Just ducky!

I’m not surprised to hear what Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson said of gays -

"They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil. That's what you have, 235 years, roughly, after your fore fathers founded the country. So what are you going to do Pennsylvania? Just run with them? You're going to die!"

Hyperbole at it’s finest! According to Phil gays are heartless and that’s why they want to marry each other – does that make sense?  They invent ways of doing evil, Phil says. Gays must be getting lessons from some Christians. Homosexuals are not God haters, they just don’t think about the God thing for the most part. A minority of gays can be ruthless like many hardcore evangelicals like those fine folks at the Westboro Baptist Church. Talk about ruthless.

Phil has the right to say what he wants. But others have an equal right to say what they want. And if someone disagrees with the inanities that Phil spouts, then so be it. 

How is the word Atheist defined?

You may have heard about Diana Nyad, the 64 year old swimmer who swam for 53 hours going from Cuba to Florida. She was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey recently and in the interview Nyad said, “I can stand at the beach’s edge with the most devout Christian, Jew, Buddhist, go on down the line, and weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity — all the billions of people who have lived before us, who have loved and hurt.” To which Oprah responded, “Well I don’t call you an atheist then.”

Winfrey went on, “I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery then that is what God is… It’s not a bearded guy in the sky.”  I think what Oprah was pushing on Nyad was that she may claim to be an atheist but if she has awe about the universe she lives in, then she must have some religiosity in her belief. Oprah missed the point that Nyad made and that is you can don’t need a belief in a God but still have awe and appreciation for the world we live in. You can be that way and still not be a religious person.

This all points out, to me, is the misunderstanding that people have about someone who calls themselves atheist. If you ask most devout Christians, they would tell you that an atheist is the worst person in the world, out to destroy everything, or at least atheists have no morals and just want to party until they drop. Or ask Pat Robertson and he will tell his sheep, excuse me followers, that atheists are a miserable bunch and they want everyone else to be miserable with them.

I think the word atheist has multiple meanings to many people just as the word God can have multiple meanings. Here's how I define atheist. If one is called an atheist it simply means that one does not believe in the existence of God or gods or a supernatural being because there is no evidence for its existence. You could say the same thing for someone who says they are a "a-unicorn-ist", who is a person who does not believe in the existence of unicorns because there is no evidence for unicorns. Once sufficient evidence is presented for the unicorns' existence, then one could accept that they do in fact exist.

When I claim that I am an atheist, I am simply saying that I don't have any reason to believe in the existence of a God or gods or any supernatural being because there isn't any evidence and that's all it is! It doesn't say anything about whether or not I'm liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, capitalist or communist, Mets fan or a Yankees fan.

Along the lines how Matt Dillahunty at Atheist Experience describes himself, I consider myself a skeptic first and from that I've arrived at being an atheist when you get around to the God question. But first and foremost I am a skeptic. That means I do not dismiss any assertion out of hand but withhold belief until I hear all sides, ask questions, investigate and gather evidence for or against the claim. Then I'll have provisional belief as evidence builds for the belief or counter evidence tears it down.

Also the word Atheism is bandied around a lot like it's some sort of world philosophy which, to me, it isn't. This is where I think we get into trouble because when you attach "ism" to a word it seems like it becomes something much more than it really is. This is when you hear from Christians who will say the atheism is a religion like Christianity. They say it's a "belief" and therefore it is no different than any other religion.

We need to go back and just assert that being an Atheist is just expressing no belief in a supernatural being. Period. Don’t read anything more into it.

Dear GOP, What did you accomplish?

For the moment we’ve averted another man-made crisis. Congress passed a bill to fund the government until January 15 and stave off default until February 7. Woopee! They now get to screw things up again next year.

The GOP failed to get the main things they wanted, like defunding the Affordable Care Act or not raising the debt ceiling, etc. But in the process they did piss off a bunch of Americans. The thing to be seen will be if any of those angry Americans will do anything about it at the polls next year. Will the Republicans loose control of the House? Dare I dream?

Rachel Maddow did a piece on her show last Wednesday night listing all the things the GOP demanded. Out of all the things they wanted from the Democrats, they got nothing! Yet despite this failure, many on the loony right claimed a victory. Huh? Not only did they not get anything out of this, they cost the American tax payers 24 billion dollars while the shut down was going on, countless government programs shut down like clinical trials for drugs to save lives and whole agencies like NASA  and the EPA shuttered. Even simple things like an operator of an Air Taxi business shut down and loosing money because the FAA can’t conduct a safety check so he could fly because they are furloughed. I thought the Republicans were looking out for small businesses? Oh that’s right, their only concern is their pockets lined by big business.

