No Such Thing as Consent

makarios, religion, christian, liar, pornography,
[triggers: rape, pornography]

If you ask most anyone what the difference is between sex and rape, you'll get a simple answer: consent. In the former act, both parties agree to participate, the latter act involves only perpetrator and victim.

Unless you are Makarios, in which case women of any age are incapable of consent, and pornography involving consenting adults is exactly the same thing as kiddie porn.

Do I like pornography? Not particularly. Do I want my niece to be a porn star someday? No. Do I think adults have the right to engage in legal activities if they choose to, even if I don't like or agree with those activities? Yes. Is there a difference between what consenting adults do together and what is done to a child? Absolutely.

First of all, Makarios commits libel by suggesting that Tristan Vick supports child pornography. Mr. Vick does not support child pornography. Makarios, you see, conflates pornography involving consenting aduts with child pornography, which, by its very nature, involves at least one nonconsenting party. One party, in fact, that cannot consent.

The comments explode with "how can you say that?! Mr. Vick supports porn not kiddie porn", to which Makarios replies:

Ah, so you make a distinction do you? Adult porn good, child porn bad? Is that the way it works in atheist world?

Yes, in the real world, that is how it works. People who are capable of consent get to consent to what they wish, people who are incapable of consent cannot. Makarios knows this. He knows we don't let minors enter legal contracts or drink alcohol, not because these things are inherently
bad, but because we have decided that there is a point at which you are simply incapable of making decisions, i.e., consent, so we won't let you do it.

This gets pointed a few times, to which Makarios replies:

Thanks Gorth. The atheist with selective morality indicates that “consent” is the measuring stick between good and bad. And at what age Gorth? You think that a 12year old can’t give consent? How about a 10 year old? He's offered 10 dollars that will supply food for his family. All he has to do is let some filthy jerk take pictures of him giving someone a blow job. You think that 10 year old can't consent to making 10 dollars?Does it differ from country to country, Gorth? You think that a 14year old in America is as mature as a 14 in Taiwan?

Never mind all that. What you are saying, in your profound ignorance is this. A child who has been emotionally, and sexually abused grows up and "consents" to further degradation and abuse as an adult and that makes it all ok - because, according to Gorth, she can give consent. I say shame on every one of you. Once again it is the Christian who alone is trying to defend women from those who live by survival of the most powerful. Atheists, giving verbal support for the degrading of those most damaged by life. Priceless.

Ignoring the "all Christians do this and all atheists do that" element of it, yes, a certain age of consent is fairly arbitrary, and does not address each individual person's actual ability to consent. Some people may well be capable of consent at 14, some people may never reach that point. However, it is simply impractical at best to try to determine whether each individual person is capable of consent at each and every point they may want to consent, so we draw a line in the sand: 16, 18, 21.

Also, the 10 year old in the above example is not being asked to consent to earning $10, they are being asked to consent to sexual activity. 10 year olds are not capable of this.

Makarios then makes the argument that adult women are not capable of consent, particularly if they were abused as children.

Makarios knows? I know exactly what the hundreds and hundreds of prostitutes and those in the porn industry with whom I've worked have told me. And I can tell you absolutely that their "consent" is no consent at all. Because of childhood sexual and emotional abuse all these women know is sexual degradation at the hands of men. All they know to survive is to allow men to use them and abuse them sexually. And here you are, the free thinking atheists in all your wisdom, actually believing that porn has something to do with freedom. Even the women who post here are willing o turn on other women. If it might help make a case against a Chistian, anyone is expendable. I find it disgusting.

"Hundreds and hundreds of prostitutes"? Really? I'm not sure that in 34 years I've even met hundreds and hundreds of people, let alone hundreds and hundreds of prostitutes. And "those in the porn industry with whom I've worked"? Did you work in the porn industry?

Ignoring the issue of what motivates people to work in the sex industry, those people are consenting adults. They may be making very bad decisions for utterly tragic reasons. They are still adults with every right to make those decisions. We cannot revoke a person's right to consent because they make bad decisions. First of all, everyone makes bad decisions occasionally, but also because the right to make decisions is not dependent on the decisions you make. We're not going to have anyone left to make decisions if we remove consent based on what you do with it. Obviously, if you choose to commit crimes, we do remove your right to make decisions, but that's an entirely different issue. Porn stars are not committing crimes.

