We the Stupid, of the Stupid and for the Stupid

Well, I've heard it all now. Apparently, people have decided that today's google doodle, in celebration of the US's Veteran's Day, is secretly a celebration of Islam.

Tweets via Twitter have included a broad range of hostile opinions about 'Old Glory' appearing with the shadow of a stylized Islamic crescent moon--especially on Veterans Day. The Google doodle is definitely stirring up fears of fanning the flames of anti-Islamic sentiments in America. Was that what Google intended?

Reactions on Twitter have ranged from shock to disappointment at Google's choice of doodle designs for Veterans Day.

LaughTech on Twitter enlarged the logo and set its caption as "Google says, 'Happy Veterans Day, Islam'".

That's just stoopid. Head deskingly, face palmingly stoopid. I have discussed some nuclear grade stoopid here before, but this is the epitome of stoopid.

I'm so proud of my country.

Why Atheists Should Care About Rifqa Bary

rifqa bary, muslim, islam, atheism, atheist, bigotry

Much has been made in Christian circles about Rifqa Bary, the Christian convert from a Muslim family that ran away from home earlier this year, but few in atheist circles have made mention of Ms. Bary, perhaps viewing the case as an interreligious conflict that doesn't affect atheists at all.

We should care about Ms. Bary. The entire fiasco reveals a shocking bigotry toward Muslims, and we all know whom Christians hate more than Muslims: atheists.

In a nutshell, Ms. Bary is a 17-year-old girl who lived an average American life until quite recently. She attended a private school, was a cheerleader, had an active internet life. Her family is Muslim, but as the above picture amply demonstrates, not of the fundamentalist variety. There is no headscarf, hijab or burqa in the above picture, in fact, you can see her legs. Her father bought her a laptop and allowed her to prance around half naked at football games.

All of which makes what happened next, and the media attention given to it, outrageous. Apparently, Ms. Bary converted to Christianity at 14, and her family found out a few months ago. Unsurprisingly, her parents were angry, as would be Christian parents upon finding out their child had converted to Islam. Ms. Bary then ran away, from Ohio to Florida, to live with a man she met on the internet. This man, a Christian minister, failed to report her presence to the authorities as Florida law requires.

Ms. Bary's parents reported her as a runaway, and when the authorities found her in Florida she told them that she feared her father would kill her, being Muslim and all. Honor killings do occur, but it is a custom of fundamentalist Muslims, not the sort of Muslims who send their daughters to private schools, buy them laptops and allow them to show their legs. The Barys are originally from Sri Lanka, a country with a small Muslim population and no history of honor killings. (In fact, Ms. Bary's parents immigrated to the US to get her better medical treatment for an injury to her eye.)

If Ms. Bary's parents were not Muslim, do you suppose her claims would have been taken seriously? Do you suppose the national media would have picked up the story? What about the minister who hid Ms. Bary in his home? Do you think he would have avoided being charged for harboring a runaway? Ms. Bary still has not been sent home. In fact, it looks like she will never be sent home, and will be kept in foster care until her 18th birthday.

Why should this matter to the atheist community? A family was unfairly demonized simply for being Muslim. They have now lost custody of their child, though there is no evidence they have, or will, harm her in any way. Considering the way Christians feel about atheists, this sets an alarming precedent for our community as well. What happens when the child of an atheist converts to Christianity and then makes wild claims about their parents to the authorities? Given this example, I can picture such children being encouraged to do so in order to be fostered in a Christian home.

All I can say is that we, as atheists, should pay attention to this case. It may well show us the future for our community, too.

That Can't Be Good

huckabee, religion, atheism, abortion, islam, homosexual, marriage, president,
Rasmussen's latest survey shows Mike Huckabee as the front runner for the GOP in 2012.

Though Rasmussen Reports’ last survey in July concluded with a nearly three-way tie between Huckabee and former Govs. Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, Huckabee came out on top in their latest survey, which found 29 percent of likely Republican voters nationwide saying they would vote for Huckabee in 2012, while 24 percent prefer Romney and 18 percent Palin.

. . .

For Rasmussen’s survey, the only candidates survey participants could choose from were Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, and Pawlenty.

Why do I qualify this under "notgood" news? I don't really think that Huckabee could win against Obama in a general election, but you never know. If the economy takes a nosedive or somebody bombs Israel off the map, public opinion will likely turn against Obama, and if Huckabee rides into the Oval Office on that wave, it won't be a good thing for me or you. Or agnostics or Muslims or women or homosexuals or the transgendered or, well, anyone.

A few relevant quotes:

In November, 2007, Huckabee said he was best qualified to battle Islamic extremism and America's culture wars because he was the only GOP candidate with a theology degree: "I think I'm stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamo fascism. These are people that want to kill us. It's a theocratic war. And I don't know if anybody fully understands that. I'm the only guy on that stage with a theology degree." The Huckabee campaign later admitted that Mike Huckabee has no theology degree.

So, he hates Muslims and he's a liar.

Although Mike Huckabee may not have a theology degree, he has been and continues to be an ordained Baptist minister. Why did he make the move from the pulpit to political life? According to Huckabee, he wanted to bring Jesus Christ to the nation: "I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives." He also said "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has openly advocated amending the U.S. Constitution to transform it from a secular document designed to create a secular, civil government into a religious document designed to reflect "God's standards."

Separation of church and state? Not so much.

In 1998, Mike Huckabee joined 130 Southern Baptists who signed a USA Today advertisement calling on wives to submit themselves graciously to the servant leadership of their husbands — a standard part of Southern Baptist theology.

Hope you don't expect to make your own choices, ladies.

According to Mike Huckabee, "I support and have always supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. As President, I will fight for passage of this amendment. My personal belief is that marriage is between one man and one woman, for life."