Even more than all this John Boehner still, for the moment, has his job. Presiding over a House that has NOT passed any major legislation since he took over. Nothing, repeat, nothing got done by Congress since he’s been Speaker. Way to go John! Yet these same idiots are complaining about folks getting Social Security disability checks from the government while not really disabled. To be fair, the GOP is disabled and they still get paid. Don’t you just love our system?

A life without God

A life without God is a good life.

A life that is filled with wonder and awe for the world we are privileged to exist in.

A life of seeking answers no matter where they lead.

A life of caring for our fellow humans.

A life of cherishing the time we have with each and every one of us.

A life that accepts that we are the same but different and that’s OK.

A life that is precious in every aspect and each of us has a role to play.

A life that cares for the planet Earth as it is our only home.

A life that explores for all the wonder we may find.

A life that at the end we can say we did our best.

No reward or punishment is needed for a good life without God.

Is God Allah or Yahweh?

Sometime ago I saw a video of two folks talking about their belief in God. At one point one person (a non-believer) said to the other (a Christian), “you don’t believe in Zeus?” and the Christian said, “That’s right”. Then the non-believer asked, “Do you believe in Allah?” and the Christian said something to the effect that Allah is God so yes he believed in Him.

That exchange intrigued me because from my understanding of Islam (which isn’t much), the Muslims see Allah as just one god and not the Trinity that Christians do. When you ask a Christian about God they immediately talk about Jesus and God the Father with a smattering of the Holy Spirit thrown in every once and awhile. So it’s my understanding that Allah is very different from the Christian God so therefore Christians are Atheistic when it comes to their belief in Allah. They simply don’t believe in Him, Her or It.

Also the Jews see God (Yahweh) differently than the Christians. The Jews see Yahweh as just one God and of course don’t recognize Jesus as the Son of God or a “god”. You can get into a debate about how the Jews don’t see Jesus as the Messiah unlike the Christians who claim that he fulfilled ALL of the prophesies in the Old Testament for the Messiah. Two differing conclusions on essentially the same book.

What I’m getting at is that Jews, Christians and Muslims are all Atheists when it comes to the other group’s god. Jews and Christians don’t believe in Allah and Muslims don’t believe in the god(s) of either the Christians or Jews.

The point of all this if the three largest and most influential religions in the world have fundamentally differing views on the very foundation (belief in God), how can any of them be close to right? Of course “rightness” doesn’t matter as long as you can get enough folks to agree with you and have influence in the halls of power.

Sex, sex, sex and Religion.

So here’s my question: Why is religion so hung up on sex? For example this whole gay marriage thing seems to revolve around the fact that religion doesn’t like the fact that two guys or two girls get together and have sex. They say it’s disgusting and unnatural that gays and lesbians have oral and anal sex forgetting that many straight couples do the same thing. Check your nearest porn site.

Are there certain “approved” sex activities that only straight couples can engage in? If daddy wants mommy to give him a blow job, do they have to check with their pastor to find out if it’s OK? What if mommy really likes to have her man jam it into her rear, is that on the forbidden list of sex activities?

What it comes down to is the fact that religion uses sex as a way to control people. If the local pastor can convince people that God only approves of sex between a man and a woman and that all other sex is a ticket to Hell, then they have control over people. If they can get you to not have the sex you want, then the next step is to have you fork over more cash to the church so they can spread the word that only a certain type of sex is “Godly”. Of course that doesn’t stop the good reverend from “horsing around” with the Sunday School kids. (Wink, wink!)

What is happening is that religion is realizing that they are loosing control over people and loosing control fast. Most Catholics have ignored the Popes’ orders on using contraceptives. And of course the Churches want all the young, horny kids to keep it in their pants until the parish priest or minister says it OK at their church wedding. Ever wonder how that is working out? So if the Pope and ministers can’t control what you do in bed, then what good are they? They are becoming irrelevant. And they know it!

A black cat in a dark cellar at midnight.

I’m sure most free thinkers have heard or read the quote attributed to Robert A. Heinlein, an awarding winning Science Fiction writer who, in one of his novels, said that theology is like looking for a black cat in a cellar at midnight where there is none.

As an aside, I never did understand how someone could get a university degree in Theology. That, to me, is like getting a degree in the study of unicorns. What is there to study?