By your own measure, Makarios, you are not capable of consent, because you have used your decision making privileges to commit a disgusting, illegal act: libel, in accusing a completely innocent man of supporting child pornography. We call this being hoisted by one's own petard, btw.

You're Not Helping Your Case

atheism, atheist, suffering, makarios, christian, god,

The suffering question. It the sticking point for many people when considering the concept of a caring deity. You can answer the suffering question a number of ways, the easiest two being the pagan answer, deities are not all powerful and cannot prevent most suffering, or you can go all Christian about it and declare "ineffable!*", which is essentially cheating.

Any other explanation is just cruelty. Cruelty on a scale I can't imagine anyone really being comfortable with, though apparently some people are.

This, I believe is perhaps the single greatest reason for why God allows suffering and tragedy to take place. These things solidify our opinions about God. Suffering causes us to either reject God or humble ourselves before God.

Yesterday, I needed help to stand up. Every damn time I wanted to stand up. I'm 33 years old. It was painful, it was humiliating and it was terrifying. I spent the day restricting my fluid intake in order to cut down on urination, because, as a girl, I pee sitting down . . . and I couldn't get back up by myself. So my hips hurt and I felt like I'd run a marathon through the Sahara. Fortunately, I was babysitting my 10 year old niece, and she was cool about it.

According to Makarios, god did that to me to force a reaction out of me. First of all: psychotic. If I started torturing people to get a reaction out of them, you would rightly condemn me to prison for the rest of my life. Secondly: we've already gotten a reaction here, so why keep doing it? I've rejected god, we should be done now, right? The same can be said for believers that continue to suffer. They've gotten down on their knees, now leave them the fuck alone.

Basically, Makarios, and all the others like him, think of god as a little kid pulling the wings off of flies just to see what will happen. Newsflash: that's not a good thing.

Seriously. People just piss me off.



*In case you're not familiar with "ineffable!", it's that the mind of god is not something mortals can comprehend, so stop trying and just go with it. Sorry, but my mind will go to the off position the day I die and not one moment beforehand.

Stop Being Smart!

atheism, atheist, atheophobia, dyslexia, wahlberg, makarios,

So Makarios finally comes clean about his atheophobia: it's caused by his learning disabled children.

Yeah, that was pretty much my reaction, too.

It's like they're caught in a time-warp, showing off to anyone who will listen just how clever they are. It makes me gag. I feel embarrassed - for them! To actually judge another person’s value and worth by that person's level of intelligence or intellectual abilities creates within me a level of disgust that is disturbing even to me. Maybe it’s because six of our seven children are learning disabled. I feel VERY protective of them.

First of all, somebody else's intelligence shouldn't make you feel anything about your children. (Also, learning disabled doesn't mean less intelligent. It just means that you don't pick up and retain information the same way most people do. On average, dyslexics are more intelligent than average. I know all this because two of my nieces are dyslexic.)

Think about this for a second. Suppose I tell Teh Hubby that I want to watch the latest Mark Wahlberg movie because Mark Wahlberg is TEH HOT SO HOT I CAN'T STAND IT- should Teh Hubby be horrible offended that I find somone attractive, that, in fact, other people are attractive? Is Mark Wahlberg's physical attractiveness in some way offensive? Should Mark Wahlberg's so very fine muscles make Teh (quite average) Hubby feel less?

The answer to these questions is no.

I think what Makarios is getting at is that atheists (well, atheists with blogs, I suppose) demand proof and logic and stuff instead of bald assertions and feelings. And that makes him feel bad . . . because his kids . . . have feelings?

I'm sorry your children have learning disabilities. My nieces struggle with dyslexia and I know it's very hard. However, that does not excuse your hatred of atheists.

The Dogma Debate

faith, fail, christianity, christian, makarios, religion, dogma, atheism, atheist, stupid,

I'm not sure why, but a lot of fundys like to accuse atheists of adhering to atheist dogma. (Considering how dogmatic fundys themselves are, it's like the pot calling the rainbow black.) Why, I'm not sure. Even if atheists were dogmatic in our beliefs, what would that prove?

