(source: Beta Ray Bill: The Green of Eden)

In but 3 panels and with little dialogue, it summarizes not only atheism — including the idea that, even if something existed, to automatically worship that something would be nothing but a cowardly and loathsome way of grovelling –, but also humanism — that one should do “good” not because one fears punishment or desires a reward, but because it’s the right thing to do, because this universe is, as far as we know, the only one we’ve got, and, if we can influence it in some way, let it be a good way.

And all of this in a mainstream comic from a major publisher (Marvel). This is not something that happens every day.

They haven’t changed much. After all, before health care, they were protesting about taxes (the reason for the name “Tea Party”, in fact)… after the Obama administration lowered taxes for 95% of Americans — and, since there are probably no billionaire teabaggers, for 100% of protesters.

If they were honest, they’d admit that what they’re really protesting is “the President is black, and black people scare me”. What else explains that they protested about taxes after they were lowered?

Now, there is a certain class of sophisticated modern theologian who will say something like this: “Good heavens, of course we are not so naive or simplistic as to care whether God exists. Existence is such a 19th-century preoccupation! It doesn’t matter whether God exists in a scientific sense. What matters is whether he exists for you or for me. If God is real for you, who cares whether science has made him redundant? Such arrogance! Such elitism.”

Well, if that’s what floats your canoe, you’ll be paddling it up a very lonely creek. The mainstream belief of the world’s peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They’ll be right.

– Richard Dawkins (source)

Loved the one about coveting your neighbor’s ass.

For more about Space Moose, see Wikipedia.

A lot of Catholics have been complaining about Benedict 16’s utterly immoral statement, and, on one hand, one can’t fault them for it: it just shows that they still have some sense of morality, that they’re not mindless robots obeying “Dear Leader”.

On the other hand… do those Catholics (and Christians in general) know their own religion at all? Why are they surprised? Why aren’t them just nodding because, well, the Pope is Catholic and he’s just stated a Catholic / Christian position?

People, the basis of your religion is that this life is just a test! That one shouldn’t “love this world”. Earthly suffering is immaterial; the only thing that matters is whether you’re “saved” or not. If unspeakable suffering leads one to God / Jesus and therefore that person is saved, to a Christian that’s perfectly OK; in fact, one couldn’t ask for more.

If God exists as they think, and is absolutely against all forms of contraceptives / sex not for reproduction as they think, then better for someone to suffer horribly and die of Aids, with a chance of going to heaven, than to live a long, healthy, happy life and end up in hell with certainty. This is only logical, if one accepts their premises. Which, of course, I don’t, what with being an atheist and everything.

Christianity is a life-hating death cult.

Choice A: there is no heaven or hell; no afterlife, no consciousness after you die.

Choice B: there is an afterlife, in heaven (eternal bliss) or hell (eternal torment), and you have a 10% chance of going to hell.

Which would you choose?

To me, if you don’t choose A instantly, you have never thought for a minute about what “eternal torment” – or even just the “eternal” part – means. Because the mere possibility of that, no matter how remote, should be enough to make anyone live in absolute terror.

Even eternal boredom is infinitely worse than the worst of monsters that ever lived deserves. Because there’s no escape, no reprieve, absolutely no hope of an end, of a sweet oblivion.

Now, as an atheist, I believe there’s no choice here: it’s A whether we want it or not. A theist probably believes the opposite.

Why don’t theists live their lives in abject terror? Well, some of them will use the “my god isn’t a monster and doesn’t send people to hell” argument. Of course, since that deity has no biblical basis, it’s obvious that it’s a god they’ve made up, with the traits they believe God should have. Since I don’t think belief shapes reality, I can’t accept that the god you or him or her or them – or me, if I wanted to – have invented can possibly exist. (As I’ve said many times on this blog, if you believe in a good god, you’ve made him up, and he can safely be dismissed.)