So, no gay marriage, and no divorce.

Unsurprisingly, Huckabee also opposes sex ed, contraception and abortion- even in cases of incest and rape.

Yeah, that's something we might want to keep track of- if only to know when to leave the country.

Elite and Resentful

christian, christianity, morality, islam, atheism, elite,
elite: the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.

I love being called "elite", mostly because there's nothing particularly elite about me. I'm not the most intelligent or educated, I'm hardly the best writer, I'm not the funniest, most informed or even the best looking. I'm not the kindest, the gentlest or the most generous.

I'm not even elite in a negative sense. I'm not the rudest, the most violent, the ugliest, the cruelest or the most boring. That's right, I can't even win at losing.

But that doesn't stop people from claiming that it's my resentful elitism that has turned me against god. People like Jaime Jeffords.

For the elites, it is all about permissiveness. One can hold whatever religion one wants, as long as it passes no judgment and certainly does not seek to shape society. look, i don't care if you worship a pair of socks, just leave the rest of us out of it. You do not like the idea of abortion or gay marriage? Shut up, you bigoted jerk! you are more than welcome to tell the whole freakin' world that you don't like abortion, gay marriage or my new haircut, but stop trying to pass laws about it. Want to legalize pot or take ’under God’ out of the Pledge of Allegiance/ well, speak up, pal. well, those people shouldn't be allowed to speak. it's ridiculous that those people might go door to door and hand out pamphlets and . . . oh. You are just the kind of enlightened soul we need around here. Someone will with? no general principles other than self-centered hedonism.

just a note: according to Mr. Jefford's self description, he has a law degree. given the appalling spelling and grammatical errors throughout this post, i think we should find out which school gave him a JD and petition to have them shut down.

I expect that sort of attitude from people who reject religion on a moral rather than intellectual basis. what? i'm not sure . . . so it's okay to reject religion on an intellectual basis? What what bemuses i assume "me" meaning Mr. Jeffords about the intellectuals is how they trade Christianity directly for science as though the two are as mutually exclusive as hedonism and Christianity are. do they? have you proven that anywhere . . . nope. okay then. It is not so. The intellectual elite we're choice! like Grade A Prime Rib! (i really miss steak.) embrace science as a religion stop that! in order to fill the gap left by abandoning Christianity. (a) not all atheists "abandoned" christianity. I know a few atheists who never had any religion, as well as exmuslims, exjews, etc. (b) who says "abandoning" christianity leaves a gap? i haven't noticed one.

Look at the language they use. “God in the gaps,’ pick some quotes and stick with them! which supposedly means God has fewer and fewer places to hide as science reveals how unnecessary he is in finding answers. well, yeah. why would you look to god for scientific knowledge? you're talking about the book that asserts that bats are birds and insects have four legs. you don't need a PhD in anything to know the truth there. The guys in the white lab coats have replaced ministers in their hearts and minds rather than coexisting with God like they should. no, scientists, with or without lab coats, white or otherwise, have not replaced ministers in my heart. totally different job, buddy. There is this notion that god has limited science, which translates to morality has limited science. galileo. christianity has limited science. and christianity =/= morality. i am a moral person. without christianity or god. i know, it's amazing. Christian opposition to destroying embryonic stem cell research wait a minute, he just said that christians are against stopping embryonic stem cell research, abortion and against stopping abortion, and euthanasia and against stopping euthanasia. words, they mean something. is doing what, really/ anything other than injecting limits on the morality of scientific research/ Explaining that you cannot kill the weak and helpless in the name of alleged progress? Preventing the rise of scientists as those with the power over who livesand who dies/ it is all of the above. did this suddenly become a poem? what's up with the forward slashes everywhere? what is going on?

When was the last time you heard anyone proclaim Islam was the culprit preventing social and scientific progress even though it inarguably has a far worse track record than Christianity?look, "the Mooslins are worse!" is not a defense of christianity. and that statement isn't even true. right now, Islam isn't all hip to the social and scientific progress, but while christendom was plodding through the Dark Ages, the Islamic world was expanding mathematics and calculating the circumference of the earth to within a few thousand feet (a really impressive achievement for people who had no idea the Americas existed.). Some may pay it lip service from a safe, Muslims cannot behead me for it distance, violent headcases in other faiths do not make christianity any truer. but it is Christianity that bears the bulk of criticism--probably because Christians will not behead critics. Talk about permissiveness. i'm assuming, Mr. Jeffords, that you only read atheist criticisms in English. Oddly enough, the people who know enough about Islam to criticize it, and the people who would care enough to do so, aren't speaking English. because they live in the Middle East. the whole world isn't the United States. asshat.

It is Christian morality that is at the heart of the animosity so self centered., whether it is casting judgment on evil actions or placing value on life over science without conscience. because only christians can see evil. the rest of us are sacrificing babies to Darwin Keeo or keep in mind that when anyone critiques religion as immoral, bigoted, and stupid, what they are really saying that Christianity is standing in the way of whatever evil I want to do. Take it as a compliment. here's a clue: remember how your mom told you that all the kids tease you because they're jealous? yeah, that's not true. sorry.

Gaddafi Is One Sly Mofo

demographic, winter, china, america, muslim, islam, christian, racism, ageism

Selwyn Duke of American Thinker (lulz) gives Muammar al Gaddafi, Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya (that appears to be an official title. and you thought "president" was cool.) more credit than I would have thought possible. You'll see.

