Archive for October, 2009

Spag that bitch

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

Recently, at St. Matthews Epsicopal Church in Charleston, West Virginia, Bishop Klusmeyer and Father Thomas held the annual pet blessing, which, ahem, begs the question, Do all dogs go to heaven?

According to the article, ”Klusmeyer and Thomas said the day’s events reminded parishioners about reaching out to the smallest and the poorest of the poor, and also the gentleness and simplicity of all of God’s creatures …

“For example, Thomas, known as Father Bill, might say this prayer: ‘Almighty God, Creator of all things, and giver of all life, let your blessing be upon Molly and grant that Molly may serve you to your glory and the welfare of your people, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.’”

At ClarifyingChristianity.com, the writer seems to think it is possible for pets to go to heaven, but that it is just as unlikely that pets will go to heaven since so few humans will gain entrance. It is an odd defeatist mentality for a Christian. The writer offers no ways to measure how god will decide if a pet can gain entrance to heaven. Over at Pet-Loss.net, the writer states that animals don’t need to be “saved” because they have not “fallen”. Then why would pets need to be blessed if they are already and always will be within the good graces of god? Because of this default position, the writer is not offering us any help with our basic question. Finally, at Answers2Prayer.org, the writer states that animals do not have immortal souls, so no redemption is required because there is nothing to redeem. It seems that animals will occupy some kind of Spielberg-esque animal-like semi-intelligent life form that can be turned on or off on a whim — though heaven is supposed to be whim-free (sigh).

The article in the Gazette fails to mention how Molly (a pet) might serve the glory of the Christian god. Is Molly required to go to church every Sunday in observation of Jesus Christ? Minimally, Molly will need to adhere to the Ten Commandments (whichever ten you choose, makes no difference to me). Since Molly cannot speak a language discernable to humans, I think Molly is safe with the universal first commandment which prohibits any other gods. If she had any other gods, we would never know it. We’re not even sure if she has Jesus in her heart much less Lucifer in her mind, but she wags her tail when her owner returns home and she barks for treats, so Molly gets a bye on this one.

What about taking the lord’s name in vain? Again, since Molly cannot engage in conversation with humans, she gets a bye on this commandment. What about the prohibition on images? I am not aware of dogs possessing cameras, nor am I aware of their understanding of how cameras work. Additionally, I am not aware of dogs that sketch, paint, sculpt or make mounds of dirt for any other purpose than digging for prey. So, we have yet another commandment for which Molly earns a bye. What about bearing false witness? Another bye – can’t converse, can’t violate. Even if she saw and heard evil, she certainly can’t speak of it. By default, she cannot bear false witness.

How about keeping the sabbath holy? I don’t think Molly works on the sabbath, but I am not sure because I don’t know if she has chores. If she does have chores, her human owner would also be in violation of the commandment. So, maybe we can just call this one a default failure since her owner is likely to cause Molly to engage in activities that result in the sabbath not being quite as holy as intended.

Does Molly honor her mother and father? I am not sure, mostly because I am not sure what honoring your father or mother means. Is it asking for permission? Sending a birthday card? Addressing the parents with common titles of respect: ”Mother” and “Father”? Molly cannot ask for permission, at least not verbally. Except as a default circumstance of the next commandment, we simply can never know if Molly ever violates this commandment. Do not murder … well, I am sure that Molly wishes to eat and has murdered something in some way. If it is in reference to not murdering those of her own kind, I shall have to assume that she hasn’t violated this commandment because she is not a feral street dog. However, since some commercially manufactured dog food contains horse meat, and since horses are pets that are also likely to be blessed, it is my opinion that Molly has repeatedly sinned. This commandment may make the violator a victim of circumstance rather than willful action. If cows and pigs can also be pets that are blessed, then Molly is a big loser on this point.

Do not steal … another dilemma. If Molly snatches away a toy or bone from another dog, or if she absconds with her owner’s shoes for her own chewing pleasure, is that stealing? What if the item is later returned? It should at least qualify as adulteration of a material possession, although that is not a violation of a commandment. This one is a toss-up. Molly gets a default bye.

Next, we have coveting thy neighbor’s wife and adultery. No reason to handle these issues separately, for in doggie-land, they are one in the same. Now, for Molly, being female, coveting her neighbor’s wife presents additional moral dilemmas, but I will leave aside thoughts of a homosexual pet for this exercise. This is where Molly really has a doggie dilemma. Molly is a bitch. Unless her human owner is extremely protective of her, the owner is going to breed the bitch (either intentionally or by lack of action). The bitch enters heat. The bitch is going to be in deep trouble. I doubt Molly has engaged in any marital rituals with her companion dogs, so I am sure that Molly, as a representative example of all bitches, has repeatedly violated this commandment. Molly is, sadly, indiscriminate in her behaviors. She has sinned. If Molly’s owner has neutered her, then there are a host of other religious morals to review. Molly can’t get a bye on this – she can’t even win. Molly loses this one by default. So does her owner, by the way, but for a cornucopia of other reasons.

So, as Molly arrives at the pearly gates, it becomes crunch time for the Christian god. Has Molly sufficiently served the lord? Does she get to enter heaven? I think the answer from nearly all corners of pet-owner-land is a resounding YES!

Of course, we have a rather nuanced problem here. I think Molly’s owner, as a representative of all pet owners, is spagging her. So is Father Bill. In fact, everyone is spagging Molly. She is a bitch, after all. She’s accustomed to frequent spagging. Just look at how she is treated: free home, free toys, free food, free maid service, and a wet massage nearly every week. Hell, she even gets a free education, psych therapy and her own stays in a pet hotel. Jesus! All Molly has to do is rollover and allow herself to be spagged. Repeatedly.

So, if an easy bitch can get into heaven, what are you worried about?

Everyday Astrology?

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

Everyday AstrologyBook Review: Gary Goldschneider’s Everyday Astrology

Fill the Void

When I was young, I wanted to believe in God and Jesus. It was a warm, fuzzy, exciting feeling to think that some great and powerful entity was out there, watching, interacting, loving. The search for some sort of understanding about this entity helped give purpose to my life. As the years progressed, though, I accumulated doubts about there being an all-knowing, all-powerful deity who bothered with the day-to-day affairs of humans, and I ultimately weaned myself off that world view. But, when a void is made, it yearns to be refilled.