Others will believe that hell exists, but will be certain that, somehow, they’re completely free – or “saved” – from it. They’re sure that they have the proper “get out of jail free” card. Because they have faith in Jesus, because they have said the magic words, because they obey most of Moses’ law or Mohammed’s rules. Somehow, they’re certain that they belong to the right religion – the right branch of the right religion – even though most of the world doesn’t. They probably have the same religion as their parents, making their religion – and, according to their beliefs, whether they’re saved or not – a matter of chance, of geography.

And they don’t think there’s a non-negligible chance of ending up in eternal torment. They’re not in complete terror every moment. They can lead normal lives.

It boggles the mind.

“As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth’s final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”

– Commissioner Pravin Lal, Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri, video game from 1999

Yes! Yes! YES!!

As if that wasn’t enough, he said what I believe will be the most often quoted bit in Planet Atheism for the next couple of days:

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus… and non-believers."

Hell yeah! Just a couple of years after Bush Sr.’s “atheists can’t be considered citizens or patriots” quote. The tide is turning…

A literal Bible presents me with far more problems than assets. It offers me a God I cannot respect, much less worship; a deity whose needs and prejudices are at least as large as my own. I meet in the literal understanding of Scripture a God who is simply not viable, and what the mind cannot believe the heart can finally never adore.
Bishop John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism, (1991), p. 24.

Quite true. However, what is the alternative to a literal interpretation, if not a made-up-on-the-spot one?

“God”, like he’s described in the Bible, is evil (Dawkins’ famous “The God of the Old Testament…” quote is right on the money).

However, the moment you say “my god isn’t like that, he’s a loving god”, you’re worshiping a god of your own creation.

The former is evil, and the latter is an intellectually dishonest creation of yours (really, how can you make up something on the spot and then say it created everything and is worthy of worship?!); both are, fortunately for everyone (including theists¹), quite fictional.

1. this may deserve a post in the future

Which just shows that this blog is no Friendly Atheist.

Still, this doesn’t prevent me from answering my own question, in detail. As others said, neither statement by itself is offensive – much like “2+2=4” and “2+2=5” aren’t. One of them is right and the other is not, but a simple claim shouldn’t be offensive to anyone.

However, these statements aren’t said in a vacuum. When you say either of them, you are probably – even if unconsciously – adding something to it. How much, depends on the individual. Similarly, when you hear one of those statements – especially if it’s the one you disagree with –, you tend to add implications to it.

“There is a god”, when said to an atheist, only has no extra meanings when said by either a deist or an incredibly liberal believer (so liberal he couldn’t possibly be called a “Christian” or similar). If said by virtually every other kind of believer, it includes one or more of the following:

• I’m right and you’re wrong
• I’m saved and you’re not; you’re going to hell
• You’re immoral for not believing, and for having no source of morality
• (if in a Christian community) You’re an outsider; you’re not one of us; you’re not a real American/whatever
• Your life is incomplete; you can’t possibly be happy
• Jesus died for you, you ungrateful monster
• It’s because of people like you that evil exists
• If you don’t believe, you’re just in denial; God’s existence is obvious
• You must allow me to convert you, otherwise you’re screwed.

(note that I said “one or more of”. I don’t mean that every theist believes all of those, or means all of those.)

Meanwhile, and to be fair, when an atheist says “there is no god”, here’s what he can mean, or at least what believers hear:

• I’m right and you’re wrong
• You’re stupid
• You were conned
• You’re brainwashed
• You’re a sheep
• You only have those beliefs because you’ve never thought about them
• You’re irrational
• Your religion is a crutch, because you can’t cope with the real world
• You’ve wasted your life. Time, money, effort, hopes, fears: all of it was for nothing.

The last one is particularly poignant, and I love Dan Dennett’s take on it. When you think about it, that is perhaps the worst thing you can tell a person – which doesn’t mean that it’s not true –, and it’s understandable that many people find it utterly offensive, even if that wasn’t the goal. Incredibly, I think it can hurt people’s feelings even more than, for instance, saying “you’re immoral and you’re going to hell”, because a non-believer knows that those are not true, and that the believer is just speaking from ignorance. But “you’ve wasted your life” is a real, actual, present “threat” – one that must be fought at all costs. Because otherwise you feel like an utter failure, an utter waste of a life.

