I’ve been ignoring this rain prayer nonsense from Georgia lately, despite the fact that every day I’m getting email about it. It was just too ridiculous to believe—no one, especially not the governor of an American state in the 21st century, could be that loony.
And then I watched this video.
Good grief. I watched that blithering idiot babbling about god listening to their prayers to relieve the drought, and I heard the onlookers muttering “Yeah!” and “Amen!” and all I could think was …
An announcement from Minnesota Atheists:
Mother Teresa: Closet Atheist or Teflon Saint?
Sponsored by Minnesota Atheists
Sunday, Nov. 18, 2007
1:30-2:30 p.m.
Bedlam Theatre, MinneapolisAround the world Mother Teresa has become an unassailable icon of charity, love and endless toil for the benefit of the “poorest of the poor.” Her image as the savior of the poor people of Calcutta earned untold millions in donations, multitudes of awards, including the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize, and a fast track to sainthood.
Persons who have questioned her mode of operation and publicized the true nature of her contributions have been widely and vehemently vilified. Now, with the release of some of her private writings, some are calling her a “closet atheist.”
Minnesota Atheists’ associate president Cynthia Egli will speak on the controversies surrounding Mother Teresa’s life and work and answer the question, “Should the Catholic Church canonize Mother Teresa?”
Complete schedule (everything is free and open to the public):
Noon – 12:30 p.m. – Social time.
12:30 – 1:30 p.m. – Presentation.
1:30 – 1:50 p.m. – Break.
1:50 – 2:00 p.m. – Brief business.
2:00 – 3:00 p.m. – Open discussions.Bedlam Theatre,
1501 6th St. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55454This venue is exactly at the Cedar-Riverside light rail station in the West Bank area of Minneapolis. There is a huge FREE parking lot behind Bedlam Theatre.
I was shocked to open Current Biology and find the leading news article was titled “Call to atheists,” and it was actually a pleasantly neutral article that simply reported on Dawkins’ efforts to organize atheists and promote a positive view of secularism — I guess I’m simply so used to so many media references that get immediately defensive of religion and treat atheism as something scary. It’s very nice.
Right after reading it, however, I got a note from Melissa. If you want to see something that should choke a cockroach, watch the parade of Democrats getting in line to stand up and defend the Bible. It’s nauseating. I want to see my party standing up to defend the constitution and personal liberties, not antique superstitions…but there they are, prioritizing vocal support for a wretched old book of lies while allowing the erosion of democratic principles to continue, and in fact by their praise of state-endorsed Christianity, promoting the demolition of the separation of church and state.
What does that have to do with Dawkins? He makes this comment in the interview:
He has been encouraged in the early days for the race for president by the apparent distancing of Republican candidates from the Christian right. But he found “very depressing” the profession of faith from the Democratic candidates. “I guess the Democrats have to pretend to be more pious than the Republicans because they are under suspicion of not being.”
I think Dawkins is wrong, unfortunately. Watch that video; I don’t think they’re pretending, I think they actually are pious twits.
I hate to admit it, but even I would vote for a Republican if he were openly atheist. I am thoroughly fed up with the sad-sack sanctimony from our representatives, and I don’t care whether it’s feigned or sincere — it’s corrosive garbage.
Williams, N (2007) Call to atheists. Current Biology 17(21):R899-R900.
I have not been shy about my contempt for the crackpot, Roy Varghese — he’s one of those undeservedly lucky computer consultants who struck it rich and is now using his money to endorse religion. He’s a god-soaked loon who pretends to be a scientific authority, yet he falls for the claim that bumblebees can’t fly and therefore there flight is evidence for a god. Really. He’s that deluded.
I’ve been too kind, however. You must read this New York Times article, The Turning of an Atheist, in which it turns out that Varghese is also a contemptible manipulator.
Guilt-ridden Christian: If I don’t obey God, he’s going to make me suffer for all eternity.
Evil-angelical Christian: I don’t make you obey God, I’ll be responsible for your eternal suffering.
That link will take you to a despicably manipulative video on GodTube — a dramatized letter from Hell in which a young fellow about to be thrown into the Lake of Fire screams at his still living, Christian friend for not doing enough to save him. It is genuinely vile. It is an attempt to turn a positive social value, friendship, into a rationale for browbeating people into abandoning reason and accepting a superstitious lie.
Christianity is all about death, suffering, fear, guilt, and coercion. It’s a damnable doctrine that preys on the good people want to do and turns it into a corrupting servility to a wretched dogma.
Do we have to wait until he’s elected to impeach him? ‘Cause right now I’d like to see Huckabee kicked off the campaign trail and sent back to repeat grades 6-12.
Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do. In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don’t think there’s a conflict between the two. But if there’s going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn’t. So I’ll stick with God if the two are in conflict.
So when he’s faced with two claims, he’ll follow the one that ignores all the evidence and sticks to its guns in the face of all reason? We’ve already had one of those clowns in office, I don’t think we need another one.
Here’s an article that deserves a prize. It’s wall-to-wall praise-Jebus babble, giving the Lord of the Universe credit for getting the Colorado Rockies baseball team into the World Series—have a puke bucket handy if you actually try to read the whole thing.
“You look at some of the moves we made and didn’t make,” general manager Dan O’Dowd said in the only interview he has given on the subject, long before the Rockies’ remarkable ascension over the past few weeks. “You look at some of the games we’re winning. Those aren’t just a coincidence. God has definitely had a hand in this.”
And that’s just one small piece of the story. The rest is trying to make a long argument that all of the improbabilities mean that the divine must have had a hand in elevating a local sports team to national recognition. It’s amazing. You would think a God would have slightly different priorities.
But then, I suspect I know the truth. The piety of the team and the fans don’t matter in the slightest. God is doing it to spite Andy.
Those sneaky rascals at the Templeton Foundation have asked one of those ridiculous questions that gets some otherwise rational people stumbling over themselves to give an inoffensive answer: does the universe have a purpose? Of course, the irrational people have no trouble piping up with a happy “Yes!”, which should clue everyone in, as Larry notes, that it’s a gimmick question designed to provoke a range of waffly answers … and waffles, especially the tepid, limp kind, are the stock-in-trade of the Templeton House of Waffles.
I’d say “no, there is no evidence of universal purpose and no reason to assume one,” and be done with it. Except, perhaps, to ask those who say “yes” to specify exactly what that purpose is, and how they know it.
Near as I can tell, the primary purposes of the universe as discerned from the casual expressions of religion’s proponents are 1) to bias victory in local football games, and 2) to regulate the appropriate orifices into which certain people are allowed to place their penises. How the creation of Betelgeuse, the concentration of planetary material in our solar system in one body which we can’t reach and which is uninhabitable to us, and the ubiquity and success of bacteria all play into these purposes is unknown to me … it must be one of God’s mysteries.
Or in this case, perhaps, unskew one. Take a look at this poll that asks, Does Islam Oppress or Liberate Women? The leading answer so far is “Islam is generally liberating to women, freeing them from sexual pressures that exist elsewhere. “
Yeah, if by “liberating” you mean “compelling them to wear a bag over their head, not allowing them to drive or hold various public positions, and in some cases, gouging out chunks of their genitalia with a piece of broken glass.”