Thus I began a rebound relationship with magic. I collected books and what I thought were magic artifacts (Tarot cards, runes, hematite, daggers). I tried spells and rituals, and I convinced myself that there was some mystical nature to the universe into which I could tap and manifest my will. I didn’t merely believe in magic, I wanted to believe it. And thus it became true and magical for me. Until reality overcame desire.

My efforts to manipulate the world through magic were in vain — spells didn’t really work; the Tarot was too open to subjective interpretation; rituals accomplished little more than wax on the carpet. It was as if my prayers were going unanswered while a fanatic yelled at me that I must be doing it wrong. After years of failed attempts at harnessing something I no longer believed to exist, my hope that there is “something” out there vanished, and my search for some metaphysical truth seems to have ended.

We’re all just star dust.

But not everyone is content to sate their vacuity with materialism. There are many people who want to believe in something, and quite a few of them want to believe in astrology.1 Gary Goldschneider’s new book, Everyday Astrology, is for those people.

Make Astrology Work for You?

The book’s official pitch indicates that it explores “hundreds of scenarios in areas ranging from work to love to family and friends,” including “how to break up with a Scorpio boyfriend, how to make a great impression on a Capricorn first date, how to survive the holidays with a Pisces parent.” “Whatever the situation,” it claims, “you’ll find practical and specific advice for making astrology work for you.”

Astrology is the realm of belief that the positions of the stars and planets can provide information about human personalities and earthly events. Although scientists call astrology a pseudoscience or superstition,2 it’s popular enough that the U.S. is inundated with newspaper and magazine postings of daily Horoscopes, which list the star signs of the Zodiac in chronological order, with tidbits of advice or predictions under each.

The truth about astrological star signs might surprise even some amateur astrologers. Star signs are determined by drawing an imaginary line from Earth “through” the Sun, to one of the twelve constellations of the zodiac. During a solar year, that line points to each of the twelve zodiac constellations in succession along the zodiac “ring.”
Ecliptic_path (image via Wikipedia)

Because the Earth wobbles a bit on its axis, our perspective changes in such a way as to “shift” the zodiac ring about one degree every 72 years, taking about 25,800 years to complete a full cycle. This is called the precession of the equinoxes, and its relevance to today’s horoscope is that the zodiac has shifted about one full constellation since the original zodiac was discovered over 2000 years ago.

In other words, if Jesus had been born on December 25, about 2009 years ago, his target constellation would have been Capricorn. However, if Jesus were born December 25, 2009, it would, instead, be Sagittarius. Yes, the sign you thought you were may not be the sign under which you were actually born.3

The reality of the shifty zodiac, however, doesn’t dissuade people from asking, “What’s your sign?” in order to determine potential compatibility.

Everyday Astrology contains voluminous details about the characteristics of people, based on the historical zodiac. Similarly to any other horoscope one might read in a paper or astrology book, Everyday Astrology gives bits of advice, scattered with hints about personality and fate. Unlike those other sources, this book changes perspective. It’s not about you and your sign. It’s about someone you know (or want to know). The book is quite cleverly organized such that the reader can choose a target based on sign and relationship to the reader, and then turn right to the section on how Goldschneider suggests the reader deal with that person.

For example, if the reader has a boss, and the boss is a Taurus, the reader can flip to the Work / The Taurus Boss section, and then to any of the sub-sections: Asking the Taurus Boss for a Raise; Breaking Bad News to the Taurus Boss; Arranging Travel and/or Entertainment; Decision-Making; Impressing and/or Motivating; Making Proposals and/or Giving Presentations to the Taurus Boss.

What if the reader wants to ask a Taurus Boss for a raise? Everyday Astrology says that the reader must be thoroughly prepared, make an appointment early, state the case in writing, don’t rush the meeting, don’t exert any pressure, let the facts speak for themselves, voice demands unequivocally, never threaten to leave unless intending to, and never make idle threats to a Taurus boss. That’s pretty good advice for just about any situation where a worker wants to ask for a raise, but the book gives the advice through the filter of the Taurus stereotype: stubborn, bossy, inflexible, insensitive.

Don’t Screw with the Mutable Positive Fire Sign

The book’s margins blast strength, weakness, and interactive style adjectives at the reader, like “Stable,” “Inflexible,” and “Explicit,” that sometimes seem self-contradictory, while each main sign page displays the date range of the sign with a brief description of the sign using astrological terminology that I found unhelpful, since there is no glossary or explanation. Perhaps it’s assumed that the reader would either already know astrological lingo or wouldn’t care enough to worry about it.

For example, Geminis are apparently “mutable air signs… [r]uled by Mercury.” That’s certainly not language for an “everyday” person who hasn’t delved at least thigh-deep into more comprehensive astrological texts.4 Although I’ve had some friends and family at some point fascinated enough with astrology to want to have a reading done for me, the terminology here escapes me. Regardless, this doesn’t necessarily detract from the indicated purpose of the book, which is to give specific advice about people with a certain sign.

The two categories of the book besides Work are Love and Friends and Family, which include subcategories like First Date, Spouse, Friend, Roommate, Parent, Sibling, and Child, all of which contain similar insights into the personalities of those types of people based on their star signs.

The Painful Truth?

I try to approach everything as a skeptic, but also without prejudice. My first thought upon opening the book was, “I wonder if any of this is accurate.” The best way, in my mind, to answer that question would be to find my own star sign and see if the entries accurately describe me, and then to see if others in my life are accurately described. Interestingly enough, when I picked up the book and gave the pages a quick flip-through, my thumb landed on my very own star sign. Perhaps a bit of magic remained from my days of old. I read the description, which warned, “Scorpios are best left alone since their capacity to inflict pain is pronounced.” Hah, that pegged me!

Unfortunately, I found little else in the book that corresponded with the personalities of myself or anyone I know. However, arguing about whether or not the book accurately depicts anyone in my life would be akin to me arguing that you didn’t really see the ghost you know you saw. It was real to you, so it’s real, right? Astrology, just like its cousins psychic reading and numerology, titillates our human desire to fit pieces together in a desirable pattern, even if those pieces don’t belong to the same puzzle.