This explains why there were so many complaints about atheist / secular signs during the past months. Now, granted, some can actually be an attack on belief, and offensive to believers, but some the ones they complained about said something as inoffensive as “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone”, or, as Ebonmuse put it, “Atheists exist”. And even these were seen as personal offenses, as attacks on their faith, as “liberal Christian-bashing”, and other absurdities. Perhaps, from this angle, I can understand their otherwise incomprehensible anger: the fact that atheists exist and have a voice is a constant threat on their own perceived self-worth. “If atheists exist (and can speak out, and have normal lives), then perhaps, just perhaps, I’ve wasted my life.”

Sign A:

There is a God.

Sign B:

There is no God.

I’ll expand on this in the next post, naturally, but, first, I’d just like to have your answers, and, if possible, your reasoning for that answer – whether you’re an atheist or not.

Oh. So if you simply think the idea that there is a Great Cosmic Voyeur who wants to control your genitals is absurd, that makes you a fanatic? I can’t be too concerned about the opinions of a deluded true believer who can’t tell a fierce bearded guy with an AK-47 from a tweedy academic with a word processor.

Source: Pharyngula

The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights, saying the church and religious freedom could be under attack in the new presidential administration.

Say that again? “Religious freedom”?

Yes, it’s that distortion again. Do these people even know what “freedom” means? When you’re deciding on something that affects mainly others, it’s not “freedom”, it’s power. The power over others, to dictate on what they can and cannot do.

“Religious freedom” is being able to have the religion you want – even if it’s “none”. It’s being able to act according to those beliefs, as long as it doesn’t infringe the rights of others. It’s not being persecuted (as in “jailed” or “fed to large felines”) for your beliefs. That’s it.

“Religious freedom” has nothing to do with being able to oppress others, force your beliefs on them, or dictate their actions by turning your religious commandments into the law of your country, affecting everyone – even those who don’t share your beliefs. All of those are a matter of power – of having power over other people.

If you don’t have that power – even if, historically, you are used to having it it – your “freedom” is never in question. You can still do what you want. But so can others… and that’s what you can’t accept, isn’t it?

The environmental movement is consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever. But we know that isn’t in God’s plan.

The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet—it is going to have a very short life. It’s been around six thousand years or so—that’s all—and it may last a few thousand more. And then the Lord is going to destroy it.

I’ve told environmentalists that if they think humanity is wrecking the planet, wait until they see what Jesus does to it.

– John McArthur, Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement

I do believe that legalizing gay marriage would directly affect religious freedoms–all in the guise of “equal rights”.

Am I a bigot for supporting what I feel to be morally right?

I do believe that passing this amendment protects religious freedom.

However, that person, though possibly unaware of the fact, has a problem with definitions. Because it’s not about (his) freedom at all, but about (his) power.

I think it was Richard Stallman who once wrote that the difference between a freedom and a power is that the former is being able to decide something which affects mostly yourself, and a power is to be able to decide something that affects mainly others. Now, when you, a religious heterosexual, can (and do) decide what others (gays) can and cannot do, which is the case? It takes an especially convulted and twisted mind — not to mention incredibly selfish and egocentric — to claim that whether gays can marry or not affects you more than it does them¹. To decide that they can’t marry is not a question of your freedom, but of you having power over their freedoms.

Also, losing a power you once had does not constitute a “loss of your freedom”, because none of the latter was affected. Christians love to claim that their “religious freedom” is being attacked, but no such thing has ever happened (unless, possibly, in Muslim theocracies), because their freedoms are unaffected; what they are losing is the power they’re used to having — and which they always had, through history, unjustly, and often through physical force.

1. e.g. “not oppressing them hurts my feelings, so whether to oppress them or not is all about me.”

Full version (starting with the Democratic primaries) here.

Instead of pointing you to his victory speech, I’ll celebrate with a previous one, which still brings a tear to my eye when I watch it. Especially the second half. You’ve probably heard it before, but…

Now, if we’re thinking about not voting because “none of the candidates really represent my positions” or “they’re both the same”, I leave you with two quotes for you to consider. Please do so.