While the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding was good cinema damn, i think i just choked up my skull, it was also a big fat Hollywood fiction NO! it wasn't a documentary?!. With Greece's fertility rate of 1.36 children per woman -- well below the replacement level of 2.1 -- "big" is not a modifier demographers would associate with today's Greek families. In fact, a more accurate film might be called My Big Fat Muslim Wedding. does Mr. Duke get how averages work? there are big Greek families. not every Greek family involves a mother, a father, a child and part of a torso.

the next five, count 'em five, paragraphs are devoted to the demographic woes of notArab people. white europeans? not reproducing enough. asian? not reproducing enough. mexicans? no reproduco enougho. (though they do "stream across our sieve-like southern border" by the million.)

next up: ageism!

The young and vibrant are the worker bees; they are the inventors, innovators and creators of wealth. old people are like leeches, lazy, stupid leeches. They drive the economy. Of course, the elderly may take jobs out of necessity or boredom, lazy, stupid leeches! but they can match the economic engine of a peak-working-years population little more than they could match it on the athletic field. because in America's increasingly white collar economy, old is a disadvantage . . . asshat. This is part of the reason why famed economist Adam Smith taught that decreasing population correlates with economic depression. Adam Smith died in 1790. I'm guessing that prior to penecillin and pacemakers, "old age" was a different thing than it is today.

after the appetizer of ageism, we get to the main course: racism.

Now we come to the death of the West. Many of you know that Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi, the face of 1980's terrorism, has been relatively well-behaved for nigh on 25 years now. he's busy being the Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution Of course, this may be because Ronald Reagan effected a bomb-induced attitude adjustment in 1986. first of all, people died. be respectful. secondly, a lot has changed since 1986. The Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union fell apart, the socialism scare is . . . oh, yeah. Yet, such punitive action, while sometimes necessary, seldom yields a permanent change in behavior without a permanent change in vital signs. It didn't scare Saddam Hussein or the Taliban sufficiently, that's for sure. oh, for cryin' out loud. (Of course, they don't wear dresses, either. he included a link here. to a pay site. i'd just like to say: Muslims- they dress funny, hahahhahahaaha. asshat.) But is faint-heartedness on the part of Gaddafi the reason? Or is there another factor? Well, a clue can possibly be found in something he once said:

"There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don't need terrorists, we don't need homicide bombers. The 50 million Muslims will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

translation via Mr. Duke: "Islam will spread through breeding like Mexicans through a sieve!"

Is this Gaddafi wearing pragmatist's clothes? instead of dresses! Perhaps he realizes that the West is voluntarily committing civilizational suicide, aka birth control and all he need do is stay out of its way. Gaddafi's so sly, he doesn't car if winning happens now, or 100 years after he dies. Now that's one sly mofo!

If so, he simply notes what civilizations from the good to the bad to the ugly dress wearin' mooslins! always have understood, that their success largely hinges upon their ability to replenish that invaluable resource: people. except for old people, who are like wrinkly vampires. lazy, wrinkly vampires. For example, the ancient Romans at one point became obsessed with the idea that they weren't creating enough babies which had everything to do with their deep understanding of the writings of Adam Smith?; Joseph Stalin, hardly a pro-lifer, outlawed abortion; and the Nazis had their Lebensborn program yeah, they were just a little interested in eugenics, which requires, you know, teh bebbes. And even today governments are taking note of the problem. To name a handful, Russia, Poland, France and an Italian town are offering citizens substantial monetary incentives (i.e., cash and sometimes tax breaks) to be fruitful and multiply. Yet it isn't working -- and for good reason: a cultural problem cannot be solved with a political solution. yeah, you can't buy my uterus with a tax break. Why, even demographically correct Augustus Caesar "demographically correct"? what does that mean?, who wielded absolute power, could not remedy the birth dearth among Roman nobility. i guess his power wasn't quite so absolute, now was it?

This almost universal concern is warranted because a people is like a species: a failure to reproduce leads to extinction. OW! Teh Stoopid, it burns! that is such an amazingly racist biology fail, i'm not sure what to say. Americans are not a species. Nor are Muslims. human beings are a species, but we're in no danger of dying out. Now, this doesn't mean that neutron bomb-like cityscapes how can cityscapes be like neutron bombs? does he perhaps mean a cityscape after a neutron bomb? in which case, why use a neutron bomb? N bombs are as destructive as A bombs, the added benefit is that they kill more people, not destroy more buildings. lie in the West's future. More likely is that its peoples will be dominated -- and supplanted -- by other cultures. so, the future will be exactly like the past? amazing! hey, Mr. Duke! Yeah, you! the land you're standing on belonged to the native peoples of the Americas- until they were dominated and supplanted by Europeans. Oh, its new master may not be Islam; it may be China, India or, even more likely, different groups in different parts of the West. who? who's left if we remove the US, Mexico, Korea, Japan, Europe, China, India and the entire Muslim world? Venezuela? The point is that while the Third World and Asia are following in our footsteps, they are far healthier demographically and may be able to recover. But we may soon be at the point of no return.

Now the question is, does this matter? does what matter, that the world is continuing just as it always has? If you listen to the left, our demographic demise is something to be ignored when possible and applauded when not. it's just the way things are, don't get your panties in a twist about it. As Kathryn Joyce did in an incredibly snide and stupid article titled "Missing: The ‘Right' Babies," yeah, she called you on your racism the concern about the West's baby bust is often chalked up to just "old-fashioned race panic." pretty much. The left's implication is that cultural suicide is our civilization's comeuppance. cultural suicide? talk to some real live middle easterners, Mr. Duke. They listen to our music, watch our movies, wear our clothes- we'll be all right.

