliness of the Easter holiday.

You can even dress up if you like.

I'll leave you to watch these entertaining examples.

Undue Influence

A recent "On Religion" column entitled "Am I raising 'atheist children'?" had me wondering the same. It is not my intention to raise an 'atheist child' but I do want my child to be able to think critically and always with a healthy dose of skepticism.

The most fascinating aspect of this story is that the question is even being asked. I can't imagine a situation where a Christian parent would ask "Am I raising a Christian child?", unless perhaps, the question is prompted by a moment of self-doubt in which they stop to consider whether their currently employed methods of indoctrination are sufficient. Surely, if any Christian parent has ever asked such a question it was immediately followed by a re-doubling of their efforts to properly 'instruct' their child.

The exact opposite reaction occurs with an atheist parent. The very thought of indoctrinating my child makes me physically ill. I hate it when my child wants to go to church with his friend but I resist the temptation to say so. I don't forbid it or tell him what I think about his friends religious beliefs, he has known since he was about twelve. I have always avoided influencing his world view in any way but eventually he asked and we had a very good talk about it. He has a friend that is an atheist and I think he sees how that friend can be left out, or even worse, singled out.

He only wants to fit it.

I am a firm believer that a child's existential conclusions must be obtained on his own. I will guide him and I will try my very best to instill in him a sense of wonder and awe of the universe as well as a respect and tolerance for all people but I won't preach to him or lecture him about what is or isn't "true" or "right".

The problem is that my attitude puts rational, reason based, world views on an uneven footing with religious belief. His mother, relatives, friends, and many others won't abstain from trying to shape his world view. In fact, they will go out of their way to try to fill what they see as a void that has been left precisely for them to fill. It is in this way that religion takes advantage of the young, why it still persists today, and why it is such a threat to our very existence.

I hope I can serve as a balance on the influence that others have on my child without exerting any influence of my own. When he is grown, whatever his world view, as long as he comes to it on his own, it will be good enough for me.

How do you blog?

I've been thinking a lot about blogging. I seem to blog in fits and spurts. I often have a lot on my mind but I don't want to post too frequently or I risk overwhelming the audience with a lot of posts, many of which they will not read. I am also concerned about quality. Do you correct your posts? Do you take your time to ensure they are well written or just blog from the top of your head?

I need a new drug

If this story isn't enough to convince Americans that we need a new alternative to the mainstream media than I don't know what is.

It seems to me that at some point we have to just tune it out and decide that they can't be trusted to provide objective, factual information. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I ever completely trusted the mainstream media but I have always tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. I understand that it is a difficult job, trying to be all things to all people while also being commercially viable.

That is why I think the time has come to free the media from these chains. We need a media revolution in this country, the politicians are all calling for change. I think a good place to start is the chief source of all this strife and division.

Consider where we would be today if we had a responsible and competent media source in this country. Would we have troops in Iraq?

We need a media source that provides just the facts. I don't care if it is boring to some. I don't care if it isn't flashy. I don't even want it to be profitable. I'd even be willing to pay for it, just so long as its integrity and its competency can never be brought into question.

It is simply too important to our future to continue to let our news be little more than entertainment; a form of entertainment that has the power to shape our future.

I think now, given a choice, people would switch to integrity based journalism.

We have finally had enough.

On the logic of voting for a Christian President

Ellen Johnson of American Atheists thinks that you should just stay home this fall. Don't get me wrong, she does make some very good points, but there is a fatal flaw in her argument - the perfect is indeed the enemy of the good.

The rational position is to work at electing progressive candidates regardless of their religious affiliation so that the day will come when a purely secular candidate can be elected. We are trending in the right direction already, despite the last eight years.

If we make ourselves into single issue voters like the religious right's anti-choice voters we doom ourselves to forever operating at the margins of political discourse. Instead we should base our votes on supporting the candidate that will promote all of our values. I want to see that day come just as much as Ellen Johnson does, some days maybe even more so, but I also don't want to see us take two steps back for every step forward.

Why not debate?

I recently saw yet another post about debating creationist and felt that it was about time that I took a side on the issue.

The subject of debating a creationist has been discussed extensively in many places such as here, here and of course here (perhaps my favorite). I think there is a wealth of information on this subject that for the most part concludes that it serves no useful purpose and can even be detrimental to whatever passes for a cause in atheist circles.

However, I feel as though I want to take a slightly different approach to this subject and make the discussion about those debates that occur in our informal relationships. I'd like to explain why I stopped discussing or debating with the theists that I know personally or that I make acquaintance with during the course of my day to day life. Those who know me in my personal life should read this post and consider it a long overdue response to any atheist bating that you have sent my way.

