PinPonPun

The automotive industry is in trouble and it appears that a bailout plan may be decided upon by the end of today.

Surely the Rev. Charles Ellis at Detroit’s Greater Grace Temple will believe that his actions yesterday were directly responsible for it as the congregation at one of Detroit’s largest choices gathered to ask God to have Congress deliver such a bailout. They actually had SUVs at the alter, as described in the Reuters article “SUVs at altar, Detroit church prays for a bailout” –

Local car dealerships donated three hybrid SUVs to be displayed during the service, one from each of the Big Three. A Ford Escape, Chevy Tahoe from GM and a Chrysler Aspen were parked just in front of the choir and behind the pulpit.

Ellis said he and other Detroit ministers would pray and fast until Congress voted on a bailout for Detroit’s embattled automakers. He urged his congregation to do the same.

How would praying and fasting accomplish help turn a Congressional vote, you might wonder? Well, apparently:

“It’s all about hope. You can’t dictate how people will think, how they will respond, how they will vote,” Ellis said after the service. “But you can look to God. We believe he can change the minds and hearts of men and women in power, and that’s what we tried to do today.”

I’m sure that, were there a God, he’d have better things to do than to monitor the United States’ Congressional decisions on the state of the automotive industry. Just a guess.

It amazes me sometimes what people think prayer can accomplish and the role they figure God will play directly in their lives.

UPDATE: The New York Times has an article as well, complete with photographs of the SUVs, adding this quote:

“We have done all that we can do in this union, so I turn it over to the Lord,” General Holiefield, a U.A.W. vice president for Chrysler, told the crowd. A vice president for the parts suppliers, James Settles Jr., asked those present “to continue your prayers, so we can see a miracle next week.”

Obviously we are a Christian nation if our Congress can create miracles! I wonder how Pete Stark feels about that?

Is it just me or does this “Original Christmas Cross” seem, well, just a little inappropriate?

Granted, it is a product of the American Family Association, and organization known for sharing in the idyllic love and peace of Christianity; an organization that is known for its peaceful and loving embrace of all people.

In this year’s annual return of the “War on Christmas” I’m sure that the AFA will gladly send out free Christmas Crosses to those that make its annual “Naughty or Nice?” retailer list!

(via Gizmodo)

Newsweek, the fairly reputable weekly news magazine, has published a column titled “Is Obama the Antichrist?” as part of their Belief Watch series.

The Washington Monthly takes them to task for this, noting:

When bizarre, fringe publications speculate openly about who may or may not be the Antichrist, it’s easy to dismiss. When Newsweek publishes a 600-word piece on those who wonder about Obama being the Antichrist, one really has to wonder what on earth the editors were thinking.

Perhaps it might be reasonable to assume that this topic could be considered newsworthy, assuming it was a widespread belief that was directly impacting peoples’ lives. But to legitimatize the extreme religious notions held by a group?

The author, Lisa Miller, is Newsweek’s Religion editor and should know better than to make statement like:

The people who believe Obama is the Antichrist are perhaps jumping to conclusions, but they’re not nuts: “They are expressing a concern and a fear that is widely shared,” Staver says.

This logical fallacy is one of the more common arguments for religion as well; so many people believe there is a god, so therefore there must be a god. This is a baseless logical argument.

(It should also be noted that Miller is quoting Mat Staver, Dean of the Liberty University School of Law (part of the baptist Liberty University, founded by Jerry Falwell) and the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a law firm and ministry whose goal is to protect Christian religious liberty.)

Even the article’s subtitle is not quite accurate and relies on the belief of the many:

The winning lottery number in Illinois was 666, which, as everyone knows, is the sign of the Beast.

Scholars actually quite disagree on the Number of the Beast and it is commonly believed that the “666″ is actually a reference to Nero.

Still, it’s not uncommon these days for long-established media organizations to branch out from traditional journalism with the addition of blogs and web-based columns; these formats allow the traditional media to adapt and compete with the plethora of independent blogs out there and to adopt a less-formal, more conversational (and less objective) presence than they’d normally be required to maintain in print.