Could there be some truth to astrology? There are so many other factors involved that can explain the perceived correlations between star signs and personality. People could adopt personality traits based on their perception of the horoscope stereotype. We could view others through an astrological filter, subconsciously highlighting horoscope-matching characteristics despite the presence of non-matching characteristics. Sign descriptions could be designed to include as many personality types as possible, but presented slightly differently, and cryptically, so that most people reading them could find a connection and still feel spiritually connected to the sign. If the correlation between the stars and our personalities is so frail, what purpose can a book on astrology serve? At minimum, it can be mildly entertaining and perhaps provide some decent advice that is probably applicable to the majority of the population, disguised as being mystically derived.

A Child is Born

Does horoscope ambiguity and the reliance some people put upon astrology create a potential danger to the believers or others? Astrology, although taken seriously centuries ago, is now as influential and credible as a psychic hotline. I know of no astrology nuts who try to impose learning astrology on public school children, or try to get our money imprinted with “In the Zodiac We Trust.” I’m quite positive that no astrologer would condemn any non-astrologer to an eternity in hell just for not believing in astrology. Astrologers don’t make human sacrifices. Overall, it’s a fairly innocuous practice that might just be a lot of fun, seeing whether someone you know fits a certain profile, or whether you can predict something based on how the planets are aligned. As long as people aren’t hurting or abusing one another in the name of astrology, there isn’t a problem.

But what about the manner in which a book like Everyday Astrology is being advertised? This isn’t a book solely about whether the cute boy or girl sitting next to you in class will like you based on some two-thousand-year-old stellar alignment. It’s also about how to interact with people who may not place as much faith in astrology as the reader. The boss, the competitor, the spouse, the parent. The child.

A child is born on that day and at that hour when the celestial rays are in mathematical harmony with his individual karma. His horoscope is a challenging portrait, revealing his unalterable past and its probable future results. But the natal chart can be rightly interpreted only by men of intuitive wisdom: these are few.
-spoken by Sri Yukteswar in Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramhansa Yogananda

Besides the fact that Everyday Astrology informs the reader that the majority of spouses, regardless of the sign, are inclined to be unfaithful (both creating a potentially hostile situation in any relationship as well as possibly giving a justification for certain signs to cheat), the book also gives advice on how to raise a child, based apparently not on any peer-reviewed and tried medical or psychological approach, but, instead, on the author’s determination that all children born under the sign of Aries, for example, will react the same way and will require the same parental treatment. When we’re dealing with adults not desiring to wear red on Tuesday because that’s what the horoscope said, that’s a sad case, but only detrimental in the sense that the person is perpetuating a delusion that is fairly harmless at the time. However, when that delusion (of astrology telling it like it is) is applied by parents to children, my spider sense starts tingling.

Is there any parental “advice” in Everyday Astrology that deviates from the generic “this applies to everyone, but you’ll see it as applying directly to you because it’s under your sign” advice into the realm of misguidance?

My first thought in examining the Aries child entry is that a parent who believes this stuff might unintentionally impose the book’s listed personality characteristics upon a child. For example, the Aries child is, according to Goldschneider, constricted, criticized, and sad.

In the 1960s, researchers studied the effect of giving school teachers false information about students picked at random, to see what effect the teachers’ expectations of the students were. The researchers concluded that the behavior of the teachers that accompanied high expectations actually caused accelerated intellectual growth in the targeted students.5 It’s unquestionable that a parent exerts an even greater amount of influence. With expectations and guidance, a parent can shape a child’s personality.

An author of a work meant to guide parents in the disciplining and development of children has a duty not to suggest actions that are equivalent to child abuse. Fortunately, despite being set in the realm of mysticism, Everyday Astrology does not appear to breach that duty. Indeed, the sections on children could quite easily be interchanged and applied to just about any child.

The lessons are muddled in methodical verbosity, needlessly and repetitively invoking the star sign, but seem applicable to every parent and child relationship — don’t be too negative, understand that your child might be very demanding, some children have trouble expressing emotion, some stages of childhood can be troublesome, offer your child a range of experiences, older siblings might be a hindrance or might even be helpful, children depend on their parents, children like fantasy. I don’t perceive any harm against children coming from this book, which is certainly better than ancient and even modern religious texts that advocate instilling fear into their hearts.

Pisces, the Final Sign

If you enjoy horoscopes and think there might be something to them, but you feel that you’re still grounded in reality, then this book might be an entertaining way to pass the time with friends and family to see how much of it is accurate. If, on the other hand, you are at the skeptical end of the spectrum of doubt, I would suggest buying the book only if you want to debunk it — it certainly isn’t a book to be shelved in the “rational” category. Finally, if you’re the kind of person I suggested this book was written for — the person who wants to believe in astrology — how could you not at least take a look to see what you’re getting into? The author’s 40 years of astrological study, plus his experience writing very popular books about “personology” will make this book a must-have for budding astrologists and fans of all things spiritual.

I know at least two or three people to whom I would seriously consider gifting this book, based on their studies of astrology or their belief that there’s something spiritual or supernatural out there that is at least somewhat accessible. The cover is well-designed and the navigation easy and quick. If you’re into Ouija boards, Tarot, runes, or any other sort of mysticism or party games, this might be a good book to keep on the coffee table.

Dear Procrustes,

First, does this book really try to convince people that astrology is something that can manipulate the world, or is it just something to satisfy the cravings of the superstitious?

Second, can I start a tax-exempt astrology church? Please! I mean, out of all the supernatural-based beliefs out there, I find this one mildly relaxing and not so vicious, at least with regard to people trying to pry my rights away. Why can’t we have more churches of astrology?

Finally, Who is Gary Goldschneider, and what’s it take to become an “expert” in astrology?

Best,
Astro

Astro,

Thanks for your questions. I think the author really believes there’s something out there that has a connection, and that people have personalities that correlate to zodiacal interpretation. I don’t think he’s trying to scam people, but I also don’t think any rational person could believe that a book about stereotypical personalities will, as the advert says, improve your relationships. I think this is really just another “this description could apply to 70% of the population, which is good enough to convince people with spiritual inclinations.”