I no longer maintain that we must engage our theists friends in protracted verbal debates in a fruitless effort to reverse years of indoctrination. My personal philosophy has evolved and grown over the years and I think I am the better person for it. I have a life, a very busy life, and my life has a fair amount of stress already without having to repeat myself endlessly and refute arguments that have already been beaten to death or could be beaten to death by a grade school student. I still meet the occasional theist who tries to argue pascal's wager and thinks it to be irrefutable. What more can I say? It is enough to make a man wonder if that isn't their strategy after all - "stupid" me to death. Who Knows? Maybe I'll concede the argument just to stop the insanity. If I ever meet a theist who can put forth a compelling argument for the existence of any supernatural entity based entirely on objective, falsifiable data then I may reconsider.

Don't hold your breath.

Not afraid of a metal spatula

I have this nagging fear that once Obama wins the nomination the press will turn against him and we will see more of the same old, tired, fear mongering we have already seen but to a much larger degree. However, when I get control of myself and go to my happy place, I realize that this time it may be different. I don't think that type of politics is going to work this time. I know it may sound like I am parroting Obama's own talking points but I think he may be on to something, in fact, I think he may just be a genius. His strategy seems designed to work against the type of partisan politics we have seen in the past. It goes something like this:

Obama takes the high-road, never sinking to the level of his opponent and never taking any opportunity, no matter how easy to criticize his opponent unfairly. Speaks only of our better angels and denounces any attacks against him as fear mongering or old-style politics. It also doesn't hurt that his opponent will be a 72 year-old man.

The effect of this strategy, and what makes it genius, is that any charge thrown at him will not stick, even better, it will make him look better if he is attacked and will have the exact opposite effect on the one responsible for the attack. This makes him as close to politically invulnerable as a candidate can get. If you criticize him, you only make him stronger. So is there an Obama kryptonite? None that I know of just yet. The only thing so far that even comes close is the charge that the youth vote is unreliable. For that, we will just have to wait and see, however, I'm not sure it rises to kryptonite levels, even if it does turn out to be true.

Primarily Over

Note: In honor of the upcoming elections tomorrow I thought I'd do a couple of political posts. I'll try not to make too much of a habit out of it.

I don't understand the desperation of the Clinton campaign nor the media's need to prop her up. Can anyone honestly expect us to believe that if Obama had lost the last 11 races in a row and was behind in both delegate count and popular vote that there wouldn't be an incredible amount of pressure on him to drop out? So much so that he would have already done so long before tomorrow's Super Tuesday II showdown in Texas and Ohio? I suspect I know the answer to that question but feel free to give me your take on it anyway. If her name wasn't Clinton we'd have already stuck a fork in her. So, having said all of that, if I hear one more time how she has been treated so unfairly by the media and the voters I think I may just explode, well not physically, probably just in writing, all over the pages of this blog.

I am predicting an Obama blow-out tomorrow. If he doesn't sweep it, then it will be very close to a sweep, the only one I'm not wiling to call yet is Rhode Island. Clinton has a lot of support there and so there is a slight possibility that she may pull out a squeaker there. I'm not so dogmatically sure of my intuitions to say that I can't be wrong but the Obama movement is an unstoppable train at this point and I doubt Clinton can derail it now.

Ok. Say I'm 100% correct and things go down just as I've described them, what next? Will Hillary concede? I doubt it, at least not at first. Honest money is on a lawsuit in Texas by the Clinton campaign. For all of our sakes, lets hope I'm wrong on this one.


** Update **

Oh man was I wrong. Still, I don't think Clinton can pull it out, the math is against her.

Atheist Blogroll

This blog is officially now a member of the Atheist Blogroll. I've added the marquee version to the right side of the page. I will also be requesting an introduction on Deep Thoughts so if you came here by way of the Atheist blogroll please leave a comment and let me know.

Freedom's blind eye

The problem with the so called religious moderates or the religious "mainstream" is illustrated very well by a recent post at Pharyngula. The argument that comes to mind, and I've yet to hear anyone even come close to refuting this argument, is that if it weren't for the religious moderates this kind of child abuse would not exist. Yes, I said child abuse. If you don't believe this is child abuse then you may need to reexamine what it is exactly that you do think constitutes child abuse. These children don't have a fully developed ability to reason and they are at an evolutionary and developmental disadvantage when they are used by their parents in this way. We should be protecting these children from this danger in the same way that we take away children from parents that physically or sexually abuse their children.

While, I'll be the first to admit that, even in my circle, the Christians that I know personally don't come close to reaching this level of fundamentalism. However, I have never seen any Christian condemning this particular type of child abuse. Christian fundamentalist are not uncommon here but it is almost as thought everyone turns a blind eye to to it, as if to say, "that is their business and not mine". It is your business, it is society's business, it is the government's business. If you learned of a child being beaten by their parents, would you turn a blind eye to that? There is no difference. Because of, not in spite of, my atheism, I have a very strong respect for freedom of religion, but our freedoms are not unlimited. If the free exercise of your religious belief brings harm to another person, it can, and it must be limited. I post the video here in the interest of context and convenience but please be sure to read the original post over at Pharyngula (highly recommended) for the complete story.