But this is not just a Newsweek blog post; this article appears in their print edition as well. I think The Washington Monthly sums it up nicely:

I can appreciate the fact that there are a handful of very odd people in the world, some of whom believe the Book of Revelation foretold Obama’s election. Strange people can be led to believe strange things. That’s not a reason for Newsweek to publish articles about their inanity.

Every once in a while I like to see a random video on Godtube; it’s like YouTube for Theists. It’s an endless source of amusement and fury, filled with fun happy videos that truly exemplify the Christian ideals of love and peace. 

For example, I found this recent piece providing irrefutable arguments against atheism:

Well, that surely convinced me to disavow myself of the “atheistic worldview” and “atheistic system” I’ve long been adhering to! Such fine, proper logic. Bulletproof arguments one might even say.

Or, maybe not.

First, he trots out the age old “First Cause” argument, though he attempts to put a clever little sophisticand semantic spin on it to avoid the typical refutation of the “then what caused God?” retort: he operates under the assumption that god is immaterial and thus not subject to the causation principles. If you prefer, he defines god as “personal” and matter (or, simply, “dirt” as he argues) as impersonal. His argument requires the assumption of dualistic worldview. 

By begging the question of god’s form he believes himself to be solidifying his argument when, in fact, he’s simply creating a logical fallacy and undermining his whole argument.

The second argument our young street minister provides is even more fallacious; first, it relies on the straw man argument that atheists state “There is no god.” While it’s certainly true that there are some atheists willing to state such an argument it is not, by definition, what atheism means. Still, it is a fairly common connotation of atheism so we’ll let is slide; besides, as we’ll see his argument doesn’t hold up anyway.

Let’s presuppose, he argues, that an individual atheist hold half of all potential knowledge; that is, half of anything knowable resides within the mind of a single person. Our friend from JTTN  argues that such an atheist simply cannot argue that there is no god as there is potential knowledge in the other half of all knowledge.

This is another common argument from theists; atheists, they believe, have the burden of proof when it comes to the non-existence of god. This, too, is illogical as seen in examples like Bertrand Russell’s teapot to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

Faulty logic and arguments such as these are all too common as apologists seek to justify their belief and attempts to impose logical structure on said belief almost always fail. Rational logic and atheism often come hand in hand, so seeing such an improper application of logic is bound to evoke anger — especially when the arguments are presented again and again despite a bounty of evidence to their fallacious nature. 

BONUS VIDEO: A YouTube video refuting the First Cause argument:

This post is part of a semi-regular series of posts called Things Atheists Hate focusing on things atheists face each and every day that frustrate them, that anger them, and that cause them all sorts of annoyance.

First, a picture.

I used to work down in the neighborhood, not far from Wall Street; it’s not uncommon to see people rubbing the Charging Bull for luck. In fact, so many people rub the bull that its testicles are quite burnished. Still, this seems like an unusually larger crowd than normal.

What could possible be going on? Oh.

It would seem that in January, God singled out one Cindy Jacobs and tasked her with this mission. Cindy, a “respected prophet who travels the world ministering not only to crowds of people, but to heads of nations’ of course had to adhere to the word of her Lord. So speaketh the prophet:

“We are going to intercede at the site of the statue of the bull on Wall Street to ask God to begin a shift from the bull and bear markets to what we feel will be the ‘Lion’s Market,’ or God’s control over the economic systems,” she said.  “While we do not have the full revelation of all this will entail, we do know that without intercession, economies will crumble.”

Wonkette provides some great coverage of this event (with additional photos and even a video) here and here.

Now, I’m not a regular reader of the Holy Bible but I sort of recall reading a similar tale within that tome; thankfully, PZ Myers has provided the tale for us, complete with picture!

The saddest part is that these folks seemingly do not even realize the irony in their actions; and while those who quote the bible are often not familiar with the work as a whole, cherry picking their quotes to support their arguments, the Golden Calf story is one tale I’d assume was fairly well known.

No, seriously – holy pajamas.

So why make children’s pajamas modeled after the Armor of God? Indoctrination, of course.