Keep in mind, I was involved in a discussion of atheist symbols, like the Out Campaign's scarlet "A" above. Out of 10 atheists participating in the discussion, I think 6 of us agreed a symbol was a good idea, and 3 agreed that the scarlet "A" was the best one. At one point, we ended up debating symbols v. nonsymbol symbols. (No, I cannot explain a nonsymbol symbol to you.) My point is, after the whole "no supernatural beings" thing, you can't get atheists to agree on anything as a group. You just can't push dogma on a group of people who can't agree if symbols or nonsymbol symbols are better.

Makarios is the latest to offer up this odd view of the atheist community, and he even provides the dogma for us.

1)“Better by far to embrace the hard truth . . .” Here Carl Sagan is instructing younger atheists what their attitude should be in the face of atheism’s hopelessness. (a) we don't view Sagan or Dawkins or Hitchens the way you view your prophets. Sure, we respect them, but in the same way you respect anyone of accomplishment, education and intelligence. (b) atheists don't find atheism hopeless. In fact, we find it to be the only true hope. (c) I'm not sure what Makarios' point is. People should embrace lies if they're more palatable than the truth?

2)“We must develop expressions of awe and wonder regarding the workings of the Universe.” Carolyn Porco, Richard Dawkins.This is now standard and expected fair when atheists are describing, to who ever will listen, what awesome individuals they are and how they will turn the next generation in to wonderful individuals as well. again, way to miss the point, buddy. of course we should regard the workings of the universe with awe and wonder. it is awesome and wonderful.

3) All atheists must get out there and begin doing good works.We’ve heard the now familiar call to all atheists to become good citizens. An example of this tenet can be found in the instruction for all atheists to donate blood during the World Day of Prayer. This demand that you become a good person is in contrast to the standard atheist attitude that was clearly sounded in a recent atheist blog when a young man, lamented, “Can’t I just fuck around and watch tv in the evening if I want to?” first of all, link? i can't find that quote anywhere, so (a) i have no idea if anyone actually said that, (b) i have no idea what the context is, he could have been snarking, and (c) so what if one guy did say that in all seriousness? should we assume all christians are like the man who shot Dr. Tiller in church? and why the assumption that atheists are uninterested in charity and good works? we don't give money to churches, but there are lots of other charities that receive our help.

4) No religion tells us what to do.Only slaves feel enslaved and no one reacts negatively to rules, guidelines and authority more strongly than the immature, self-centred atheist. Simply hearing the word “God” used in a non negative manner makes atheists like Michael Newdow react like cockroaches scurrying from a freshly lit light bulb. Atheists feel stifled and imprisoned by the mere existence of religion. Well, duh. How could a religion control a nonbeliever? Well, unless that religion becomes politicized and then, well you end up with Prop 8, and . . . yeah. "Only slaves feel enslaved". Only Makarios can tell you if you are a slave, apparently. And the cockroach comparison? Way to stay classy, Makarios.

5) Nothing positive regarding God can be mentioned in the presence of children. why yes, Makarios, I frequently proselytize to other people's children . . . oh, no, that would be the christians who do that. btw, wrong on every level to mess with other peoples' children like that.

6) Teaching Christianity is harmful, even abusive to children. meh. this isn't dogma, though i've certainly heard it said. i think it's silly in general. some people do use religion as an excuse to abuse their children, but i think they'd be abusing their kids anyway. and i don't see how you could possibly not communicate what you believe to your children.

7) Christian Children are not the property of their parents. that's just stupid, Makarios.

8) Atheists know best what children need to learn. I can't decide what he's referencing here. i've never heard an atheist say that. is he referencing 5-7, or is he talking about actual science being taught in schools. either way, no, that's not something atheists would agree on.

9) Christian parents have no right to teach their children about Jesus. isn't this really just a repeat of 6? see number 7 for my response.

10) Children must be taught a reverence for science.Well, respect - yes, but reverence? where'd you get that one from, Makarios? oh, right, your ass. children must be taught science.

11) The universe is the single exception to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. and this is why children need to learn science. the second law of thermodynamics states entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium Makarios fails by assuming that the universe is an isolated system not in equilibrium. but he does flog this decaying equine on a regular basis.