The irony of this is that the people extinguishing themselves are leftists, people who aren't enlightened enough to understand that their "enlightened" values will die with them. people enlighted enough to understand that lots of brown babies isn't something to panic about. Whether tomorrow brings us a Chinese hegemon unlikely, a worldwide caliphate unlikely or, more likely, a bipolar or multi-polar world you mean a world the same as ours? what?, it may be a place ruled neither by the virtues of Christendom i'll be happy, anyway nor the values of those crucifying her why would you want that, Mr. Duke?. When the people who birthed political correctness disappear i'm fairly certain we're not supposed to go in the rapture, they won't be able to reproduce it any more than little baby libertines. what. the. fuck. Of course, also true is that the West's glorious triumphs, such as its unprecedented respect for human rights, would also fade into history. yes, no one will ever respect human rights again without America to give them an "attitude adjustment".

And this is something mature racist people consider. Would the world be a better place with China as the dominant force? If you have trouble with that one, ponder how the Chinese are currently raping Africa as they zealously exploit the continent's resources. They are making European colonialism look beneficent. probably not.

Mature racist people also do something else -- they acknowledge facts. And what bothers me about the current debate over population is the steadfast refusal to do so. there is no problem here. human beings are not dying out. as a whole, we're fine. all you're left with is the argument that certain types of humans need to be encouraged, and certain other types discouraged, and we call that racism. If you believe that man is a pox upon the planet, be forthcoming. If you think he needs to cut his numbers by 90 percent, make your case. If you want a "Planetary Regime" to control world population -- which Obama's science czar John Holdren wrote about before i was born, btw. -- stand and be counted. But, as liberal icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts." Before debating where we should go, there must be an acknowledgement of where we are. you're a racist. there we go. i acknowledged it.

When I ponder our materialism, promiscuity, frivolity and selfishness, our abortion-mill archipelago i repeat: what. the. fuck. that churns with Nazi-like efficiency, hey, you godwin'd your own article! it occurs to me that perhaps the leftists are right -- just not for the reasons they think. we're wrong even when we're right. It's not sins of our past that haunt us but those of our present, and maybe the euthanizing of Western civilization is, after all, our comeuppance. at this point, if everyone like you dies, i'm okay with western civilization dying off tomorrow.

The Only Thing Worse Than Islamics(sic) Is

islam, muslim, christian, prelutsky, conservative, liberal, obama, clinton

Liberals. Duh.

According to Burt Prelutsky anyway. (If you put a keffiyeh on Mr. Prelutsky, tell me you don't get Yasser Arafat.)

I suspect that because George Bush and Condoleezza Rice were so respectful of Muslims other than bombing them. and encouraging US soldiers to pass out bibles. oh, and sending over the Christian Crusaders otherwise known as Blackwater. why aren't Middle Easterners all sending us thank you cards? they're so rude!, constantly telling us that theirs is a religion of peace, some otherwise sensible Americans actually began to believe it. Now we have a president who not only kowtows to a Saudi prince bowing: wrong even when it's right, apparently, but carries on as if Israeli homes are more threatening than Iranian nukes. to peace in Israel, yes. especially considering the Iranian nukes are currently nonexistent.

What is wrong with our leaders? Are they worried that they won’t be invited to those cool Ramadan parties? yes, i'm sure that's it. in fact, not being invited to cool Ramadan parties probably explains a lot of Mr. Prelutsky's rage. The Islamics uh, muslims? have been actively at war with us for 30 years and generally at war with western civilization for well over a thousand years for a good portion of that millenium, the Crusades were going on. at which time the Muslims were defending themselves from western agression. embarassing history fail. , and still we pay lip service to these people in a way we never did with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union. i'm fairly certain you can't pay lip service to a person . . . oh, i get it. Is it because the Muslims commit sadism and murder in the name of religion and not country? because the holocaust would have been okay if only Hitler had invoked Jesus? what? If anything, I would think that would make their evil acts all the more contemptible.

Still, I would contend that Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are not as dangerous as America’s liberals. i almost feel complimented. i'm more dangerous than people who slam commercial airplanes into office buildings. go me! The Islamic terrorists can only kill so many people didn't you imply they had nuclear bombs a paragraph ago? you could conceivably kill absolutely everyone with enough of those., but those on the Left are doing everything in their power to eviscerate America. blood! there will be . . . Cap and Trade can destroy our industrial might; Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus programs combined with his delusional health care plan death panels! euthanasia! forced abortions! will not only bankrupt our nation, but lead inevitably to a rate of inflation that will impress even Jimmy Carter and peanut farmers are not easily impressed; and the budget cuts directed at our military and our missile defense system will make us increasingly vulnerable to our various enemies. hey, he tied it all in with the nukes. nice save.

The problem is that liberals are not only nuts, but inconsistent. They very much want to send our military to Africa to stop the savagery in the Sudan, but didn’t want to see it employed against the equally barbaric Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot or Ho Chi Minh. ho chi minh is still . . . no, he's dead. for 40 years now. pol pot's been dead for 11. wtf? Funny how you never hear them insist that we have no business in Darfur because Sudan didn’t attack us on 9/11 or point out that we have no compelling interest in sub-Sahara Africa. too bad you guys don't have oil. cause we'd be all over that! But that’s to be expected when people get their information from Bill Maher and Jon Stewart and their talking points from the likes of Bono and the Dixie Chicks. those kids and their atheists and their Daily Show and their rock n roll! Get off my lawn!!

Speaking of liberals, the irony is that so many of them who never believed God even existed Obama won with more than 50% of the vote. less than 5% of USians are atheists. Does Mr. Prelutsky think that atheists comprised more than 50% of voters? (never mind that most atheists did believe in god at some point in their lives) are now convinced that He is alive and well and going out on date nights with Michelle. that whole "messiah" thing was dreamed up by the right, asshat.

Getting back to Muslims, there are people who would insist that we should distinguish between those who cut off the heads of their innocent victims and those who, rumor has it, just want to live and let live. Well, I keep trying, heaven knows, but it’s not as easy as it sounds. well then, why should i bother to distinguish between right wing extremists and peaceful conservatives, Mr. Prelutsky? Gitmo for you! I hear waterboarding is just like the rides at Disney.