Although we are a new company, our desire is to grow into a well-known Christian Organization whose main goal is to reach as many children as possible by providing the Word of God, offering top quality products and excellent customer service along with offering parents the means and support to help their children grow in the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

What was it that Dawkins said about religion as child abuse? And maybe it’s just me but if my parents strongly encouraged me to wear armor — complete with helmet! — to bed that would only serve to reinforce the belief that there are, in fact, monsters under the bed or in the closet.

And there there is the bible passage that inspired them:

6:10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

“Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day”? That doesn’t seem like the proper inspiration for pajamas;unless, i guess, you are home-schooled and can wear your PJs all day.

The recent US Religious Landscape Survey featured some fascinating data about the religious make-up of the American populace, but the biggest number to come out of the survey was the infamous “21% of atheists believe in God” that stirred up quite a bit of discussion on the internet and in the media. Everyone had something to say about this stat; many found humor in the fact. 

Some posited that this indicated atheism was becoming more of a cultural designation as opposed to a theological statement; others thought atheists must simply be confused about what atheism really means. But everyone mentioned that same seemingly absurd phrase — “21% of atheists believe in God.”

Most people, however, simply repeated the quote as they found it in the media; few took the time to actually examine the poll question itself being referenced. As someone who previously worked for a firm that did considerable amounts of political polling, I was curious; when forming a poll, the particular phrasing of a question can easily sway or alter the poll results and it seemed odd to me that self-identified atheists, when asked “Do you believe in god?” would answer in the affirmative.

So imagine my surprise when I found that the actual question was:

Do you believe in God or a universal spirit? [IF YES, ASK:] How certain are you about this belief? Are you absolutely certain, fairly certain, not too certain, or not at all certain?

That wording shows that the oft-quoted phrase should actually be “21% of atheists believe in God or a universal spirit” — a statement with a potentially different meaning, especially depending on one’s personal interpretation of what a “universal spirit” is. Baruch Spinoza might have argued that he believed in a “universal spirit” despite not believing in any sense of personal or self-aware god; Albert Einstein might identify himself as an atheist and yet make the same claim,

In fact, there is a whole movement of “spiritual atheists” — those that do not believe in any god or gods but do believe in the possibility of either individual spirits or a universal one.

Yet still, the 21% number is bandied about further reinforcing ill-informed public opinion on the nature of atheism and providing those that already view atheists so negatively with another piece of faulty evidence they can use to support their theistic worldview. 

Atheists hate faulty evidence.

Major media organizations continue to expand their presence in the blogosphere; with that in mind, I recently approached a peer of mine who happens to work at one such organization and made a suggestion that they consider the notion of launching a blog about atheism. He, in turn, approached the powers that be and made the suggestion on my behalf.

The PTB thought it a great idea; however, they had one concern: they didn’t want the blog to be one of those “angry atheist blogs” and were concerned that any attempt to have a blog looking at the world of secular free thought and atheism would, by default, devolve into an angry missive.

This got me thinking; while it’s true that the modern atheism movement is typified by the so called Four Horsemen of Atheism – Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christoher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, all of whom are know for their biting words, scathing attacks on religion, and acerbic wit — there are certainly other public atheists that are not quite so vitriolic: Hemant Mehta and PossumMomma come to mind as two possible examples, though even their posts sometimes reveal an underlying frustration and anger with current affairs.

Certainly, it seems that the recent movements in atheism have a heavy undercurrent of anger; perhaps there is good reason for this.

As this country prepares to elect a new president, religion has already played a major role in the election cycle — both in regards to the candidates themselves and their attempts to court the religious majority in this nation. The same was true four years ago, and yet again four years before that. As hot topic social issues intertwine themselves with religious and moral positions, it’s natural that the candidates speak to the matter of faith in an attempt to address their constituents’ concerns.

But what about those that don’t base their moral decisions on faith and religion? Where is our candidate, where is our voice? Perhaps that’s a reason atheists are angry. We hate the fact that without these outspoken spokespeople, we’d be a silent minority in this country.

Meanwhile, nearly half of the American populace has a negative view of Atheists – only Scientologists were viewed as more “Negative” than Atheists, according to a recent Gallup poll. Politicians and pundits have publicly stated that Atheists should not have the right to vote or should not be granted political power. Atheism is a social stigma in many communities; atheist families have, literally, been run out of town. Perhaps for those reason, atheists have reason to be angry.