12) No Miracles! this isn't dogma, this is logic. if you don't believe in the supernatural, you don't believe in the supernatural. miracles are, by definition, supernatural.

13) It is a given that humans would eventually evolve in conditions present on primordial earth. it's a theory. it could change. again, why we need to teach people science.

14) Evolution is such a powerful force that life is now, even as we speak, coming into being on other planets and/or in other universes. wtf?! i mean, in the vastness of the universe, i would find it odd that ours was the only planet with life on it, but i'm not sure what Makarios is getting at here.

15) Material and natural reality is all that exists. see 12

16) Science has proven that God cannot exist. i'm not aware of anyone who has said this. now, i've certainly heard, and said myself, that god has never been proven using the scientific method, but that's different, now isn't it?

17) Because God cannot be discovered through scientific inquiry, God does not exist. again, you're twisting it, makarios. because god cannot be discovered through scientific inquiry, we cannot say that god exists.

18) Any knowledge that does not conform to materialism and naturalism will not be allowed into the discussion. no, makarios, i'm not taking your "feelings" as proof of anything.

19) Reason and scientific inquiry can tell us all that we need to know and all that we can know. and?

20) Atheists are smarter than anyone who believes in God. christians keep saying this. atheists don't.

21) There is no “I” to the human animal. We are a mass of cells and neurons that operate according to the Laws of Nature. i think he means "spirit" or "soul". i think we're pretty much meat, but that's hardly dogma.

22) Death is the end. well, yeah.

23) There is no cosmic purpose. yup.

24) There is no Divine justice or reward. mm-hmmm

25) Free will is an illusion. uh, wait, what? that's calvinism, dude.

26) Evil and suffering prove that God does not exist. or that god doesn't give a shit, or is a nasty little sadist we shouldn't worship.

27) Living by these Beliefs, Tenets and Dogma of the atheist faith is emancipating. THERE. IS. NO. ATHEIST. FAITH.

yeesh. talk about projection.

Functional Atheists Are Not Atheists

atheism, atheist, makarios, muslim, hindu, shinto, pagan, agnostic, deism, fail, christianity, bible, god,
I may have figured out why there are so many current and former atheists in a country where less than 5% of people are atheists.

Makarios' latest is on the evil of Oprah, which I just don't have time for, but the following is illuminative:

while there are relatively few professing atheists in the world (those who declare there is no God), there may be a billion or more what I call Functional Atheists - those who live as though God, as He is described in the Bible, does not exist.

Functional atheists, or practical atheists as they're called by some, believe that God’s desires for us are no more relevant for our lives than those of the guy next door.

First of all, these are not atheists. Atheists lack a belief in any and all gods, just the same way Makarios lacks a belief in Thor or Zeus or the tiny pink unicorns in my basement. (They're lovely.) What he is describing is agnostics, deists or unaffiliateds. They represent about 10% of the US. Makarios can call them atheists, but they're not atheists. I can call my dog a cat, it's still a dog.

Secondly, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, pagans, etc. could be described as living as though the god of the bible does not exist, by which I think Makarios means "not being the exact same sort of christians as me." Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, pagans, etc. are demonstrably not atheists: they all believe in god(s).

So, Makarios can redefine agnostics, deists, unaffiliateds, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, pagans and my couch as atheists, until he arrives at the billions and billions number, but that does not change the fact that none of these people are atheists.

Redefinition fail.

Well, I suppose if you redefine the word . . .

atheism, atheist, makarios, miracle, jesus, god, religion, belief
Makarios redefines miracles in his latest post, Do I Have to Believe?

For the record, a "miracle" is defined as an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

Most of the Christians that I’ve met have come to believe in miracles only after they’ve come to know the person of Jesus and His work in their lives. you'll believe once you believe, in other words. we call that circular reasoning. That’s because one of the greatest miracles that we as Christians experience is the real life, real space, real time* transformation that Jesus works in our own lives. and now we've redefined "miracle" to the point of meaninglessness. rising from the dead? a miracle. jesus made me happy? no. The very fact that we believe in, obey, serve, love, adore and worship Creator God is a miracle. No one can bring this about on their own. Atheists agree that, “I couldn’t believe in God even if I wanted to.”

and now we know the difference between hearing and listening. clearly, Makarios has heard what atheists are saying, because i've said that, too. but he's not listening. that doesn't mean that worshipping is an unnatural mental state brought about by miraculous intervention. in fact, worshipping, or at least interpreting natural events as divine, is the default position of human consciousness. what it means is that belief is not something that can be turned off an on like a light switch. you can't believe, or disbelieve, because you want to, any more than one can love, or not love, at will.