Even if the author were completely serious that personalities and star signs are causally intertwined, there is no explanation in the book for how it is supposed to work. This isn’t a book on astrology theory; it’s a book meant for the reader to assume that the author knows what he’s talking about, has done all the dirty work, and now is giving the reader simple to follow instructions on ground-level application.

As for the astrology church, I discovered Friends of Astrology, which is apparently a non-profit organization meant to teach about astrology, so I guess you can!

For more about Gary Goldschneider, here is his author bio:

Gary Goldschneider, author of Gary Goldschneider’s Everyday Astrology, is an astrologer and the author of several best-selling books, including The Secret Language of Birthdays, The Secret Language of Relationships, and The Secret Language of Destiny. He has studied astrology for forty years and frequently lectures and writes on the subject. An accomplished pianist and composer, he has performed in concerts and recitals worldwide. He lives in Amsterdam, where he writes a regular astrology column for AvantGardemagazine. Visit him on the mypersonology.com and goldschneider.com.

Sincerely,
Procrustes

After the break is an excerpt from the book:
(more…)

  1. According to a 2003 Harris Poll, 31% of those polled believed in astrology, most between the ages of 25-29. [<]
  2. See Carl Sagan on the pseudoscience of Astrology [<]
  3. If you’re interested in learning more, see the Table of Dates on the Wikipedia Zodiac page, and a more thorough explanation of how the zodiac works at Space.com [<]
  4. Wikipedia says that a mutable sign is a subgroup of the Zodiac whose members include Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius and Pisces. Apparently they are in this group because they each straddle “temperate zone seasons.” The “air sign” associated with Gemini refers to the classical elements of fire, water, air, and earth. And, of course, being ruled by Mercury refers to the visibility of the planet during the time in which the star sign is in alignment. All clear? I’m not, either, and based on my foray into Wikipedia to come up with even the slightest hint of what these things mean leads me to believe the author merely lacked the space in his book and patience to explain each and every term. [<]
  5. See Expectations and Student Outcomes, Kathleen Cotton, November 1989. [<]

Carnival of the Godless #128 – Not Quite Halloween Edition

Sunday, October 18th, 2009

Yeah, it’s early for Halloween, but religious belief and dogma are scary year-round. Welcome to another edition of Carnival of the Godless, #128. There are some great articles to follow, many from blogs I’ve never heard of, but will add to my list of blogs to visit again. I hope you enjoy the submissions and visit the blogs, as well.

Transplanted Lawyer examines the frequent claims about Jesus, but this time by an apologist who has supplied his sources, which are examined thoroughly in the excellent article Sourcing The Apologetics at Not A Potted Plant. According to the Transplanted Lawyer, it’s “A handy-dandy guide for refuting a claim by a Christian apologetic that there are dozens of contemporaneous, extra-Biblical references to the life and resurrection of Jesus.”

I found myself stumbling across a guy who claims that there are plentiful contemporaneous, extrabiblical and non-Christian documentations justifying the existence of Jesus and the reports of his resurrection. Since this was news to me, I asked for references to his sources.

I was a little surprised that he identified them. To his credit, the apologist has set out his sources. In so doing, he allows someone else to go back and check the work, which is what I’ve done here.

Alexander Bisignano presents Genetic Engineering: Reanimate the Dead and Bring Fantasy to Life at The Chromosome Chronicles, saying, “I don’t directly address godlessness, though I do talk about the idea of “playing god.” It’s a scientific/fun article that certainly brings up some interesting ideas.”

Bring Back the Dead: Consumer Cloning
What did I just say?! It’s not like you think, I swear. You cannot bring back your lost relatives. Even if you clone your dead loved ones, there is no way (currently) to recreate the memories and experiences that will have shaped the person that you once knew. So, even though the clone will look exactly alike, they are not the same person as your loved one. Also, when a cloning takes place, the person is “born” just like any other baby, and they must grow and mature just like any human being. There is currently no way of speeding up the process of growing up.

Keep reading for how to create a unicorn.

LivingWithMormons presents Mormon Dating a la Elder Hafen at Living With Mormons, saying, “This article hopefully helps highlight the LDS Church’s official views and doctrines about homosexuality.”

Whenever I have official visits from the Church, I really do hope (mainly for my wife’s sake) that no uncomfortable discussions ensue and I don’t have to end showing someone how ignorant their beliefs are, but I’m afraid the latest rambling of the leaders of the church; Elder Bruce C. Hafen must have really enjoyed giving his latest speech (Evergreen International Conference) as an opus to a life lived focused on “the legal rights and needs of children and the legal status of marriage.”

Eric Michael Johnson presents The Republican Christian Nation on the March at The Primate Diaries.

But where exactly is this “Christian Nation” that Santorum, Huckabee and Palin claim that we’ve lost? We are and have always been a nation framed on the laws of men, not God. If you want an idea of what a theocracy would look like, go no further than Iran or Saudi Arabia. It is a very bad idea to try and oppose those who would oppose us by becoming more like them.

Paul Fidalgo presents Cassini astronomer looks to the cultural ascent of science at atheist convention at Secularism Examiner.

The hurdle [for the promotion of rational thinking], according to ["Planetary scientist Carlyn Porco, best known for her work on the imaging for the Cassini probe mission to Saturn,"] was the deeply ingrained image of scientists and technology as negative, the near-universal portrayal of scientists and intellectuals as villains, as cold, or as socially inept. Often set up as archetypes to be ridiculed, hated, or feared, Porco said that popular culture usually associates science with disasters, “Frankensteins”, and people who are “too brilliant for their own good.”

Alex McCullie presents Comment:Pick Your Jesus at Alex’s Heresies – embracing a physical reality.

Most progressives seek to modernise the demon-infested world of the gospels by interpreting the supernatural aspects of the Jesus stories – resurrections, miracles, and exorcisms – metaphorically. The Jesus of faith then becomes a most remarkable spirit-filled sage whose sayings and actions in first century Galilee continue to be relevant today some 2000 years later.

Andrew Heath presents What Jesus Said about Homosexuality at Andrew Heath.