. . .*

Now I understand that any country that keeps electing people like Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Barbara Boxer and Barack Obama, the killer B’s as it were, "killer B's"? Whom have they killed? you'd think that would be all over the news. doesn’t have terribly high standards okay, electing Bush proves that, but I see him on that list, but assuming we have any at all, will someone please explain why we’re allowing these degenerates into the country? you mean, people like Clinton, Frank, Boxer, and Obama, who were all born here? that's . . . confusing.

*What I didn't address was the story of an 8 year old rape victim. Supposedly, she was then abandoned by her father because of the shame she brought the family, but I'm having trouble corroborating that last bit on anything other than wingnut sites. Even if it were true, one such story proves nothing, and I'm not helping Mr. Prelutsky pimp a rape victim to prove a point.

Redefining Logical

profanity, obscenity, curse words, jesus, atheism, atheist, muslim, islam, mahdi, shi'a
Chris Geiser, at Food for the Soul, has redefined "logical", proving the existence of god, Jesus and hell via profanity.

Yes, profanity.

(note: Mr. Geiser does not feel the need to waste time dividing his posts into paragraphs. I do.)

I just saw a trailer to a movie called Drag Me to Hell. It looks really scary. A while ago I visited the movie's website and it is rather eye opening. It has one of the better website flame graphics I've seen, but I'm not sure I would call it "eye opening". Maybe it's the way all the text isn't jammed into one tiny space that Mr. Geiser finds eye opening.

When secular people atheists! go to see that movie and have heard to the? whole gospel preached to them before wow, who's letting that happen? i mean, the whole gospel. yeah, it's long., I am sure they will probably think about what they heard from the faithful believer who told them the good news. no, no we won't. we don't stop to think about these things while enjoying harmless entertainment. hello, just a movie!

Hell sure seems like it is the real deal. uh, it does? have you been there? wouldn't that be a better post than this one? And it is because it is logical and biblical. hell isn't really biblical, nor is it particularly logical. though thanks for the chuckle. I think that if God, Jesus, or Hell didn't exist, people wouldn't be using God or Jesus Christ's name as curse words when they are mad or scared nor say "What the H-ll" when they are made made what? made scared? what? or scared, either. allow me to explain the nature of profanity to you, Mr. Geiser. it's cultural. the entire purpose of profanity is to be offensive and shocking. in a nation of christians, profanity invoking christian themes will be popular. atheists use those words because everyone else does. this does not reflect any belief in god, jesus or hell. what do you think "fuck!" is all about anyway?

let me put it to you another way: if people found blinking as shocking and crass as mentioning defecation in public, then "oh, blink!" would be the sort of thing you say when you drop a heavy box on your foot.

Nobody uses Allah, Buddha or Mother Nature as curse words. i dunno about that. different cultures do consider different things offensive. actually, i looked up Arabic profanity and got a very amusing list of insults and obscenities. most of them would be equally insulting to an english speaker, but some of them are distinctly different in flavor. Rooh fi siteen alf dahya, for example, apparently means get lost in 60,000 disasters. i guess 50,000 disasters isn't quite enough, but 70,000 is excessive. I know people don't say ,"Mary mother of G-d" as a curse word anymore but they did when? as far back as my grandmother that was an expression of surprise and fear, not an insult or an attempt to be offensive...and why did they, if the whole story of Jesus coming to earth through the virgin Mary wasn't true? i'd just like to say "duh."

I would like to note something else. Muslims, or at least Shi'a Muslims, do believe in Jesus, just not as god. They believe Jesus was born of a virgin, was an important prophet, ascended bodily into heaven and will return at the end of days, some time after al Mahdi. Yet they never invoke Jesus as a profanity, thus disproving Mr. Geiser's theory that we profane what we believe in.

No one thinks of those things when they aren't born again because they are blind and must be gently told that they are wearing someone else's eye-glasses. what? what does that even mean? am i blind or merely wearing the wrong prescription? and how would i not notice that i had someone else's glasses on? trust me, wearing the wrong prescription is immediately obvious. Condemnation awaits them John 3:18, not only from their own doing but because Satan has a play in it too. damn satan, always fucking things up. Satan's work can be destroyed through the light of the gospel in a dark place. so, not in the rather overly lit room i am in right now? guess i'm screwed. Revelation 21:8. John 3:16.

Facepalm time, Part 2

atheism, atheist, atheophobia, muslim, islam, christian, christianity, stupid,
Sorry about the empty post, I need to remember not to accidentally hit "enter" while in blogger.

Today we revisit our friend Yusuf Khan, over at the examiner. Mr. Khan has, in five posts, picked apart atheism with "simple" arguments. (I hate it when people insult themselves for me. Takes all the fun out of it.)

I will now review part 2 and part 3 of Mr. Khan's delightful examination.

Welcome back, everyone.

As was said earlier, the non-religion of nonbelievers (a.k.a. "Atheism" stop that!) suspiciously finds its non-belief being aggressively proselytized in the 'Religion and Spirituality' section of most libraries and online media outlets.

I will restate my original dismissal of this bit of silliness: why does it matter what section of the newspaper articles about atheism (it is improper to capitalize atheism, btw) appear in? I can't think of a paper that has a philosophy section, so religion and spirituality probably is the next best fit. Business wouldn't work.

If we started putting articles about Islam in the sports section, does Islam become soccer? Of course not. Putting articles about atheism in the religion and spirituality section does not make atheism a religion.