On our own we reject the very concept of Creator God. To worship and adore Creator God is absolutely counterintuitive, at least according to what we knew of the world in our pre Christian, pre awareness days. no, it's not counterintuitive. according to psychological studies, atheism is counterintuitive.

Satoshi Kanazawa

You see a bush on fire. It could have been caused by an impersonal, inanimate, and unintentional force (lightning striking the bush and setting it on fire), or it could have been caused by a personal, animate, and intentional force (God trying to communicate with you). The “animistic bias” or “agency-detector mechanism” predisposes you to opt for the latter explanation rather than the former. It predisposes you to see the hands of God at work behind natural, physical phenomena whose exact causes are unknown.

In this view, religiosity (the human capacity for belief in supernatural beings) is not an evolved tendency per se; after all, religion in itself is not adaptive. It is instead a byproduct of animistic bias or the agency-detector mechanism, the tendency to be paranoid, which is adaptive because it can save your life. Humans did not evolve to be religious; they evolved to be paranoid. And humans are religious because they are paranoid.

This is not a miracle- it's a consequence of the way human consciousness works, the way we perceive the world. The only way to consider this a miracle is to redefine miracle to the point of everything being a miracle. In fact, by Makarios' redefinition of miracle, atheism would be the miracle.


Just to avoid the obvious theist objection:

This is not to say that the human bias towards perceiving god in every gust of wind disproves god. It doesn't. Just because we're biased towards perceiving something doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. I'm scared of spiders. Every time I see something out of the corner of my eye, I assume it's a spider. (I spend a lot time jumping.) 99 times out of 100, there is no spider. In fact, at least 90 of those times, it's my own hair. Every so often, though, it is a spider.


*I suspect this to be a rather odd reference to the reality of spacetime.

Oh, For Crying Out Loud

atheism, atheist, agnostic, barna, morality, abortion, drug, drunkenness, homosexual, bisexual, pornography, gambling, sex, sexuality, cohabitation, religion, christian, christianity, makarios
First of all, I need to say that if you are going to reference a study, an article, etc. in a post, you need give a link. Stop making me do your research.

Secondly, can we please give the "atheists are immoral and dangerous" meme a rest? Please? Atheists act just like everyone else. To be fair, we're better at marriage (the more fundy you are, the more likely you are to get divorced), but there appears to be little real life relationship between believing a thing is wrong and actually not doing it. (See: The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion.)

Makarios pulls out and dusts off this meme, yet again, in his post Atheist Richard Dawkins. (I don't know why he feels a need to put the word "atheist" in front of "Richard Dawkins". It's sort of like saying "Catholic Pope".)

Preaches the atheistic anti-life dogma i can't decide if he means that atheists tend to be prochoice, or that we're just against life in general. either way, stoopid. that works AGAINST natural selection natural selection has nothing to do with birth control. i don't know much about the subject, but i would think that birth control and fertility medicine are skewing our results a bit. by causing in atheists an aversion to reproducing their genes atheists are in no way averse to reproducing. most atheists i know, like most people i know, have children. what a strange world Makarios lives in. (out of three marriages Dawkins could only stomach the creation of one child that's just rude. first of all, his wives would have had the final say in whether or not they got pregnant. secondly, we don't know if his wives were infertile, or if dawkins has fertility issues. makarios could well be mocking some poor woman who desperately wants to have children and can't. lastly, in the end, whether or not to have children is a personal choice. i choose no, you choose yes. good for both of us.), and/or killing their offspring by the millions every year. wft?! anyone seen those news reports? seriously, what. the. fuck.

The Barna Research Group found regarding atheism and the morality that those who hold to the world views of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviours as morally acceptable: (as I said, there is a huge difference between finding something to be immoral and actually not doing it, but let's play along)

no, wait, let's not. I found the study Makarios helpfully didn't bother to provide a link to. It's from 2003 and it is not what Makarios represents it to be.