“But we DO love you,” they say. “We love the sinner and hate the sin.” My response to that is if Christians hate the fact that we’re gay, they cannot love us because our sexuality is as much a part of who we are as their sexuality is a part of who they are. Christians not only hate gays, they teach gays to hate themselves and each other. This is wrong. This is absolutely wrong.

Mauzzie presents We Are Legend at Irrationality Itches; and a clarification with Faith and Knowledge.

I wasn’t quite Atheist. I was a starter-Atheist – an Agnostic. I didn’t THINK I believed, but I was a little terrified that maybe I was wrong after all and the devil would ascend out of the living room floor one day and drag me down to hell by my sinner’s ankles. When it didn’t happen, despite some fervent misbehaving, I had to face facts. It was all a little ridiculous. There were no monsters under the bed. There was no man in the clouds controlling everyone. Even the Incredible Hulk was just some guy painted green.

PhillyChief presents Disengaging the auto-pilot at You Made Me Say It!.

I feel that the answers for such things as intuition lie under the hood of our brains where our multi-limbed auto-pilot is hard at work piloting countless, simultaneous activities which we’ve become oblivious to. In our oblivion, when the results come to us, they seem as if they’ve arrived magically, through special psychic abilities or perhaps supernatural entities zapping answers to our brains, perhaps in response to a prayer said to them.

Dave Jackson presents Shadow Minister Speaks Out Against Multiculturalism at Reason Must Triumph, saying, “The British Shadow minister for ‘community cohesion’, who may soon be in Government, seems to think that the key to fostering good relations between communities is to promote yet more religious faith. I disagree.”

Whence cometh this madness? Is it not the same madness that inspires idiots to remove Three Little Pigs from school libraries for fear of causing offence? That suggests removing an advertising campaign using a dog’s picture for fear of causing offence? This is the political correctness which she decries – a correctness born of treading on tip-toes to avoid ‘offending’ some religious cretin or other’s precious nonsense. Again – more religion, more respect for this crap, will inspire more of this political correctness, not less. Religion should be just as open to discussion, to criticism, to critical evaluation as are politics, literature, art, science and any other endeavour of thought.

TechSkeptic presents Argument from Gravity at Effort Sisyphus, saying, “Its just another argument refuting theism, but its one that I have not seen before and is a little snarky.”

[S]omeone in the [atheist] group posted on our discussion board the following Argument From Gravity. I kind of liked it an thought I would share. I modified it a bit to improve it some more. Give it a shot next time you have some Jehovah’s Witnesses or mormons at your door.

Neosnowqueen presents Hating Religion (Hint: It’s Complicated) at Winter Harvest.

I will not deny a certain bitterness against religion, especially when it starts inserting itself in law and into my own life. I’m content to live and let live, yet many religions including Christianity are wired in such a way that they must push themselves into other people’s lives. I resent how Christianity has made me miserable for the last year and a half, but I do not hate Christianity. I hate the Christianity that is inside of me, the Christianity that is as rotten as a bad tooth that was pulled half-ass from my mouth.

Luke Muehlhauser presents Best Atheism Books of the Decade at Common Sense Atheism, saying, “This was the decade that atheism found its voice in America, but the best atheism books were not those written by the popular New Atheists.”

These authors were dubbed the New Atheists, but the only thing new about them was that their books were selling. Nonbelievers have been saying many of the same things as the “New Atheists” since the dawn of recorded history: from Greek philosopher Epicurus (b. 341 BCE) to Arab philosopher Al Ma’arri (b. 973) to Catholic priest Jean Meslier (b. 1664) to political leader Robert Ingersoll (b. 1833) to the world’s greatest living intellectual Noam Chomsky (b. 1928).

Some poetic atheism from Rick Foreman, Forget About Fear at Waiting for the Singularity.

If you fear losing, you are already defeated.

If you fear dying, you are already dead.

If you are afraid of losing what you have, you have nothing.

Grandpa Oddball presents It’s just a theory at GetOddNews.

“It’s just a theory,” dismissively, even derisively uttered often accompanied with the phrase “not a law“. How often have you heard that remark and why does it frequently evoke such strong emotional responses? In fact, just what is a theory and what is a law?

Andrew Bernardin presents Sunday Sacrilege: Nothing by the Hands of a God at The Evolving Mind.

An army is victorious in battle against its foe. Why? Not because they had greater numbers, better weapons or whatnot, but because they had a god on their side. An impressive cathedral is built. Not by human hands alone, but human hands doing the work of their god. The poor are fed. How? By people doing their god’s work.

What’s the unnecessary variable in all of this? A god.

Andrew Bernardin also presents Biological Evolution or Diabolic Design? at The Evolving Mind.

Equipped with the Intelligent Design hypothesis (calling a paper spade a spade) what are we to make of mad cow disease and Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease? How are we to explain the existence of transmissible diseases caused by misfolded proteins triggering other proteins to misfold, resulting in degeneration and a truly horrible death? That the Intelligent Designer has a mean streak?

vjack presents Thoughts on Atheist Identity at Atheist Revolution.

It is true that atheism merely refers to the lack of god belief. And yet, for those of us living in the U.S., being an atheist is very different than being someone who doesn’t believe in fairies, monsters under the bed, Santa Claus, or unicorns. While I agree that it wouldn’t make much sense to wear a t-shirt saying “I don’t believe in Santa Claus,” this is not because such a statement is analogous to atheism; it is because such a statement has no significant implications for one’s identity in a culture.

Cubik’s Rube presents The Bible is WRONG! at Cubik’s Rube.

Yeah, that’s right! I’m one of those godless heathen non-believers, and I say that your holy book is full of inaccuracies! It’s not historically reliable at all, let alone divine and inerrant! Contrary to what all those hard-line conservative fundamentalist wackaloons think, it actually contains numerous-

Wait.

What?

Some of the conservative nut-jobs are with me on this?

Jim Linville presents It’s a Tyrannosaur Eat Tyrannosaur World Out There. at Dr. Jim’s Thinking Shop & Tea Room.

Now, all this talk of possible dinosaurian cannibalism and big scary toothed critters should be the cause of great humility and shame for one and all, because, as young earth scientists all know, T. Rex and all the other dinosaurs were complete vegetarians in the Garden of Eatin’

Jim Linville also presents Answering the Creationists: What it would take for me to believe in God at Dr. Jim’s Thinking Shop & Tea Room.

