1. God Trumps

Comment #286495 by defaithed on November 18, 2008 at 3:59 pm

@Black Wolf: Yes, we need some "Illuminati"-style rules for these cards!

Brings back memories. For the curious: Illuminati is a card game, and later trading card game, from renowned and quirky Steve Jackson Games. Good people there; I've had chance to converse a wee bit with Steve and staff over projects in the past.

I can't say anything about their religiosity, other than to note that they're in Austin (home to a very public atheist community), and games like Illuminati certainly don't coddle "faith". That game pokes fun at religion (and everything) in a way that makes secular humanists laugh and "the faithful" steam. It'd probably be a hit at any freethinker gathering.

2. The Joke's on Him: Bill Maher could use a lesson in civility from Michael Moore

Comment #265421 by defaithed on October 16, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Did I miss something? It seems this "reviewer" whined only about *how* Maher says things, and completely ignored the truth or falsity of *what* Maher says.

3. New Rules for Sarah Palin and Her Witchdoctor

Comment #260613 by defaithed on October 5, 2008 at 6:39 pm

@j.mills: "Not that he's wrong, but he's smug and laughs at his own jokes, and like much American TV, he's buoyed up by an audience of irritating sycophants. "

Not meaning to pick a fight, good sir, but I never understand comments along that line. On this topic, Maher is presenting truth and common sense. What *specifically* should he be doing to avoid looking "smug"? (And is it really necessary? He's not speaking out against some complex, reasoned position with which he happens to disagree; he's addressing raving lunatics whose beliefs carry all the intellectual weight of "reptile people are among us!".)

Laughs at his own joke? Ostensibly poor technique for a comedian, true, but come on, the jokes are funny; let the man laugh. All the comedic greats let the poker face crack once in a while.

Irritating sycophants? Again, I'm not sure what you want here. He says some true and smart things, and the audience agrees because they have more brain cells than a planarian... What should they do instead, hold back and scowl? "Grrr, stop being reasonable, man!"

Well, we'll never all see things the same way, and that's fine. (I, for one, look at the "strident" and "ranting" Richard Dawkins and find the guy impossibly polite and gentle on matters of religion.) To each his own!

4. Why I left Young-earth Creationism

Comment #258994 by defaithed on October 2, 2008 at 4:57 pm

@Saber: "I don't care if he decides to abandon his religion. It's enough that he's embraced reason. "

Until he drops the rest of religion, he hasn't embraced reason. He's got it in one of those awkward one-arm half-hugs. (Maybe thinks a full hug would be gay? ; ) It's time now for the real embrace.

(Jokes aside, the above depends on what exactly his remaining "religion" consists of, and I can't claim to know that.)

5. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #255661 by defaithed on September 28, 2008 at 2:06 am

Ward's "intellectually intriguing" line makes him sound like just another flea easily brushed off by a moment of reason.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the simplistic depiction of "materialists" sounds like a straw man. His materialist: "I am convinced that the universe is made of simple, classical matter alone... What? Quantum physics? Aiiieee, my world view is destroyed! I am adrift, and can only turn now to the supernatural!"

No. At least not where any sane scientist (or other rationalist) is concerned. For these people, EVIDENCE, not an "ism", is everything. Rationalists are "materialist" only to the extent that a "materialist world-view" agrees with evidence. Show real evidence to support the quantum modification to that world-view, and "materialists" have no problem with accepting it.

Meanwhile, theology *still* has given us evidence of precisely nothing.

Fer cryin' out loud, it's the *scientists*, not the religionists, who sought and discovered and are proving the concepts and evidence behind quantum physics. What nutcase would suggest that this overturns science and supports religious fantasy? (Answer: Keith Ward.)

6. Pope condemns 'pagan' love of money, power

Comment #247648 by defaithed on September 14, 2008 at 5:43 pm

News flash: Rich, powerful man condemns love of money, power

7. Participating In Religion May Make Adolescents From Certain Races More Depressed

Comment #242940 by defaithed on September 4, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Why the odd use of "races" in the article title? The text points to integration between religion and surrounding culture, not actual "race", as the factor behind effect on depression.

Wouldn't "Participating In Religion May Make Adolescents From Certain Cultures More Depressed" be a much more accurate representation of the actual content?

8. Genesis and the origin of the Origin of the species

Comment #239700 by defaithed on August 30, 2008 at 8:11 am

Oh, that wacky rabbi! "The Bible forbids cruelty to animals", he bleats. No, the Bible *revels* in the mindless slaughter of animals, in all those times Yahweh tells "His people" to destroy every inhabitant of the next village on His death list, right down to the farm animals.

And even when Yahweh tones down the war for a chapter or two, he demands the butchering and burning of animals - with the pieces to be hacked in such-and-such a way, and the blood splattered just so - for no reason other than that He gets off on the smell.

Oh, and then he drowned every land animal in the world, except for two of each kind. God hates animals.

