The Good Atheist

Is it so wrong of me to delight in the pleasure of reading truly terrible and infantile articles trying to “prove” the existence of God? Even though the arguments never change, I still delight in reading the faithful drone on and on about just how real God is, despite the fact that they themselves readily admit to his imperviousness to falsifiability.

What I find fascinating is just how adamant religionists are in arguing that the act of believing requires no proof, even when they themselves try to justify their own beliefs. Their mental gymnastics never ceases to amaze me; take this hilarious article written by a well meaning Christian trying in vain to defend his belief in God:

Non-believers say they need PROOF that God exists and without it they cannot subject themselves to believing in what they call a “fictional” God. My argument for this is Love. We have no proof that love exists yet we think very highly of it. People live their entire lives looking and searching for love yet it is a feeling that cannot be proven to be concrete… There are a lot of things in life that can’t be proven but we still believe in them.

Uh, actually, we do know that the emotion “love” is entirely a product of the brain; it’s not some ethereal emotion that can’t be explained by science. But wait, there’s more:

But for those people who need some sort of proof, here you go. First of all let’s look at the Bible. The Bible speaks of and passes on stories about God, his deeds, and his son. Why would a group of real people choose to make up elaborate and extensive stories of a fictional character? [Jake's notes: "Do we really need to answer this question??!!"] They have made no financial profit off of their works and have no other reason to make up these stories. Not only can most of these characters in the Bible be proven and are known to be true but the most influential and important person in the Bible, Jesus, God’s son, is known to be a real person. So most of the Bible can be proven and thus agreed with…

So you don’t need proof at all to believe in God, but the Bible still proves it’s all true! Right. It rather inconsequential that he’s completely mistaken about the supposed historical reliability of the Old and New Testament; this is exactly the kind of weird “talking out of both sides of their mouths” responses that have become a stable of religious apologetics. One minute they are telling you that proof is unnecessary, and the next they’re trying to convince you of the historical and even scientific accuracy of their beliefs. It’s further evidence that we ALL need to have some form of proof to believe in something, even if we don’t all have the same standard for just how accurate it has to be.

You’ve got to love the way Hitchens can plainly and effectively explain why supposed miracles are not only unlikely, but also totally improbable. If you need to believe that Jesus was a God, so be it; just don’t try to pretend there’s any science supporting your bogus claims.

For the first time in the history of unbelief, atheists are starting to have a voice. Recently, a coalition of secularists and atheists met with the Obama Administration to talk about three pressing issues: the death of kids due to “faith healing”, the increased presence of religion in the military, and faith based initiatives.

Although details of what was discussed are piecemeal at best, that didn’t stop religious leaders from complaining that the Administration was essentially meeting with “hate groups”. Religious jackass Bill Donohue couldn’t stop himself from opening his ignorant mouth:

People of faith, especially Christians, have good reason to wonder exactly where their interests lie with the Obama administration. Now we have the definitive answer. In an unprecedented move, leaders of a presidential administration are hosting some of the biggest anti-religious zealots in the nation.

This from the same man who said that the victims of child abuse that sued the Catholic Church were “gold diggers“. Yeah, he’s a real swell guy.

Apparently, it’s ok for scumbags like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson to visit the White House, but as soon as atheists try to seek some form of representation in government, we’re instantly labelled as anti-religious zealots. Don’t you just love religion?

I took a few days off in light of my recent birthday, and while I was away, I received a ton of email concerning a study done by evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa that linked IQ with atheism, liberalism, and monogamy. I figured I should probably talk about it a bit.

Kanazawa believes that the reason this is true it that human beings are designed by natural selection to be more conservative (and therefore more religious) and care only for our kin. Intelligence itself was a  fairly recent development meant to help us solve complex problems, but because the changes happen gradually over time, there were some that possessed more raw brain power than others, who tend to take on values such as liberalism, atheism, and monogamy (which actually might explain why religious folks have a higher divorce rate than atheists).

I read his book: “Why Beautiful People Leave More Daughters“, and although it was interesting and offered some pretty unique explanations to human behavior through the lens of evolutionary psychology, it’s important to note that this is also the same man who believed that poor health was the result of lower IQ. This study was criticized for failing to take into account the fact that people with lower IQ also tend to live in poorer neighborhoods, and that their intelligence is more a sign of poor education rather than anything inherent about their brain power.

If you want to cling to the study to make yourself feel good, I’m not going to stop you. Intelligence is notoriously hard to measure, but as far as I’m concerned, the correlation is a lot simpler; atheists, agnostics and non-theists are more likely to have been exposed to a larger variety of ideas in the course of their lives (since they aren’t afraid to read the religious and philosophical materials of other cultures), and that in itself may account for the difference in intelligence Kanazawa measured.  Let’s not all pat ourselves on the backs just yet; one study doesn’t prove shit; besides, do you really need some excuse to feel smarter than your religious counterpart?

30 years ago today, a young couple in Sherbrooke, Quebec gave birth to a baby with a giant head. That baby grew up thinking that all religions were essentially bullshit, and set out to record a totally kick ass podcast to let the world know how he felt. That little boy with a gigantic head was me, and to celebrate the awesomeness of being alive, I’m in Calgary with Carisa Hendrix, who organized a pretty kick ass party for me at the Soda.

I realize that a lot of you guys are located in different parts of the world, so if you still want to make my day, why not become a patron? If you’re already a member and feel super generous, then sponsor a friend, or you can just donate a buttload of money to me for no other reason that to say “Happy Birthday you big headed jackass!”