The vague theories of “intelligent design” and their unspecified designer really amount to theistic creationism warmed over and rebranded to be more palatable to secularists and schoolboards. Its advocates play the science card boldly, but its bluff has been called time and again by mainstream science. The rejoinders in defense of ID claims have been unconvincing to say the least.

That being said, I would probably have the least trouble accepting the disconcerned deity of the deists: a kind of pre-big bang intelligence that established the natural laws billions of years ago and then just watched it all unfold. With that kind of deity in view, I’m at the closest point I get to being an agnostic.

Chris Hallquist presents Marriage, morals, and the green-eyed monster at The Uncredible Hallq.

Recently, I finally got around to picking up a copy of Bertrand Russell’s Marriage and Morals, the notorious book that played a major part of the campaign to get him barred from teaching in New York. I also had brought to my attention a Richard Dawkins piece on sexual jealousy from a couple of years ago, “Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster.” What follows would be a double-header review if only the Dawkins piece were a full book, as it stands, count this as a general reflection on what prominent atheists have said about sexual morality.

Thanks for all the submissions, and I hope everyone enjoys these articles, submits more for future carnivals, and considers hosting a future carnival.

Wanna be in the next Carnival of the Godless? Go submit an article Here.

Randall Terry Rocks the National Equality March

Sunday, October 11th, 2009

He really stole the show.

Don’t know Randall Terry?

Here’s what Wikipedia says about him:

Randall A. Terry (born 1959) is an American activist. A political conservative, Terry founded the anti-abortion organization Operation Rescue in 1987 and led the group until 1991. He has been arrested more than 40 times, most recently for protesting the commencement visit at the University of Notre Dame by President Barack Obama, who is pro-choice, by defying a court order to stay off the school’s property.

In 2003, Randall Terry founded the Society for Truth and Justice and conducted a program called Operation Witness. He was the spokesman for the Schindler family in the Terri Schiavo case. In 2006, he unsuccessfully ran as a Republican for state senator of Florida’s eighth district.

I’ll be trying to transcribe some of Mr. Terry’s announcements in the above videos (which I took, yay), and post them here soon. Stay tuned!

(Oh, btw, since it’s sometimes difficult to convey sarcasm on the interwebs, the title to this post is sarcastic.)

Two Long Years and a Carnival of Sorts

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

Two long years ago, I decided that I wanted to start a periodical journal or magazine filled with interesting articles about reason that could motivate and pique the curiosity of readers who were either hardline atheists or moderate fence-sitters, with the goal of perhaps being one of the many rational activists who makes a little bit of a difference in a world that has been overrun by an oppressive religious regime.

Well, that didn’t happen.

What I did, instead, was to start this blog, on October 31, 2007, mostly as a way to gain some readership before I tried for the physical publication, and I ended up liking this format and the dynamics of online production so much that I didn’t want to try to bother with paper production. My readership started off with maybe 15 devoted followers, most of whom were people I knew indirectly from my various ventures into atheist forums. It helped a lot that I had some friends volunteering their time and energy to write some outstanding articles. They also helped pass around the blog URL so that others might read, and readership increased to about 35 followers.

Then, things started to pick up when one of my early articles caught attention (perhaps on Reddit), and I got my first taste of a hit spike when visitors to my page started exceeding 100.1 I was psyched. I couldn’t believe 100 different people were reading what I have been writing. Then it spiked again, and I stood unbelieving at 1000 people, 5000 people, 10,000 people, and, recently, 50,000 people within a two-day span. That’s insane. Sure, it’s not Pharyngula insane, but for a guy who is perhaps too self-critical and thinks his work generally sucks, it’s like getting hit on the head with a squid-wrapped brick. Of course, I don’t have 50,000 regular readers, nor 1000. Those were just daily hits in various spike periods when I had a particularly popular article. Current readership is actually closer to 200, plus or minus. I’m not sure if that’s satisfactory, but it is what it is, and I’m grateful to everyone who visits and reads what this site has to offer, and I hope they at least get some info or humor out of it.

Being so self-critical, and constantly being without a comfortable span of free time, I have repeatedly thought about just closing the blog down and sneaking away. When I express such sentiment, my closer friends tell me I should absolutely not do that. Apparently they like this place and what it does and represents. Sometimes I have to go back and read some of my old articles and say to myself, “hey, this isn’t that bad, it’s actually pretty good,” in order to re-motivate myself. Troubles with the server hosting also produced obstacles that I nearly considered unworthy of my effort. However, I have overcome those and my reticence to continue this venture. At least for now.

So, for this second anniversary of State of Protest, I’m doing a kind of State of Protest carnival where I’ll link to what I think are some of the best and most popular articles on the blog from the past two years, with my standard Carnival of the Godless format, which includes an excerpt and commentary. I hope you’ll take the time to read some of these articles, as I think they represent the focus and spirit of this blog. And thank you again for reading. You make this all worth it.

State of Protest Second Anniversary Carnival

One of my most popular posts that isn’t satire was something inspired by an ad for fast food that I saw, and my thought that America was happily advertising to and feeding itself stuff that you could barely live on. I then immediately saw an analogy between that and religious people feeding themselves fabrications with no factual substance in order to keep themselves artificially satiated, but perpetually malnourished. Thus, Being Religious is Like Eating Sand, written in December, 2008.

It fills you up, tricks you into not being hungry, but has no nutritional value. When religious people argue that the lack of God or religion leaves an empty hole that cannot be filled by anything other than religion or spirituality, they’re mistaken or being misleading, perhaps because they’re so full of sand that they cannot make room for that very obvious thing that can, and does, fill that hole — good food. What your mind and body need is sustenance – real sustenance, which can take many different forms, but always has something in common — it passes the honesty test.

Of interest is a much more recent video ZOMGitsCriss posted on YouTube, practically stating the same thing:

You think the food is real and that it nourishes you. In fact, you can even feel how it satisfies your hunger, because this is the kind of power the mind has over the body when strong beliefs are involved. You are perfectly happy with your invisible food, but the thing is, in reality, you’re not okay at all.