Shouldn't they be categorized in the 'Philosophy' section instead? what paper has a philosophy section? Basically the genuine followers of genuine religions are too nice to tell them to go away. but not you, Mr. Khan. or Ray Comfort. Or Mr. Holmgren. Yeah, you're all so nice. So they stay, as unwelcome guests. yeah, we're pretty much used to that. i'm beyond being pissed that fundys don't want me around. in fact, i'd be a little worried if they did want me around.

For the most part being Atheist is not good enough. for what? you? it's quite enough for me. They have to drag you away from belief as well. not true at all. if you consider my not believing what you believe an attempt to "drag you away" from Islam, that's your problem. it says a lot more about the state of your faith than anything else. now, if you mean my unwillingness to submit to your spiritual superiority, then yes, i suppose you're right. Nothing less will do. i don't care what you believe. worship allah, worship odin, worship my socks for all i care, just leave me out of it. (if you do decide to worship my socks, i'll let you have them. otherwise, it gets awkward.) This of course, takes us to our discussion point for today: the Atheist desire for acceptance in mainstream society. why shouldn't i be accepted in the mainstream of society? discrimination is NOT a good thing.

Myth: Atheism should be considered a mainstream way of life. This is because Buddhism is a form of Atheism. i've never, NEVER, heard this argument. atheism should be considered a mainstream way of life because it is. billions of people worldwide are atheists, including about 40% of Buddhists, but even nonBuddhist atheists shouldn't be regarded as freaks.

Fact: Documented quotes from Buddha mention a Supreme Being on at least one occasion, which is an obvious affirmation. this is just painful. about 40% of buddhists are atheists, and about 60% are theists (here, here, and here) because buddhism is divided in the same way that christianity is divided, judaism is divided and islam is divided. and, while i can find many quotes from the buddha that propound and atheistic worldview, i couldn't find the quote that Mr. Khan refers to. (Mr. Khan has a little trouble proving what he says.) In essence, Buddhism as it stands today neither denies God nor is God-centric. Thus it can hardly be claimed that Buddhism is an Atheist religion. nobody claims that. we do acknowledge, however, that a large portion of buddhists qualify as atheists in that they do not believe in a god or supreme being. In other words, the lack of acknowledgment of the existence of an entity does not necessarily constitute disbelief in it.

my advice, Mr. Khan? don't try the semantics again. you're not good at it. either the buddha acknowledged god, or he didn't. either a certain portion of buddhists are atheists, or they are not. this sort of parsing proves nothing.
Take if you will the following example.

Islam acknowledges as valid all of the Prophets who appeared between Adam and Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be upon them all. how egalitarian! (ooh, and it leaves our Joseph Smith. Take that, Mormons!) However the Qur'an only mentions a little over twenty of them by name. possibly Muhammad was not familiar with all the prophets the world over? Now just because the others are not mentioned by name, can anyone say other Prophets from God are not a part of Islam? Obviously not. where is this going?

Therefore the analogy of Buddhism cannot be manipulated to normalize Atheism.
Buddhism is a world religion. A=B therefore C=P? Sorry, I'm calling fail on that one.

Atheism? You figure it out. I'm still guessing. I have figured it out, being an atheist and all. Might be more helpful to ask me than this asshat.

Today's post is a little history lesson. this should be fun.
But before we begin I would like to take this opportunity to make it crystal-clear that I don't have an express agenda against individuals. It's the ideology I take exception to - just as Atheists take exception to monotheism. Fair enough? no, not fair enough. i don't take exception to monotheism, polytheism, monolatrism, or any other godism. Just stop trying to shove it down my throat already!

Having said that, let's proceed.

A basic review of Atheist tendencies reveals that they oppose the authority of God. what? i can't oppose the authority of a nonexistent entity. i can oppose your supposed "god given" authority, but that's a different thing. God is seen by them as 'controlling' or 'oppressive'. not god, religion. religion is controlling and oppressive. As a result of this, contemporary Atheist attacks are directed against God-centric religions, primarily Christianity. what other sorts of religions are there? (okay, buddhism, but I don't thinkg that's what he's referring to.)

On occasion Atheists will also make disparaging attacks against Islam. oh noes!
Curiously enough, ancient mythologies and pagan creeds are never attacked by Atheists. because i never have pagans calling me stupid or defiant, and i have never EVER had a pagan hand me a tract or interrupt my dinner to proselytize. which is a shame, cause that'd be cool. what would pagan tracts look like? But it remains Christianity that usually receives the brunt of their furor. Here's why. because most open atheists live in countries that are overwhelmingly christian. i sure wouldn't do this openly atheist blogging in Yemen or Saudi Arabia. I like not being beheaded.

The Medieval era in most of Europe was filled with great excesses committed in the name of religion. Witch-hunts, persecution of scientists (e.g. Galileo), even the cruel killing of cats that happened to be black in color were all the product of a twisted interpretation of Christianity. there had better be a mention of all the atrocities Islam has created. FGM anyone?

Forced conversions of non-Christians during the infamous Spanish Inquisition also gave politically established Christendom a bad name. and your point is?

Naturally those who arrived in the New World from Europe, though Christians themselves, expressly pledged to separate Religion and State. sigh. i suggest actually reading about US history if you want to talk about it.

Myth: Established religion is cruel and oppressive. it certainly can be, and has been.

Fact: The above conclusion is derived from a singular bitter experience: medieval Europe. oh right. the only example of established religion being cruel and oppressive is medieval european christianity. right.

Have Atheists taken the time to study other faith-based societies and empires? some of us, yes.

Where do we see forced conversions of Catholics during 850 years of Muslim Spain? Do we come across documented instances of witch hunts and prolonged persecutions of religious minorities in Ottoman Turkey? did we see atrocities at the hands of muslims? yes.

The fact is all Atheist accusations of religious atrocities are based on only one historical reference: medieval Europe. not a fact.