More than four out of five adults - 83% - contend that they are concerned about the moral condition of the nation. Given that 84% of all adults consider themselves to be Christian, they have good reason to worry about the moral state of the country: many of [Christians'] views conflict with the moral teachings of their professed faith.

wait, that's not atheists or agnostics. that's christians. i assume Makarios is engaging in a No True Scotsman here, but he's misrepresenting the study. the participants in the study were not atheists and agnostics- they were christians.

and this is how christians felt about a variety of issues in 2003:

illegal drug use; 17% of those interviewed felt that was acceptable. hardly a majority.

excessive drinking; holy ambiguous, batman. 35% were in favor of "drunkenness".

sexual relationships outside of marriage; 42% were okay with this, though with the caveat that the relationship is hetero.

abortion; 45% in favor of.

cohabiting with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; 60% were fine with it

obscene language; 36%. more people were okay with abortion and adultery than with saying "fuck"? seriously?

gambling; 61% in favor of. I wonder if they reminded people that the lottery is a form of gambling. as is bingo.

pornography 38%. abortion and adultery yes, porn no? where did they find these people? and obscene sexual behaviour wtf is that?;

and engaging in homosexuality and bisexuality 30% weren't bothered by Teh Gai at all.

the rest of the post is some quotes from dead philosophers that I guarantee Makarios does not understand, but that was fun. It's nice to know what christians are really all about.

Needs a Dictionary Award of the Day

crocoduck, pascal, wager, makarios, atheism, atheist, religion, god, bible, christian, christianity, asshat,
Goes to Makarios, for damning athiests to hell on a regular basis, and then calling atheists the most judgmental people on the planet. Pot, kettle, kettle, pot.

Jesus said, “I haven’t come to save those who already think they’re righteous. I’ve come to save those who know they are lost.”

This is something that atheists simply cannot stand. Atheists are some of the most judgemental people on the face of the earth. They look down on and judge as having less value those who lack education or intelligence. That's sad but it should be expected. Atheists have nothing outside of themselves from which to draw their value, worth and sense of security.

Stop telling me what a bad person I am, and exactly how long I'll be burning in hell, and then we can talk about how judgmental I am.

I do not see as "less" those who lack education or intelligence. I do think that if you are ignorant, you should fix that before you start debating the existence of god or evolution with someone. It is a little frustrating (though quite amusing in its own way) to keep having to explain why Pascal's Wager is inherently flawed, or that crocoducks don't prove creationism.

I've Seen Some Forced Analogies . . .

puppy, analogy, fail, makarios, religion, atheism, atheist, stupid, asshat,

But comparing atheists to dogs? Way to raise the level of discourse, asshat.

First point: I'm not entirely convinced my dog is an atheist. He may very well worship me. He certainly seems to. It would even be reasonable: I am source of such good things as food, walks and belly scritches. Even if he is an atheist, we're talking about an animal incapable of understanding more than 200 words (australian sheep dogs have the highest vocabulary at 200 words), the written word, philosophy, mathematics, well, you get the drift.

There is a reason a comparison to a dog is considered insulting, and this is even more insulting because Makarios clearly doesn't know much about dogs.

I saw an atheist running down the street this morning. This is how it happened. I was sitting in my chair around 8:30am. Kids were coming down the street on their way to school. One girl, about 12-years-old got to the end of her driveway when something caught her attention. She turned back towards the house as fast as she could. Obviously she didn’t quite make it to the door in time because out of the house, off the driveway and down the street raced her little atheist. She tried to catch him but the little atheist came burning around the corner with a big grin on his face, his tongue hanging out, his ears high and alert and he was barking as loudly as he could, “I’m free! I’m free! I’m free!”

Typical of all atheists, this little bugger never gave a thought to:

Who is it that really takes care of me?

Who keeps me warm?

Who keeps me safe?

Who gives me food?

He actually believed - I can do this all on my own!!!

Here's the thing- my dog's no genius, but he probably could survive without me. His fur keeps him warm, his teeth and size provide both food and safety, and I've seen that he has the instincts he needs to feed and defend himself.

I call this insulting analogy fail.