Let’s say you’ve decided to sit out every election until you finally encounter the candidate who’s a left-handed green-eyed atheist libertarian who will institute the flat tax and can sing classical opera. I can guarantee you that you, my friend, will be sitting out every election of your entire life.

But let’s say a candidate finally comes along who’s a right-handed green-eyed agnostic libertarian who will institute some kinds of tax reforms (not the exact ones you want) and plays the tuba. And let’s say the other guy in the race is, hmmm, Fred Phelps. Are you really telling me that you’re going to sit out on principle because you only like southpaws?

– Kazim, The Atheist Experience

and, of course:

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

– David Sedaris, The New Yorker

In case you haven’t heard, there’s a guy running for president named Barack Hussein Osama Nobama. This Nobama was born outside America and secretly schooled in Islamic terrorism at a Wahhabi madrassa. He then moved to the United States to take up the radical ’60s teachings of the Weather Underground’s Bill Ayers, while also organizing for ACORN, a subprime-lending, voter fraud-committing collective of affirmative-action welfare queens. All this happened before he became an elitist celebrity advocate of socialism, infanticide, the sexual abuse of children and treason.

– Richard Kim, The Nation

An exaggeration, right? Nobody could possibly really believe such idiocy?

Right…

The prosecution rests.

Does that mean that they are voting for McCain only because they and McCain are white? The racist bastards!

In fact, if we take this absurdity to its logical limit, the only non-racists out there are the whites who’re voting for Obama, and the blacks who’re voting for McCain. Everyone else is just voting according to skin color, nothing more. Racists!

And to think these creeps have millions hanging on to their every word…

Some gems:

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

And, naturally:

Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as "a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman’s right to give birth."

"Soon, with John Ashcroft’s help, we will move out of the Dark Ages and into a more enlightened time when a woman will be free to think long and hard before trying to fight her way past throngs of protesters blocking her entrance to an abortion clinic," Bush said. "We as a nation can look forward to lots and lots of babies."

Continued Bush: "John Ashcroft will be invaluable in healing the terrible wedge President Clinton drove between church and state."

Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.

"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there’s much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation’s hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."

The Onion: prophecies 10,000 times more accurate than any book written by Bronze Age desert nomads.

To me, this is impossible to even begin to understand, unless I lower my appreciation of the human race even more. How can anyone who’s not a major partner of an oil or weapons company approve of Bush’s presidency? Think he’s doing an acceptable job? From fighting the wrong war to ruining the economy, from supporting Creationism to vetoing stem cell research – twice –… how can anyone with half a brain support him?

The only – scary – explanation is that about 25% of Americans – or about 76.363.250 people – would support Bush (or any other Republican) even if they saw him, with their own eyes, eating babies – because, no matter what he’s done, at least he’s not a lib’ral, doggone it!

If this is not something to keep one awake at night, I don’t know what is.

I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said: such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is he is not a Muslim; he’s a Christian, has always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, "What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?" The answer’s "No, that’s not America." Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he’s Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

Kudos to Powell for having the guts to say that (remember McCain’s (paraphrased) “no, he’s not an Arab,” (meaning “Muslim”, really), “he’s a decent family man”, thus implying that a Muslim can’t be one?). The implication, which probably shocks and offends the Religious Right like few other things in recent memory, is that being a Muslim is somehow not inferior to being a Christian, that being a Muslim (or a non-Christian in general) doesn’t disqualify someone for the presidency.

What next, they may be asking? “Is there something wrong with being an atheist in this country?”

I’m betting, of course, that the media will focus on “Powell endorses Obama”, and ignore this small bit of what he said, but, to me, that was the most important part. I can easily imagine Powell saying the same thing about any other religion, or about the lack of one, and these things need to be said, to combat the Religious Right’s dream of religious tests for high office (which, of course, you’d only pass by adhering strictly to their exact branch of fundamentalist Christianity).

