If you want to see God’s non-existence in action, just look at the public rest rooms in North Carolina and Alabama, and then look at all the conservative Christians pushing and shoving each other in their rush to get on the anti-trans hate bus.
I’ve seen it in a few places, and especially after yesterday’s primary results, that there’s no way Bernie can win the nomination at this point. Hillary has locked up too many party-insider super-delegates, and has too much dark money, to falter at this point in her campaign. She is “too big to fail,” with all that that implies.
At this point I don’t care. I voted for Bernie in the primaries, and I’m voting for him again in November. No matter who the “official” candidates are.
Since a lot of people seem to have trouble with the idea of “political correctness,” I thought I’d post a short guide to what it means to be politically correct. You know, so everyone can be on the same page as far as what people are complaining about. It’s a short list. “Political correctness” means simply that you
And that’s it. That’s what all the fuss is about. When people complain about political correctness, as if it were some kind of horrible tyranny, what they’re saying is that they object to one or both of these elementary moral principles. [Read more…]
Writing for townhall.com, Christian apologist Frank Turek asks, “Can Bruce Springsteen Refuse to Play a Gay Wedding?”
I agree with Bruce Springsteen who cancelled his concert in my adopted home state of North Carolina because he objected to HB2 (the bathroom law). I also agree with Paypal, which cancelled their plans to expand in Charlotte because they think the law is “discriminatory.” Why? Because I believe that performers and businesses have every right not to do business with whom they disagree. In other words, they have the right to discriminate against the people of North Carolina.
But if liberals can deny services to people with whom they disagree, then why can’t conservatives?
And while we’re at it, why can’t you peel an apple the same way you peel an orange? Life is just so darn unfair!
It’s yet another bigoted and intentionally offensive, testosterone-soaked meme about bathrooms. Click the link if and when you feel like it.
Since last month is, yet again, a record-setter for abnormally high global average temperatures, I thought now would be a good time to post this list of tactics used by denialists to deny, obfuscate, misdirect, or otherwise impede our willingness to take action to reduce global warming.
#1. Deny that global warming exists. Contradict or disparage the data. Accuse scientists of cherry-picking, and publishing biased interpretations. Dismiss all signs of global warming as “just weather.”
#2. Where global warming is undeniable, deny that it is man-made. Compare the emissions of a single car to the emissions of a volcanic eruption, in order to make man-made sources of carbon seem trivial. Point to climate variations in prehistoric times as evidence that the climate change is a purely natural phenomenon. Ignore the fact that “natural disasters” are also natural.
More below the fold.
I happened to run across an intentionally offensive meme about the bigoted NC bathroom laws, and my first reaction was to take offense, naturally. But then I looked again, and realized that the memester had added a bit of unintended humor at his own expense. I’m going to put it below the fold so people can decide whether or not they want to see it, but I thought it turned out pretty funny.
One of the cool things about the “God is an imaginary character” hypothesis is that it does such a good job of predicting the actual behavior of the gods. In any situation, you can predict exactly what a god can and cannot do merely by knowing what an imaginary supernatural character can and cannot do. That means that god (or any other magical, imaginary being) can do anything you can imagine—but only in a story. And he/she/it/they cannot do anything more than that.
Via The Friendly Atheist comes a link to this nicely-done list of answers to common myths about atheists. I especially like #3, “Atheists can’t disprove God.”
There is no onus of proof on atheists to disprove god…
However, if an atheist chooses to assert that there are no gods, and in particular chooses to assert that there is no personal intervening god with whom humans can have relationships, that atheist can reasonably argue that such an assertion is proportionate to the best currently available evidence.
Very nicely written, and recommended reading.
And by the way, one of my favorite answers to that argument is simply to rephrase it. By saying that atheists cannot prove that God does not exist, the believer is making the implicit claim that there is no argument that can disprove God’s existence. They cannot prove the non-existence of this incontrovertible proof against God, however, and therefore by their own logic atheists are justified in believing that such an argument does exist, even if the unbeliever themselves might not happen to know it. Consequently the best outcome the believer can hope for is a kind of solipsist agnosticism that reduces Christian “eternal truth” into merely a subjective fantasy.
How would you answer it?
I was bored and looking for something to blog about, so I typed “apologetics” into Google, and clicked one of the ads that came up. It happened to be for an apologetics ministry named Solid Reasons, 
and I gotta say, that’s a pretty slick and shiny-looking web site. I don’t know who they’ve got doing their design and coding, but I can tell you, a fancy web site like that ain’t cheap.