Animals still got off easy compared to people, though. In the rabbi's holy guide to morals and clean living, Yahweh commands genocides right and left (sometimes with virgin girls spared for later rape), slays men and women and children with plagues, demands that pregnant women and infants be butchered with swords, gives a thumbs-up to slavery, decrees executions for idiotic reasons... etc., etc., everyone here knows the atrocity list.

Then there's that flood again: killed nearly every animal, AND killed every human fetus on earth. (God: Abortionist par excellence. No child left behind, indeed!)

Rabbi Sacks! I know that's all off your intended topic of pretending to have some wise religious insight into biology. But since you're the one bringing up the "God is kind to animals" tangent, perhaps you can comment on the seething, bloodthirsty hatred that your holy books say He actually holds toward all his creations?

9. Imagine No Religion' signs to go up around town

Comment #237031 by defaithed on August 25, 2008 at 5:55 pm

"Keep Religion Out of Politics"

Simple. Nice. I like it more than the "stained glass" billboard proposal from the ffrf.org.
http://www.defaithed.com/blog/defaithed/2008/02/imagine_no_religion_billboard

Still looking forward to an "Imagine No Religion" billboard showing screaming televangelists, suicide bombers, and the like. But *any* progress on the publicity front is great thing! Kudos to the FFRF in Denver.

10. When too much Rapture is barely enough

Comment #204900 by defaithed on July 6, 2008 at 6:05 am

@Teratornis: "The vast majority of Christians behave as if they don't believe the Bible. For example, they go to doctors when they get sick rather than believing the Bible's multiple promises that God will heal them; they buy insurance rather than trusting God to take care of them..."

So very true... but if you point that out to them, they have a round of double-talk loaded in the chamber, ready to fire: "Well, you see, the Lord helps those who help themselves..."

Also, to those people recounting "I was pressured to speak in tongues" stories: Wow, that is truly scary. I know I went through some weirdness growing up in a Jehovah's Witness family, but now and then I'm reminded that plain old "normal" American fundies just blow away my experience in terms of sheer creepy bizarreness. My hat is off to you guys; I commend you on pulling through!

11. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202615 by defaithed on July 1, 2008 at 5:06 pm

"Giberson believes in evolutionary theory as adamantly as he does in God."

He presumably believes the former based on evidence. And believes the latter based on... what?

Ah, there it is later on down, I see. It's based on "scientists haven't found ALL the fossils, and golly, some things are complex, so it must be Goddidit."

Of course, Mr Giberson fails to consider "Vishnu did it", "Leprechauns did it", or anything else that doesn't perfectly match the superstitions he personally was raised with.

12. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201507 by defaithed on June 29, 2008 at 6:48 pm

@idiot author: "I wonder why the modern mind finds no difficulty in imagining every atom in creation being influenced by the power of gravity, but somehow finds great difficulty imagining the all-knowing and ever-present Maker of those atoms numbering the hair on one's head, or counting the planets in space, His own handiwork, and knowing the deeds of those who dwell on them."

Simple:
1) Ample evidence for the former
2) Zero evidence for the latter.

When will these yammering boobs learn that it all boils down to ONE word: Evidence.

It's also worth noting that the universal effects of gravity can only travel as fast as light. Using Yammering Boob Author's own homey "God is like gravity" analogy, the power of the Holy Spirit, then, would also be limited to the speed of light.

That would imply eons and eons before God can even observe, let alone affect, a remote location. Eons upon eons for each God/world interaction, with nothing but dead silence in between. For most of the universe, the result would be no different from there being no God at all.

Wait, maybe this guy is on to something!

@8teist: No, the aliens cannot bring "Saturnalian shrimp" to the party. God hates the shrimp he created, remember?

13. Regime change in heaven

Comment #191093 by defaithed on June 10, 2008 at 7:51 am

Heh. Reminds me of some satire on The Onion (news of lawsuits against God for broken promises, etc.). And the "attack on heaven" angle shares a wee bit with a post I wrote just a few days back, at http://www.defaithed.com/blog/defaithed/2008/06/strong_antitheist . But unlike my bit, the above is funny - always the more effective strategy! My compliments to the author!

14. God seekers go public

Comment #179782 by defaithed on May 13, 2008 at 6:03 pm

"It will be good for the troops if leaders in the ID movement can claim: 'We're not just talking theory. We have labs, we have real scientists working on this.'"

Sheesh, having labs and "real" scientists means *nothing*. Having *results* come from those is 100% what matters.

Yet, sadly enough, the simple presence of "labs" and "scientists" will be enough to make the muppets sing "Look, it's real science, so it's scientifically true!"

Exactly as they put it themselves: All that's needed is ability to *claim* (their word!) the trappings of science. Honestly, I don't think Biologic even expects to deliver results validating the "predictions" of ID. All they want to do is show some lab coats, and that'll be enough for Joe Born Again.

15. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158576 by defaithed on April 10, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Great job by PZ, as always. I'm a non-scientist who nonetheless has a fascination with Darwin's theory, and an interest in explaining it as simply as possible. I've tried to do so in more essay-like form (such as here http://www.defaithed.com/blog/defaithed/2008/02/darwin_day_fun_layman_explains_evolution_by_natural_selection - complete with the same "geez, even farmers know this!" tack), but not surprisingly, it's PZ who nails it as succinctly as possible.

It's truly, truly amazing how many people simply *refuse* to understand the trivially simply basic theory, and how many religionists deliberately try to hide it behind lies. What's so strange is I can't even see how Darwin's theory threatens religion in any way! Just look at the countless believers who cheerfully acknowledge "Sure, evolution by natural selection makes perfect sense; we just assume that God set it in motion." There are plenty other reasons to debate that latter point, but those believers are certainly further along the intellectual timeline than the "Expelled" idiots.

16. My Argument With God

Comment #131624 by defaithed on February 22, 2008 at 6:27 pm

"75% of Americans are God-fearing Christians; 75% of prisoners are God-fearing Christians. 10% of Americans are atheists; 0.2% of prisoners are atheists"

Anyone know a source for that data? (I'd like to confirm it before quoting it all over the place! : )

17. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #111444 by defaithed on January 14, 2008 at 3:46 pm

I recall a "reasons why evolution is wrong" document I saw one JW use "in service". I don't think it was a JW publication, but a list from somewhere else that just happened to coincide perfectly with their teachings.

Among the usual howlers, the list made some nonsensical claim about one-in-a-zillion chance of a horse arising through evolution. It then smacked down the scientists with the brilliant zinger, "And what are the chances, then, of Mrs Horse also arriving at that exact same time?" Ho ho-o-o! Let's see you squirm out of that one, Darwinists!

Sigh. With a science upbringing like that, you can understand why I've been gulping real science like water, ever since leaving. The Real Thing... ah, refreshing!

18. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #110843 by defaithed on January 13, 2008 at 1:05 am

I agree w/ mallory: banning soda and Nintendo doesn't sound like JW canon to me. More typical of Mormons, I'd think, but I'm just going by hearsay there.

On the other hand, I would say that a JW family is more *likely* than other sects to ban, say, GI Joe toys as "violent", even if there isn't any strict Watchtower Society edict against everyone's favorite action figure. Similarly, with the JW official anti-drug, anti-smoking "the body is a temple" stance, I suppose it's not too big a stretch for an individual family to extend that as far as "no junk food". (After all, the whole blood transfusion thing is just a ridiculous over-stretching of the "abstain from blood" commandment.)

But any individual family, whatever the sect, even non-religious, can end up with some unique rules. So the no-soda, no-Nintendo kid maybe was JW, maybe not. (Now, if he also ran from birthday parties, Xmas pageants, the Pledge of Allegiance, and blood, those are strong signs pointing to JW. And for what it's worth, while I don't think there was ever a canonical ban, the Society did publish a warning about the dangers of Dungeons & Dragons. The spiritual dangers, that is, not just the danger of becoming a geek. : )

19. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #110395 by defaithed on January 11, 2008 at 5:36 am

Another ex-JW here. I fell out around age 20, even though I was "baptized" – but the whole family was drifting out, so that wasn't a problem. Very interesting to read the experiences. (Strigoia, your story read a lot like mine. Z3r0, you mention "fear of demons" – man, that's really a nasty mind trip that the JWs place on kids, isn't it? Demons everywhere, ready to attack any time... Folks, you want "haunted house" stories with a Christian twist, the JWs got 'em.)

I guess I was one of those kids who always had doubts but suppressed that voice. (After all, He can even read your mind...) I'd see the "map" in one of the books (I forget which) that innocently plopped a dinosaur (Plateosaur-looking, IIRC) among ancient peoples. So did this mean dinosaurs lived with people? And nobody really had a clear answer; it was firmly in "don't think or ask about it too much" territory. Then there were the eating conditions in "paradise": if we wouldn't be eating meat any more, what about fish? No more shrimp, even? "Don't worry, it's all part of the plan and will get worked out. Concentrate on what's important here and now..."

It was eye-opening here to read the depth of unhappy experiences with "disfellowshipping". I've been a little oblivious to that aspect, as the family's departure from "the Truth" coincided with physical moves, and the reaction of the old congregation didn't have such an impact. At least not for me. My friends tended to be non-JW anyway (I guess I got away with it because, like me, they tended to be "good kids" that even a JW parent couldn't complain much about.)

In the end, "losing" all the old JW acquaintances in the congregation didn't bother me much, and the reason is both sad and a little funny: in all honesty, I never liked many of them to begin with. : ) (Still, I can understand that other ex-members lost close relationships and underwent real pain.)

Strange times... strange times, they were.