Incidentally, it’s strange that I haven’t seen mass conservative cries of “Obama is an atheist”, since atheists are even more demonized than Muslims in the U.S.. I guess it’s the old “there are really no atheists, as deep inside everyone knows God exists” thing.

I won’t quote from that article here; if you’re interested in the subject matter, you’ve probably saw a dozen of them this week. The gist of them is always: no matter how bad things are, an Obama presidency / Democratic Congress will be even worse. No, really. Trust us. Things may be pretty screwed up these days, but Obama is a socialist! A liberal! He will destroy Capitalism, destroy the economy (as if it needs help, after the Bush administration), lead the United States into the dark ages, and so on.

Evidence? No need for that; Obama is a Democrat! What else do you need? Don’t you know that Democrats hate capitalism, freedom, America, and all that? If they win, they will raise taxes for everyone, spend money they don’t have (unlike the Bush administration, of course, which would never do such a thing), and, of course, promote the gay agenda, ban religion, force people to have abortions, surrender to Al Qaeda, move to the metric system (gasp!), and so on. Because that’s exactly what happened when Clinton was president, right?

What really makes me angry is this: Bush has been the worst president in recent memory, and the troubles are all his administration’s fault. Yet, without any data, without evidence, they claim that a change of administration would make things even worse. Bush sucks, but Obama is a liberal, and nothing is worse than that, to these people. And many believe them. Even though the last Democratic administration was actually much more fiscally conservative than the “oh, let’s spend a few billions each month in Iraq each month; it’s not as if they come out of our pockets” Bushites.

I’ve always believed – whether talking about U.S. elections, or Portuguese elections, or any others – that, if the group in power screws up, they must be punished, and that only a complete idiot will believe any “devil you know” arguments about the possibility of an even worse alternative. This is not a “devil you know” versus a “devil you don’t”: only the former has actually shown himself to be a “devil”. Suppositions and guesses about Obama’s future government (especially when they contradict all his stated policies) shouldn’t ever be comparable to real, actual, recent-past facts about Bush and I-voted-with-him-90%-of-times McCain.

One reason for my absence (from WotM and every other blog I author) was the changes in my life during these past months. New job, several new places of work (in the same job), new girlfriend, and even many physical changes at my home. Now, this by itself should have only affected my blogging for a couple of weeks or so, but then, as any blogger probably knows all too well, it’s hard to come back; you always feel that you have to apologize for “not doing your job”, and it’s easier to delay it… and delay… and delay…

Another reason is that, while my interests and hobbies tend to remain forever, they change in intensity. I’ve always gone through “phases” in my life: more reading, more video games, more socializing, and so on; and even each of those also tends to vary; for example, while reading atheism-related blogs was my passion in 2006 and 2007, these days I tend to go for, incredibly enough, U.S. politics (go, Obama!). If you don’t read, you don’t feel inspired to write, after all… so you get the idea of what happened. I’m happy to report that I’ve began to read Planet Atheism again for the last couple of days, and I’ve only just realized how much I’ve missed this subject for the last 5 months.

(incidentally, Planet Atheism is yet another problem – I have more than 100 new blogs and blog changes in my “to-do list”. But that’s a subject for another post, coming later today, or tomorrow.)

Since recently I’ve been fascinated with the U.S. elections, as I’ve said, until November I’ll be writing about them as well (probably mostly about them). Atheism and religion will go back to being the main themes afterwards.

Anyway, sorry about my absence; the least I could have done was to explain things, and I didn’t do so. I’ll try to be more careful about it in the future.

Again, sorry about this. I’ll be more careful in the future. I believe that anyone who takes the time to comment here (except when the comment is insulting, off-topic or spammy, of course) should have their “work” respected and preserved, and I always endeavor to do that.

Such is the case with anyone who uses the terms “Darwinism” and “Darwinist”.

Why is it? Because those terms are both inaccurate, and loaded.