It’s unfortunate, though, that she’ll never see the message I sent her regarding this, because she generally has to filter through the 2500+ comments from the 109,000 viewers, many of which focus not on the substance of her message, but rather the fact that she’s an attractive young woman making videos on the interwebs. Hey, I’m not complaining. I mean, I got 34 comments and over 11,000 views. That’s pretty good for a blog run by an ugly, angry, old guy. Kudos to her, though, for coming up with the analogy as well. I’m about 99.9% certain she didn’t steal it from me. (because it’s doubtful she’s ever had the pleasure of visiting State of Protest, but she certainly has an invite)

The most popular comic on this site is related to an article regarding one of the last-minute efforts on the part of outgoing president G.W. Bush to diminish women’s rights:

Opposition is growing quickly to a Bush administration proposal which seeks to grant sweeping protections to health care providers who oppose medical procedures, such as abortion, based on their religious beliefs. The proposed rule would prohibit entities that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care workers who refuse to assist in performing abortions or other procedures because of their religious beliefs. It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and pharmacies from requiring any employee to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services, if that employee refuses because of religious or moral objections.

The comic:


Yay Scientology!

Thanks to Laura for her hilarious depictions of human suffering. See all of State of Protest’s comics here.

In 1999, Jerry Bergman, at Answers in Genesis, argued that we should be teaching Creationism in public schools, and he used very twisted studies on popular opinion to support that view. This is a provocative issue that just won’t go away. It didn’t die in 1925’s Scopes Monkey trial, and it apparently survived the 2005 Kitzmiller trial. In Why Stop at Creationism?, I argued that if we were to teach Creationism in schools based on the argument that we should teach the controversy and address ideas that differed from the Big Bang Theory, we shouldn’t stop at the Christian version of events (called simply “Creationism”), and I made an example curriculum to fill the day of our soon to be inspired students. Here’s an excerpt:

Monday
3rd Period: Mangala was an entity made up of four divisions, and two sets of dual gendered twins. Being tired of keeping it all inside, Mangala compiled all the matter into a seed, which was the world. And the seed exploded, disappointing Mangala, who destroyed it. Then Mangala tried again with two sets of twin seeds, which, after having been planted in an egg-like womb, along with other sets of seeds, emerged as fish, representing fertility. One of the male twins tried to escape from the egg. This trickster, Pemba, stole a piece of the womb’s placenta and threw it down, creating the earth. He then tried to refertilize the remainder of the womb. Mangala castrated and killed Farro, Pemba’s brother, to save creation, and then Mangala raised Farro from the dead. Mangala then took the remainder of the placenta and transformed it into the sun, leaving Pemba for the darkness and night. Mangala transformed Ferro into a human, and was taught the language of creation. Farro’s newly created twins came and joined him on the earth, and they all propagated humanity.

4th Period: Lunch…

I didn’t address every alternate theory, of course. There are far too many.

Every so often (too often, really) in the news, we hear about a child who dies because the parents are religious fundamentalists who, in some way, refuse proper treatment for their child’s illness. Time has an article covering this issue, “When Parents Call God Instead of the Doctor,” focusing on a child who died in March, 2008:

On Easter Sunday of 2008, 11-year-old Kara Neumann of Weston, Wisconsin, suffered waves of nausea as she lay motionless on her deathbed, too weak to walk or speak. Kara’s parents — both followers of the Unleavened Bread Ministries, an online church that shuns medical intervention — knelt in prayer beside their dying daughter. They did not call a doctor for help. A few hours later, Kara died of diabetes, a relatively common — and treatable — condition….

Under current Wisconsin law, a parent cannot be convicted of child abuse or negligent homicide if they can prove they genuinely believed that calling God, instead of a doctor, was the best option available for their child. The law is part of the legacy of the 1996 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which included a landmark exemption for parents who do not seek medical care for their children for religious purposes.

My article, Why is there a Legal Provision Allowing a Lighter Sentence Based on Religious Beliefs?, focuses on another death by religion based in Oregon:

Carl and Raylene Worthington, the killers (should we really call them parents?) happen to belong to the same church, the Followers of Christ Church, as Jeffrey and Marci Beagley, who were indicted on charges of criminally negligent homicide in October, 2008, after they attempted only prayer healing for their 16-year-old son, Neil Beagley, instead of medically treating him for what was an easily treatable illness. Apparently, this church as been the catalyst for at least twenty other child deaths as a result of applying faith healing techniques, when every one of them could have been easily cured with proper medical treatment.

An excerpt from the Oregon law:

[W]hen a person is convicted of … manslaughter in the second degree … the court may impose a sentence according to the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission that is less than the minimum sentence that otherwise may be required … if the court, on the record at sentencing, … [Finds] on the record by a preponderance of the evidence… ["That the defendant treated the injury or illness solely by spiritual treatment in accordance with the religious beliefs or practices of the defendant and based on a good faith belief that spiritual treatment would bring about the victim’s recovery from the injury or illness"]… and finds that a substantial and compelling reason under the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission justifies the lesser sentence.

Utterly insane.

My all-time most popular article is also my most controversial, because it’s satire wrapped in a “This is news” shell. When I read a news story about people who were complaining somewhere in Florida about an abstract sculpture representing nude human fleeing refugees, I was disgusted that, again, we find that people just cannot stand to look upon that which God (nature) made. Apparently to see nudity is to be forced into impure thought, and to display anything of nudity is to be perverse. I’d really like that trend to reverse. Covering up David’s dangly bits should be more embarrassing than exposing them, especially for someone who sincerely believes that their version of God created those dangly bits in a bit of inspired perfection.

Well, my analogy in the form of satire meter jumped off the scale that day when I thought about how to present this aversion to nature as being as stupid as it really is. So, I asked myself, what idiotic human bits could they possibly find offensive next, and why? And I thought “DNA.” Every time you look at a human, you see it, it’s a fundamental part of being human, and to find an aversion to its mere existence would be just incredibly stupid, right? Well, that’s how I feel about nudity, and I wanted to try to get people thinking about it in terms of Peter Singer’s “ick” factor having no logical grounds — nudity isn’t icky! The satire: DNA Sculpture is “Vile and Offensive.”

