I don’t want to go to church on Sunday. The last time I was in church was for a wedding. Miraculously I wasn’t struck by lightning when I looked up at the huge 15 foot tortured Jesus bleeding on the cross over the doorway and said, “Jesus! WTF!” Then I proceeded to bite my cheek and bury my head in my lap to keep  from laughing hysterically all through the service after Butch pointed to the fat lady who was singing some horridly off-tune song and said, “I guess that means it’s over.” It was not a pleasant experience.

Before that, I’d have to go back to my troubled religious youth to remember being in church. Sitting uncomfortably in straight backed pews; singing vapid, falsely cheerful songs of unworthiness and worship to an invisible sky daddy; sipping grape juice and eating stale bits of savior; getting baptized 3 times in 3 different churches to ward off eternal damnation and gnashing of teeth in the sulfurous, burning pits of hell; dealing with fake smiles on fake faces adorned in Avon makeup and festooned in Sears and Roebuck Sunday best outfits; parroting bible stories carefully cherry-picked from the sordid pages of a book filled with murder, slavery and hate.

None of it was all that pleasant. All of it was forced. No one ever seemed genuinely kind or compassionate. When I learned about hypocrisy at the age of 12 I promptly called bullshit on the whole mess of religion and refused to go again. My parents were furious, but in the end they gave up on me, content that I’d eventually get my just reward in the fiery lakes of hell.

This Sunday we’re going to the mega-church about 45 minutes away. I don’t want to go but my local group wants to experience it. Since I’m the Official Cat Herder, I feel like it would be a good thing to go along. Part of me wonders what it’s like in a mega-church. What is the feel of the place? Something I thought church should do for people is give them a sense of belonging, of community. How can you get that in a huge auditorium? I have no idea how big this place is. So it’s only fair that I actually experience it, I guess.

I have some questions that I want to answer on Sunday. Feel free to comment with other questions I can try to answer as well. Here’s what I have so far. I will take notes while I’m there. Read the rest of this entry »

I need your help. I’m going to church soon with my Religion of the Month Club (a subgroup of Morgantown Atheists) and I have the idea of putting an envelope in the collection plate when it comes around. In the envelope I want a few really AWESOME quotes from brilliant people. Preferably not nasty, but very smart. I am asking for your suggestions! Which reason/atheism/brilliant/freethinker quotes should I put in the envelope?

We’ve all heard of Eternal Earth-Bound Pets and their awesome service of saving pets after the rapture (I wrote about being Rapture Ready here). Well, the other day I was contacted by another fine atheist service, Rapture Orphan Rescue: A service providing the Ultimate No Child Left Behind.

Here is their Mission Statement:

We are a Rapture-proof service that will ensure that your youngest family members will be given the religious instruction that you would have wanted them to receive. More than just letting your rapture-orphaned sons and daughters [know] that you love them, we will witness to them so that they too may be Saved and reunited with you at the end of the Trials and Tribulations.

This is based on biblical verses that state that we are all born in sin and that we have to reach the age of reason before we can be saved. The site goes into detail on the home page explaining why your baby is born an atheist and isn’t guaranteed to be raptured.

The problem seems to be that the children christians will leave behind will then be taken in as wards of the state, and then might be marked with the sign of the beast. This service will take the child before that stage and make sure they are never marked, which would be a bad thing according to Revelations 20:4. Read the rest of this entry »

How about some funny or insightful cartoons and pictures for a light Friday the 13th treat?

God At His Computer

BRRRAAAAIIINNNSSS!!!

Grimace must be an atheist baby-eater! Read the rest of this entry »

I’m reading a book called The God Part of the Brain by Matthew Alper. Mostly, I think it’s a pretty interesting book. (there’s one thing that really bugs me about it, but otherwise it’s a good read). Anyway, he talks about how mystical experiences are found across cultures, which implies that there is a genetic component to them. In other words, every culture in recorded history talks about having mystical experiences so it must be something happening in the brain that is genetic. There must be genes associated with the way the brain works in certain circumstances that cause that phenomenon in people around the world.