They’re inaccurate because modern evolutionary theory, much like any science, has itself evolved, and biologists know much more about the workings of evolution than Darwin did, more than 150 years ago. While, say, religious beliefs themselves change and evolve with time (anyone who believes today’s Christianity has anything to do with what Jesus preached is completely deluded, and should someday try to read the gospels as what they really say, without any preconceptions), they don’t do that openly. In other words, there are branches of Christianity which claim to want to “go back to the basics”, but, typically, you don’t see “Christians” claiming that “Jesus was on to something, but we’ve improved over his primitive teachings“. They do that (after all, the apocalyptic, “sell everything you have, the end is near” trappings of Christ’s Christianity couldn’t have lasted long as a religion, at least with any degree of earthly success), but they don’t claim that — or, if they do, then they have to accept that Jesus was just a man, and such a belief can no longer be called “Christianity”. Islam is a popular example of that (to them, Jesus was just a mortal prophet).

Science, however, evolves, and while the founder / discoverer of a branch is honored and respected, scientists don’t treat his or her words as “holy” or as dogma. No biologist would ever say something like “it’s like this, because Darwin said so.” In science, reality is the final arbiter, and no hypothesis or theory is ever sacred. If anyone ever disproves (with evidence) evolution as we know it, science will abandon it and replace it with a better predictive explanation; the fact that nobody has managed to do it in almost two centuries (and it wasn’t from lack of trying) should tell us something.

We don’t call gravity “Newtonism”, because Newton wasn’t the be-all, end-all of gravity — nor did he claim to be. His writings aren’t the final word on gravity. There is no “final word”, but any new “words” must be tested against reality, and must be able to predict new situations as accurately as possible (say, the orbits of planets). “Newtonism” would suggest that modern physicists worship Newton, that they take his word as dogma, that modern physics are just a case of spreading Newton’s word to the unenlightened. You know, much like religion?

“Darwinism” is exactly the same. The implication of the term is that evolutionary biologists worship Darwin, that modern biology is just the study, understanding and spreading of Darwin’s word. That such a belief is dogmatic, and taken on faith. You may not mean it that way, but that’s what the word implies. If you disagree, consider what saying “Newtonism” instead of “gravity” sounds like.

And yet I keep seeing the term tossed around. Especially — of course — by intelligent design advocates. Who, as Expelled has shown, are not necessarily the most honest people around. Now, if you say “Darwinism” instead of “evolution (by natural selection)”, which are you? The deceiver, who fully knows the implications of such a loaded term, but wants to promote the idea of evolution as a Darwin-worshipping cult? Or the deceived, who was fooled by the former?

I fully believe that what Hitler did WAS Eugenics. And Darwinism is a direct link to this and other things. By eliminating a God and a creator, you really do eliminate the value of human life. If one believe that firstly, he was out on this earth by some cosmic accident, that his life is nothing more than to live and to die, and that after he does there is nothing left, no after life, what value does it have? So of course people are going to look at the "evolution" of people from mud or apes or whatever the case, and they are going to try to "perfect" it. If human life is NO more valuable that the life of an animal, which why would if be if we were once animals, and we have no soul, then what is the harm in picking and choosing and killing??
It has also led to other things, such as euthanasia and abortion. If life is as valueless as Darwinism suggests, then why not just kill of the ones who are "useless"?
What we need to realize is that Yes! We were created by an Intelligent Designer. Look at what trying to prove this wrong has done??? Resulted in the death of Millions of innocent people, people with a purpose in life.

I had started to reply with a comment there, but the reply was getting too long, so… a new post it is.

Ashlea: I’m sorry, but you are guilty of several common mistakes there. I’ll try to enumerate them:

I fully believe that what Hitler did WAS Eugenics.

No argument there (although it has been argued by some that the Holocaust wasn’t really done to perfect humanity, but because Hitler envied the Jews.)

And Darwinism is a direct link to this and other things.

Here I can’t agree. Both Dawkins’ quote in my post and my own follow-up to it clearly explained that eugenics is simply an attempt to apply the millennia old selective breeding of animals to humans — which is artificial selection, and has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution (not "Darwinism", but that’s a subject for another post), which is based on natural selection.

By eliminating a GOd and a creator, you really do eliminate the value of human life.