I love condoms. They’ve been around since ancient times; Egyptians would make theirs out of ceramic (ribbed for her pleasure I hope), while in the 16th century Europeans made theirs out of sheep intestines. Although their primary use is contraceptive, these useful little devices are used for all kinds of purposes, from makeshift waterproof containers to improvised explosive devices. Apparently, having a rubber tube like structure is convenient for a number of reasons.

Almost everyone loves condoms, except for the Roman Catholic Church, who feels that every sexual encounter needs to result in pregnancy. Not only is this view insanely impractical and dangerous (how are we supposed to support a geometrically expanding population?), it put’s people’s lives at risk. By telling people condom use is forbidden, how many believers contract deadly diseases? How many women have unwanted pregnancies that put their own lives in jeopardy?

The reason the church hates condom use is almost entirely because of the story of Onan. It goes something like this: God tells Onan to impregnate his brother’s widow, but at the last minute he pulls out, spilling his “seed” on the ground (hey, sometimes you just slip out, you know?). God gets angry and strikes him dead. From this nonsense, the Church has decided that God disapproves of contraception. Yep, that’s pretty much the only reason (other than their “be fruitful and multiply passage they like so much).

In the Philippines, ignorant and annoying Catholic leaders are actively killing the government’s plan to encourage its citizens to practice safer sex to prevent the spread of HIV. They incorrectly and deviously proclaim that condoms are ineffective, saying that the only real way to prevent AIDS s abstinence and forcing fidelity in marriage. Yeah, those values are really realistic, aren’t they?

It’s just another example of how out of touch with reality these assholes are. They would gladly let people die of AIDS and other diseases if it meant following the insane edicts of sexually repressed clergymen. Do yourself a service people; don’t take advice on sex from guys that have never actually HAD it. These are the same fuck-faces that can’t seem to stop molesting little kids. Why is anyone listening to these guys again?

Welcome back to another episode of the Good Atheist bonus podcast. This week I have a special guest: a TGA fan from Calgary called Brock Roberts. I invite him to talk about how he became an atheist, why creationism is nonsense, and why young people need to take more control in politics.  I decided to make this show free to remind everyone how awesome it is to have two shows a week, all for the low low price of 20 bucks a year. If you love the show and want to support us, become a member today!

Hey, all you Calgary fans, my birthday party this Sunday, so if you’re in town and are thinking of coming, email me to get all the details!

 

 Standard Podcast [35:13m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Ever heard of an organization called “Youth for Christ”? It’s an evangelical youth group that seeks to convert people to Jesus, and like any evangelizing organization, it isn’t content to sit by and let people live their own lives. Recently, the city of Winnipeg, Manitoba voted to contribute 2.5 million dollars towards a faith-based recreation center. This hasn’t sat well with some of the locals who are upset that the city, which is broke, is giving money to a private religious organization that sets out to convert people.

The Mayor, Sam Katz, isn’t sure why everyone thinks it’s a big deal:

My understanding is the majority of our youth who attend those facilities are not Christian — anybody can go there.

Luckily, some people actually have their heads screwed on right; local MP Pat Martin has argued that their mandate to convert young people makes “Youth for Christ” ineligible for public monies. How would people react, he argues, if the money been given to a group called “Youth for Allah” instead? Not too well I assume.

These kinds of organizations always bill themselves as open to everyone, and for good reason; they are on a mission to convert fertile young minds to their insane doctrine. The fact that the city is actively helping them accomplish this goal is totally unacceptable, especially in light of the fact that other more worthy organizations have been denied funding. It’s quite obviously religious pandering, and Winnipeggers (I think that’s what they call themselves) should be outraged.

I don’t like religion, but like most atheists I know, the thought of burning down churches is rather repugnant. There’s no need to create more religious martyrs by making it seem as though their beliefs are under attack. My preferred kind of “assault” is always verbal and intellectual, and I expect any other “Good Atheist” to follow suit.

Of course, there’s no way to know if every single non-believer out there is going to act with such decorum. Since atheism isn’t an organized set of beliefs or practices, there’s really nothing I necessarily share in common with an unbeliever other than the fact that we have both chosen to reject the notion of God. That’s it. Anything else we DO share in common is entirely the product of our own ethic and moral code. Some people possess noble and heroic codes; others are violent psychopathic arsonists. It happens.

A few weeks a go a number of churches in Texas were burned down by these two guys, Jason Robert Bourque, and Daniel George McAllister, two childhood friends and obvious weirdos. When the police searched their homes, they found rifles, knives, a book on “Demon Possession”, and (wait for it) a book on atheism (gasp)! The associated press jumped on that angle, despite the fact that there’s no reason to suspect that this book would have motivated them to commit their crime. If anything, the book “The Atheist’s Way” is actually one of the least critical in regards to religion, simply offering a way for people who don’t believe to orient their lives in a meaningful and loving way.

Eric Maisel elevates the tag ‘atheist’ from a mere denial of the supernatural to a calling: a calling to a high-hearted life of diligence, creativity, and ruthless honesty in maintaining one’s integrity in the face of uncaring nature.” — David Cortes, Secular Wholeness

Perhaps these two morons are atheists, or maybe they aren’t. We still don’t know what motivated them to commit their crime, which is why I find it so cowardly for the AP to make the assumption that atheism is somehow behind it. There’s nothing inherent to unbelief that would make one violent or psychotic, and any inference that it does ignores all the studies (and simple common sense) that demonstrates this.

Oh Larry, if religious people DID keep their insane opinions to themselves, then I’d be out of a job, and the world would be a very different place. I guess instead of making fun of religionists, I would would have to out in the real world and get a 9-5 job…oh the horror!