Expand your horizons. anyone got a used irony meter for sale? mine just exploded.

The remarkable progress in science and technology that was sparked in Asia, North Africa, and Eastern Europe was a direct product of Islam, not a pre-Islamic phenomenon. i can't speak to this.

This historical testimony serves as clear-cut evidence that the presence of monotheism in a society in no way hinders scientific progress. also not a fact. In fact the above example taken from Muslim history proves that in fact it fosters education and encourages development.

Don't agree? Proof please. already gave you that.

It's Facepalm Time Again

examiner, atheism, atheist, muslim, islam, asshat, religion, stupid,
Yeah, it's that time again. I'm not exactly certain what goes on at examiner.com, though not always thoughtful examination, apparently. (If you saw the hash Ray Comfort made of his examiner articles, you knew that already.)

Today I examine the Islamic Examiner's latest endeavor:

Simple Arguments Against Atheism- Part 1, by Yusuf Khan.

And yes, they are simple.

Atheism is a belief system marketed today as the 'choice' of rationalists and intellectuals worldwide. it's totally a choice. generally not made by the overly religious, though there may indeed be irrational stupid atheists. i've never met them, but i've not met every atheist in the world, either. But does Atheism even make sense? this from someone who clearly thinks Islam makes sense.

No sooner had I written this introduction in a video presentation that I was struck by a barrage of 'offended' atheists. so there was a whole crowd of atheists surrounding you as you wrote it? where were you writing it? live on pharyngula?

"Hey! Atheism is not a religion!"
"Atheism is not a belief system, it's unbelief!"
Umm..okay. atheism is not a religion. it is obviously not a religion.

Let's examine this, shall we?

religion

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

clearly not. atheism doesn't speak to the cause or purpose of the universe, and atheists don't believe in superhuman agency(ies). we engage in no devotional or ritual observances, nor do we subscribe to some atheistic moral code.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

clearly not. getting atheists to agree on anything other than we don't believe in god is like herding cats. heck, we can't agree on a symbol or a nonsymbol symbol.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

again, we only share the one belief, and we don't have practices, so clearly not.

Have it your way. damn right i will- no tomatoes!

Because if that's the case then I don't know why Atheist propaganda it's not atheist thought, or atheist viewpoints, it's "propaganda". way to frame the argument, yusuf. is always found in the Religion section of most publications, including this one.

And that's the facepalm.

This is his "logical argument": if an article is in the Religion section of the publication, the subject matter must automatically be a religion. Therefore, if I put articles about Islam in the sports section, Islam is soccer. If I put birth announcements with the obituaries, the babies all die.

That's not even close to logic.

It's a little like Political articles in the Style & Fashion section of Examiner.com. But's that okay, I'll play along. It'll be fun. maybe for you, probably not for the rest of us.

So let's begin. What follows is a series of simple, logical arguments against Atheism. again, probably not.

First of all, what is Atheism? No one seems confused on the definition of their disbelief other than our Atheist friends themselves. in which case, the confusion is real and valid. by the way, how many different types of Islam are there, Yusuf? You guys seem a little confused, too.

On the surface the definition of Atheism seems to be the denial of the existence of an all-Powerful, Supreme Creator. or a lack of belief in, if you're me. i don't deny, i just don't believe. yes, i know, subtlety is dead, but i'm still trying.

However comma delving a little deeper into the quotes made by many Atheists which atheists and what quotes? confirms that a number of them do not deny the existence of God at all. Instead they seem to affirm His existence but they defy His Authority. again, how can i even address this if he won't show me the quotes? this is ridiculous.

So get your act together guys. It'll help you as well as everyone else out..a lot. it would help me if you give me the damn quotes, asshat.

Stay tuned for more: logical arguments, debunked myths. And thanks for stopping by. "more" implies there were logical arguments and debunked myths in the first place.

"examine" my ass!

History of Islam in India

This is a fascinating look at the history of Islam in India, with an eye towards understand the violence in Mumbai over the last few days.

As George Santayana said, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." As true in personal relationships as it is in world politics.

At Nascar, Don't Expect a Right Turn

I never really understood the Republican use of the phrases "liberal elite" and "media elite" until I saw conservapedia.com. "Liberal elite" and "media elite" mean "people with basic education and reasoning abilities", unlike "joe six pack", who can be defined as "a guy who expects that at some point during a nascar event, one of the cars will turn right."

conservapedia, in case you haven't heard of it, is the republican answer to wikipedia, which, unbeknownst to me, has a serious liberal bias. (they allow entries that contain actual, verifiable facts. elitist bastards!)

here is conservapedia's entry on Islam, which is, amusingly/appallingly, under conservapedia.com/Muslim, which I believe to be someone's 6th grade report.

Muslims believe that God revealed the Q'ran (or Koran) to Muhammad and, despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it. Muhammed was employed, by his first wife, as a scribe. For those with small vocabularies, a scribe was a secretary. Scribe was a good job in those days because so few people were literate. Muhammed was actually much better educated than the average Arab at the time.

Islam is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates, in both Muslim-majority and other countries . Conversions to Christianity (from any faith or lack thereof) outnumber those to Islam, but can not keep up with the birthrate discrepancy. What an odd non sequitur at the end of the paragraph. (Oh, and cannot is one word, not two.) Giving population data on any group is relevant, but then comparing that to another, unrelated group, and explaining what the difference is, is . . . um . . . odd. "Well, Christianity is so much better than Islam that we would have more adherents and more growth, but we just can't keep up with those baby-making machines. Maybe it's the chador that explains all that extra fertility."