Perhaps, in light of these things, it’s not even possible to be an atheist without some level of anger. And perhaps, just perhaps, atheists hate this fact most of all. 

In coming days I hope to feature a semi-regular series of posts called Things Atheists Hate, things atheists face each and every day that frustrate them, that anger them, and that cause them all sorts of annoyance.

No one knows this blog is here yet, so I’ve not been tagged with this meme. Still, I thought it’d be fun to fill some space as I find my voice with this little questionnaire.

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?

If theism is the belief in god(s), then atheism is clearly the opposite — a lack of such belief. It is not necessarily an affirmation that no gods exists, though some may take that position; it simply means that the atheist does not believe in the existence of any god(s). (With the note that “belief” and “knowledge of” are, in my book, two very separate notions.)

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

I was raised Catholic, though loosely; we did not attend regular Sunday service but I was put through Communion and Confirmation classes and subsequently Confirmed. Afterwards, however, my siblings and I were not forced to adhere to any religious ceremony or belief system and were free to find our own path.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?

As has been said elsewhere, there is but only one word to use it (in polite company, at least): Creationism

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

Bionics. I want my bionic eyes and arms! I’m far from a scientist, but the notions of human-machine interaction have always intrigued me, whether it be related to my current field (the internet) or the more sci-fi-ish notions of cybernetic body parts.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

Better PR. The only thing that ties all atheists together is their lack of belief in god; otherwise, they cover the full spectrum of political and social beliefs. This is a good thing, mind you, but it means that it can be a very fractured group and difficult to build any sort of successful PR campaign around.

Here in NYC I always see posters and advertisements on the subways and buses for various churches or faith-based organizations, but never for an atheist group. Why? With a disparate base, it’s difficult to get the funding (I’d assume) to purchase such ads. I do like the trends that are starting though, with the billboard outside Philadelphia and the work that the Freedom From Religion Foundation are doing.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

Assuming I had a child, of course, my first response would likely be something akin to “Are you sure this is what you want to do? Have you thought this through?”

Of course, that would also be my response if my child said “I’m going to become a firefighter” or “I want to be a drummer” or  “I want to go to law school.”

I would hope to encourage my children to make well-informed, rational decisions and be sure that what they are pursuing matches up to what they want in life.

Q7. What’s your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

I love the argument that religion is necessary for morality; it’s one of the more common arguments and yet has no real sound logic behind it.  By the reckoning of apologetics, without religion we’d be a chaotic world of selfish, murderous, thieving, adulterers. There are several ways to refute it: personal examples, as I would certainly fit most of the moral guidelines set forth by religion despite having no faith; the Lockean “social contract” argument, wherein we agree to a set of laws and rules (akin to morals) to protect ourselves and our property; or the Euthyphro argument, which I’ll be expounding upon shortly.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

No idea; perhaps my love of the NY Yankees?

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

To be honest, I’ve not read extensively enough from all of them to make a fair judgment and have read far more of PZ Myers than any of the above.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

Tough call; either Tom Cruise or the Pope. Just imagine the TMZ episode!

Evolution vs Creationism. There’s no doubt in my mind that creationism, and religion in general, has no place in our public school systems’ science curricula. Still, if we were to “teach the controversy” as some creation myth supporters believe then we’d truly have to address *all* the possible creation myths, no?

To that end, I need one of these t-shirts:

Honestly though, sometimes I think that opening the doors to creation myths in school might not be a terrible idea. Yes, there are alternative stories that explain the creation of the universe; but why limit it simply to the Judeo-Christian myth? Why not teach all as possible alternatives?

After all, isn’t that the premise of teaching the controversy? Presenting ALL options?

I can just imagine the look on the faces of proper, god-fearing parents when their children come home from school and regale them with tales of black birds laying golden eggs or any of the other, numerous creation myths that would likely appeal to child more than the Christian origin tale.

And nevermind what’d happen if you include the FSM.

So please, by all means. Teach the Controversy. Just teach it completely.