Let’s define a mystical experience first. Dan Merkur, author of Gnosis: An Esoteric Tradition of Mystical Visions and Unions, lists the five most common symptoms of a mystical experience (from The God Part of the Brain, pg 134)

  • a sense of unity or totality
  • a sense of timelessness
  • a sense of having encountered ultimate reality
  • a sense of sacredness
  • a sense that one can not adequately describe the richness of their experience

I was deeply religious as a child, from about age 4 to 12. I was so terrified of burning in hell that I was baptized 3 times in 3 different churches. I went to Sunday school, church, bible camp, I sang hymns, I prayed, I studied and read my bible, and had bible lessons for a short while. But in all those years, I never once had a mystical experience. I never felt god. I never felt the touch of the divine. Read the rest of this entry »

The following is an article by GMNightmare which follows up from a previous post titled Your god is Not Omnipotent:

To start out, the definition I am using for god is any given being that can supposedly create matter out of nothing, is omnipotent, and is unbound by physical spatial traits. Furthermore I derive that an omnipotent god constitutes as an unstoppable force or can be the causation of such. The existence of such a god forms my hypothesis (which I will regard as true for this proof); therefore the following mainly concerns itself with monotheistic brands of gods.

Using the above traits, the god from my hypothesis could create an object of infinite size and maximum density. This theoretical object would literally fill the entirety of the universe, with every small speck of space filled with matter. This rock constitutes as an immovable object as there is nowhere left to move the rock and thus it is incapable of movement. As an aside it happens that god can create an object so large that he cannot move it.

However the existence of an immovable object by definition means that an unstoppable force cannot also exist. Since that is a part of the definition of god outlined above, I therefore must reject the hypothesis and assert that such a god cannot and does not exist. In particular a god that can create matter unrestrained cannot also be omnipotent in all regards.

Simple, short, and sweet… but the devil is in the details (ha ha). Any god with boundaries and limitations obviously escapes the above, but from my experience that’s the last thing any monotheist will even begin to contemplate (god being the biggest baddest supernatural being that ever was—who also happened to create everything—just isn’t enough, seemingly god must also have limitless power and ability). So please qualify objections to the below considerations.

1)      Can god create an object so large even he cannot move it? Read the rest of this entry »

The other day I gave you a transcript from a lecture. The article was titled Why People Defend Their Dogma. At the end I promised a follow-up with some practical advice. And here it is. They did another episode of Reasonable Doubts, Episode 70, where they talked about how to persuade people, especially about science. They talked about a professor who has done some studies. I have written up a transcript of the salient parts of the conversation.

Partial Transcript:

37:18 If the goal is not to score points, if the goal is actually to persuade people, if the morally superior goal is to win minds rather than just make people look stupid, then tone really does matter. Psychology has some things to say about how we should best go about trying to persuade people to really, any position, but even more specifically to a scientific position that they may otherwise feel threatened by,  or may conflict with their worldview.

38:07 It’s an empirical issue. What is likely to be persuasive or off-putting or not is a testable question. There are people right now researching how you package factual issues and seeing if that affects the rate at which people believe, disbelieve or deny them.

One of the examples of this, there is a researcher who’s name is Geoffrey Monroe from Towson University who has done some studies on peoples’ willingness to agree with belief consisting information as opposed to information that’s inconsistent with beliefs as a function of things like how the information is presented to them.

So he had a piece on Science and Religion Today where he folded this into the debate about, do you alienate people by using blunt language that offends them. The theory behind this that people don’t, as most people probably realize, they don’t simply make up their mind on the basis of factual, cognitive, cold type calculations. This is one aspect that frustrates us, is that when we are debating with somebody, it quickly becomes apparent that the facts of evolution in some cases won’t make a difference, if the person has an emotional investment.

So people hold attitudes because they are linked to aspects of your self-identity. As stated in Terror Management Theory, if you have a worldview that can be threatened, you get defensive. You circle your wagons as if attacked. In the same way, with factual issues like scientific-type things, religious people hold these as part of their broader self-identity. Read the rest of this entry »