In addition, I wanted to see what kinds of reactions I’d get when I presented the satire as “news” (but with what I felt were plenty of clues for the skeptical-minded folks to recognize that it was, indeed, satire). What ended up happening was that just about every skeptic who read it believed it to be true — believed that there were actually people on this earth who thought the sight of a sculpture of DNA was repulsive based on their religious beliefs. I was blown away by the responses and the hits. The reactions varied greatly. Many thought I had hit the nail on the head and created some truly funny and insightful satire. Others thought I was being intentionally misleading, or that the satire didn’t work, or that it wasn’t funny enough. I addressed many of those issues in a follow-up article called “This is Satire.” It also became quite popular. You should read it, since it talks about a much more famous person who fell into the same pit I had.

In any event, I learned a few things. First, America is in bad shape if literally tens of thousands of skeptics honestly believe that religious nuts would oppose a sculpture of DNA on religious grounds. That shows an increase in the overarching stupidity of religious trends while also suggesting that even skeptics might need to calibrate their bullshit meters. Second, no one likes the truth unless it has pizzazz. I wrote another article about women in Sudan being beaten for fighting for the right to wear pants. It was straightforward, and the facts showed how detestable the men were to those miserable women. About 170 people read it. Over 51,000 people read my satire about DNA. Sometimes I just don’t get it. If you like the satire stuff, check out the others.

Of course, I’m not the only author here. I have some very good, albeit infrequent, writers.

JNTB, for instance, recently wrote an article about hypocritical contradiction in our classification of “terrorism,” “Only Muslims can commit terrorism.”

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 24, a convert to Islam, is under arrest for allegedly murdering Pvt William Long and injuring Pvt Quinton Ezeagwula at a military recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas. Is Mr Muhammad being charged with murder and attempted murder? Yes, of course, but guess what else? He is being charged with “15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act” as “investigators believe there were ‘political and religious motives‘ in the shooting”.

I don’t know if Mr Muhammad has engaged in multiple acts of violence toward the same or similar targets, but with at least this one episode of violence toward these two men, Mr Muhammad is labeled as a terrorist. Really? Is it because he is a “darkie”? Is it because he is Muslim? Is it because he objected to the actions of the US military? Is it because he used to be named Carlos Bledsoe and likely engaged, although unclear and unknown, in some form of Christianity before converting to Islam?

How is Abdulhakim Muhammad a terrorst but Scott Roeder isn’t? How is Osama bin Laden a terrorist but Randall Terry isn’t?

Laura wrote multiple excellent analyses of the Proposition 8 issue, which culminated from her first, “Proposition 8, the Mormons, and the New “Separate But Equal”“:

Speaking of the Mormons, they deserve special attention in this article. On June 29, 2008, the First Presidency of the Mormon Church released a letter calling on its 770,000 members located in California to give their full support and to donate as much money as they can within their means to the Prop 8 campaign.3 A complete list of Mormons who have donated $1,000 or more, with a running tally, can be found here. This is particularly sickening to me in that there are many people on this list whom I know personally. Mormons currently account for 31% of pro-Prop 8 donations, although that number is expected to rise dramatically as more data is collected.4 The Mormons’ opposition to gay marriage is quite ironic when you consider their history. They themselves have endured incredible persecution due to their own unorthodox views on marriage, i.e. their previous practice of polygamy. They were also much slower to react than the rest of the nation in treating blacks as equals. It took them until 1978 to give black males the same authorities that white males enjoyed.5 (Women still currently are given no authority at all.) Just because the mainstream Mormons no longer practice polygamy and now give blacks equal status, they would do well to remember their history.

Laura is also the author of the excellent series “Religion Unearthed,” and she also illustrates most of State of Protest’s comics (she has the distinct big-eyed bobble-headed hilarious characters).

Philadelphic is our resident book and other media reviewer, recently having tackled The Power of Premonitions by Larry Dossey.

There is a calming, nonsensical balm to the idea that “everything happens for a reason.” If your child dies, it’s for a reason. If you have a dream that saves the child’s life, that’s for a reason too. But what about those who take a closer look at this? What about the grieving parent who wonders if lack of divine intervention means that “God” is punishing them? Or what about those of us who see no value in calling divine intervention a “miracle” when, by definition, any god who could intervene in the death of a child, but refuses, would essentially be a killer? Is it justice to look down on the unlucky, then, because they must either be ill-favored by God or refusing to heed their natural-born psychic abilities?

For the mentally unstable, this magical thinking might prove to be seriously dangerous. Dossey goes as far as to acknowledge this (p. 169) in a section called “cautions,” where he tells people to “think twice before intentionally cultivating premonitions” if they have any kind of mental illness, childhood trauma or maltreatment, any mood disturbances such as major depression or neuroticism, history of substance abuse, or even in the case of someone who is abnormally sensitive. Isn’t a person who has prophetic dreams being “abnormally sensitive”? Or is Dr. Dossey simply covering his legal bases in case someone who has read his book decides that doing the bidding of their intuition, their God, or their Rice Crispies requires killing someone (as in the case of Deanna Laney)? Oddly enough, most of the Oprah viewers I know have been known to take the Prozac at some point or another.

Mutha graced us with a more accurate history of winter celebrations while we yet again await another accusation that we’re committing some sort of “war” on Christmas. Stealing the Solstice for Christ’s Sake!

Some authors have not contributed as much in volume, but their work is greatly appreciated. Please click their links to see their unique and interesting contributions.

Velkyn has authored a few reviews and “Unearthed” posts, as well as the great article “A Culture of Lies.”

Noumenon compares life to a poker tournament and firmly establishes that he is a god.

Absinthium has written a few insightful movie reviews.

Steve-Doug describes how we share the epiphany of disbelief.

FormerFundy exclaims that personal responsibility is paramount, especially in politics.

Jim Gardner criticizes Answers in Genesis’ abject refusal to consider falsifiable peer reviewed evidence.

Urs examines the origins of morality.

Ivy helps to clarify atheism.

Spider covered Catholic Youth Day 2008.

I think that’s a pretty good history for only two years in, and infinity to go.

Thanks for stopping by.

-Procrustes

  1. Props also to Carnival of the Godless, which I hosted early on and got some attention, as well as vjack at Atheist Revolution, who gave me some critical advice that helped me out immensely. [<]