I disagree, and such a thing has never been proved. You’ll note that virtually everyone who says "without God, life is pointless" is a believer… and if they were right, then atheists would be sad, nihilistic, suicidal people who saw no point to anything. That is, of course, not the case at all. In other words: only the people who need an external justification for their lives believe that such an external justification is universally needed. Forgive me for the harsh comparison, but this is like an addict who claims that nobody could ever live happily and healthily without the drug.

Besides, even if you were right, and life were pointless without a god, it would not follow that a god would exist. Something is not more likely to be true simply because the consequences of it being false "would be bad". Please see this entry in my FAQ for more details.

If human life is NO more valuable that the life of an animal, which why would if be if we were once animals, and we have no soul, then what is the harm in picking and choosing and killing??
It has also led to other things, such as euthanasia and abortion. If life is as valueless as Darwinism suggests, then why not just kill of the ones who are "useless"?

Again, you are confusing two separate things. Darwinian evolution describes how things work, now how people ought to behave — and neither Darwin nor modern biologists advocate eugenics (which, again, is artificial selection, and which humanity has performed on animals and plants for ages).

You also imply that human life is only worth anything if we have something known as "souls". This is the old argument: theists claim that a finite life is worthless; I say that its finite quality only makes it more precious, more worthy of being lived to the fullest. And, look — I care for other people even though I don’t believe they have supernatural, immortal "souls"! Isn’t this weird, according to your way of seeing things?

I’d also argue that euthanasia and abortion arise from respect for human life and dignity, not from lack of it, but that’s another story.

To conclude, most of your comment was an appeal to consequences. You didn’t try to show either how evolution doesn’t happen, or how intelligent design does; you just claimed that, if evolution is true, "things would be bad", therefore it must be false, and intelligent design wins "by default". Sorry to say, but that’s not very convincing…

P.S. – I’m glad you didn’t use the "Hitler and Stalin did what they did because they didn’t believe in God, therefore they thought they could do anything" argument. My reply to that one would have been a lot less nice…

The Intelligent Design proponents make a compelling, and totally legitimate, argument that if a theory has not been proven, then one suggested theory is just as good as another.

Take gravity, for example: the force of attraction between massive particles. We know a great deal about the properties of gravity, yet we know nothing about the cause of the force itself. Why are particles attracted to one another? If we review the literature, we find a lot of material dealing with the properties of gravity, but very little dealing with the underlying cause of this attraction. Until we have a proven answer to this question, it seems irresponsible to instruct students in what is, ultimately, just a theory. However, if we must discuss the theory of gravity at all, then it’s reasonable that all suggested theories should be given equal time, since none have been proven or disproven. Therefore, I formally submit that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is behind this strange and often misunderstood force.

What if it is He, pushing us down with His Noodly Appendages, that causes this force? He is invisible, remember, and is undetectable by current instruments, so in theory it is possible. And the fact that the gravitational powers of the Spaghetti Monster haven’t been disproven makes it all the more likely to be true. We can only guess as to His motives, but it’s logical to assume that if He is going to such trouble, there is a good reason. It could be that He doesn’t want us floating off earth into space, or maybe just that He enjoys touching us — we may never know.

– Bobby Henderson, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

From the article:

Pastor Byrd says the sign is not meant to be racial or political but rather to make people think.  “His name is so close to Osama I have a feeling he might be Islamic therefore he doesn’t recognize Christ,” Pastor Byrd said.

and:

Pastor Byrd told News Channel 7 he would ask his congregation to vote on whether to keep the sign.  They voted unanimously to keep the sign up Sunday night.

Jonesville Church of God does not have any African American members.

You know what really infuriates me about this? Not that these assholes do this, but that it works. A good percentage of Americans probably “have a feeling” that Obama might be a Muslim, simply because of his name. How stupid can you get?

(via Friendly Atheist)

Apparently it’s from Fark. Funny, especially if you know the Pokémon games.

It begins with “You encountered McCain!”. If you catch it in the middle, just force a refresh of the page to see it from the beginning.