Tribal elders elected Abu Bakr to be Muhammad's successor, or Caliph(Khalifa). "Tribal elders"? Seriously? You see, primitive societies have tribal elders. Us advanced, civilized folk have senators and presidents and ministers. Let's see what Wikipedia has to say on this subject. Umar ibn al-Khattab, a prominent companion of Muhammad, nominated Abu Bakr , who was Muhammad's intimate friend and collaborator. Others added their support and Abu Bakr was made the first caliph. Paints a different picture doesn't it? (This is where Shi'a and Sunni Islam broke apart. Sunni believe Abu Bakr was the rightful first caliph. Shi'a believe Ali, Muhammad's best friend, son-in-law and the second convert to Islam ever was the rightful first caliph.)

During Umar's ten year reign, Islam invaded and spread through the sword into Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, and parts of Iran. Umar was assassinated by a Persian (modern day Iran) in 644, and was succeeded by Uthman Ibn Ahad, who continued the invasions to spread Islam into North Africa, Cyprus, the rest of Iran, Afghanistan, and parts of India and Pakistan. Over the next two centuries, Islamic armies continued to expanded Islam's empire into sub-Saharan Africa,Spain, Southeast and Central Asia, and Turkey. Religions don't invade or "spread through the sword" anything. A religion is an idea, a belief. When was the last time you were attacked by an idea? And I love "spread through the sword". I checked the conservapedia entry on Christianity. The Crusades are mentioned, but nothing about "invasions" and "swords". Perhaps the Crusaders used guns? Rocket launchers? The power of pure love?

The next section is called "Divisions within Islam". In the article on Christianity (to be dissected soon), this is called "Main Christian Groups". Hmmm . . . so Christians have "groups" and Islam has "divisions". Interesting, yes?

Sufis, a name apparently taken from the wool garments they wear, developed around mystical practices and trance-induced revelations. First of all, Sufis are people, Sufism is the belief system. Calling them a denomination of Islam is misleading, as well. Sufis consider themselves Islamic, many Muslims do not. Here is Wiki's explanation of the name: The lexical root of Sufi is variously traced to ṣūf "wool", referring either to the simple cloaks the early Muslim ascetics wore, or possibly to ṣafā "purity". The two were combined by al-Rudhabari who said, "The Sufi is the one who wears wool on top of purity." Look at that, an actual explanation of a word in another language, containing actual facts. As for the beliefs of Sufism, the Wiki article is quite long, worth a good read, and doesn't contain the phrases "mystical practices" or "trance-induced revelations".

Here's an explanation (I'm using the word loosely) of Wahhabism and the Taliban, both of which get entire Wiki articles, not a sentence each. The conservative Wahhabis are found today in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Today the Wahhabi line has a tendency to produce extremists, such as Osama bin Laden. Some critics would argue that the Taliban of Afghanistan took conservative reform to an extreme. "Extreme" used twice in two sentences. Really. "Extreme" gets no play at all in the article on Christianity. We don't even get an explanation of what the tenants of Wahhabism are, what the Taliban is, or what conservative reform means in the context of Islam. No information, no facts, just a bunch of funny names and the extreme overuse of "extreme". (I'm not sure why they used "extremist" to describe Osama bin Laden. "Terrorist" would actually have been accurate in this situation. Oddly, "terrorist" came up multiple times in the article on Barack Obama.)

Some utterances that Mohammed was unsure about, dubbed the Satanic verses, would later be incorporated in a novel in modern times by Salmon Rushdie who would then be subject to a death degree from the leader of Iran for his writing. Ah, the Satanic Verses. (Basically, Muhammad is said to have recited two verses into the Q'ran that he later retracted as false. Divine revelation being what it is, this would be quite shocking.) First of all, it's helpful to know who "dubbed" them the Satanic Verses. The phrase comes from Sir William Muir, a 19th century minor functionary of the British Empire. He wrote poorly researched books on Islam to pass the time while he wasn't doing his job in the Middle East. Many scholars even doubt the incident occurred. There certainly isn't any independent evidence of it. A serious historical researcher, Muir wasn't. As for Salmon Rushdie's death sentence, it's since been removed, and, really, boo-fucking-hoo. What did he expect with that racist piece of shit book?

The Quran is longer than the Bible and written in general order of longest chapters to shortest rather than in any order of when they were spoken, sometimes making the work appear to be confusing. In all there are 114 chapters. Most of the later recorded sayings of Mohammed, which were also more warlike, actually appear earlier in the text. The Q'ran is "longer than the Bible"? Is this the standard by which we judge any written text? Is the word "bible" now like the word "gallon"? "This new book by Jonathan Kellerman is a quarter-bible." And why are we arguing where the chapters appear vs. when they were said? I couldn't find another reference to this anywhere. The Bible jumps around a bit, too. Actually, a lot. In fact, the same story is told four different times, four different ways, each one emphasizing different points and stating them in different ways. Is that not confusing? And, why are we surprised that a book, written 1300 years ago, in a different language, by people with different traditions than ours, might be confusing on first read? I think the message here is, "The Q'ran is wrong it's different than the Bible, which I consider right and literally true." Literally! (Why don't these people regularly bury clay pots touched by menstruating women? That's in the Bible, too.) And don't even get me started on shrimp!

That's really what this is all about kids: the ghettoization of Christianity. See, I believe what I believe because of research and life experience. I welcome all ideas and sometimes, these ideas change me, because they are good ideas. I am not afraid of being changed. Everyone is changed, all the time. Nothing remains the same. Not you and not me.

Fundagelicals, on the other hand, are afraid of ideas. They believe that what they believe is the only thing keeping them from hell. By hell, I mean: ETERNAL TORTURE AND BURNING AND TORTURE AT THE HANDS OF SATAN. SATAN! ETERNAL! If I thought every idea and fact was a potential threat to avoiding SATAN!, I'd be nervous about ideas and facts, too. And that's sad.