Anyway I was curious about the quote and wanted to find the book that it came from. The quote is from Heinlein’s “JOB: A Comedy of Justice” written in 1984. Here is the entire paragraph containing that famous quote.

A character named “Jerry” is talking….

“Alec, I wish I could go along with you. It would be comforting, the world being what it is today. But I can’t see proof in the dreams of long-dead prophets; you can read anything into them. Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn’t there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything. Oh, my church too – but at least mine is honestly pantheistic. Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything – just give him time to rationalize it. Forgive me for being blunt.”

In addition to the quote most often cited another part of this particular paragraph that caught my attention. It was the part about the Trinity. Heinlein nailed it when saying that believing in a monotheism doesn’t make sense in light of the Trinity. No matter how you slice it it makes no sense or nonsense. But when does religion make sense?

Later in the book one other paragraph caught my eye.

Satan/Lucifer is talking….

“You never played marbles with Him (God). Alec, ‘justice’ is not a divine concept; it is a human illusion. The very basis of the Judeo-Christian code is injustice, the scapegoat system. The scapegoat sacrifice runs all through the Old Testament, then it reaches its height in the New Testament with the notion of the Martyred Redeemer. How can justice possibly be served by loading your sins on another? Whether it be a lamb having its throat cut ritually, or a Messiah nailed to a cross and ‘dying for your sins.’ Someone should tell all of Yahweh’s followers, Jews and Christians, that there is no such thing as a free lunch.”

“How can justice be served by loading your sins on another?” That is the crux of the Atonement (scapegoat) explanation that Christians try so hard to explain to non-believers. They themselves don’t understand that justice just doesn’t work that way. Only the guilty must pay the price for their sin or crime and not someone else. But again Christians don’t get it. They are too busy taking a bath in the blood of the crucified Jesus. Hallelujah!

Religious logic or lack thereof.

I have a relative who is very, very religious. This relative has been religious all her life. I get religious emails from her frequently and generally trash them. A recent email got my attention.

Here is part of her email –

“I have been sick and the problem comes from my back.  My back did not hurt, just a pain down my leg.  I had every symptom but the back.  It took a year to finally figure out just what was happening, but God is good and does heal.  Hope everyone is doing good.  God's Blessings, …..”

I’m not a doctor but it seems to me that from her description of the problem, I would suspect she had a sciatica nerve issue. My wife had similar symptoms with a pain down her leg and the doctors suspected a vertebrae pinching the sciatica nerve. This is pretty common. I’m not saying that this is exactly what my relative had but that’s what I suspect. Again, I’m no doctor nor do I play one on TV.

But the second part of her email is what peaked my interest. It took a year to figure out what was going on (she and or the doctors?) but God is good and does heal. Huh?

I’ve had back issues most of my life. When it acts up I generally take it easy and over time it resolves itself. What if during one of these events, I prayed to God to heal my back and over time it did get better? Did God heal me or did it resolve itself without God’s help?

I imagined my relative saw doctors during this time and since it seems from the email that the problem was “figured out” by, I’m assuming, doctors, who then had the most impact on fixing her issue? God or the doctors?

The issue with evangelicals and those who fervently believe in prayer, is that no amount of reasoning will convince them that God and prayers had nothing to do with solving the problem. If the issue didn’t get resolved, then they didn’t pray enough, or the right way, or loud enough. If the problem got resolved then, of course, God, not the doctors, get the credit. Either way God comes out smelling like winner.

From the TV show “House” this quote sums it up – “If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.” Can I have an “Amen!”

Too low, too slow!

I’m going to put on my Flight Instructor hat for a few moments and talk about the Asiana crash at San Francisco Saturday. We don’t know EXACTLY what went wrong so any comments by me are speculation although I will let you know that I know a few things about landing an airplane, having taught many pilots over 15 years. What applies to small single engine airplanes also applies to large Boeing 777’s.

I saw a news report that bothered me because it quoted someone apparently from the FAA talking about “stabilized approaches” as being a problem. I’m not sure the news service got this right as the FAA has instructors such as myself teach and emphasize “stabilized  approaches.” What this means is that the pilot sets up the plane on final approach to fly towards the runway at a constant descent rate, at a constant airspeed and a constant power setting. This is what I did when I taught brand new pilots from the first lesson.

For example on a Cessna 152 I would set the power to 1500 RPM, the airspeed to 70 knots and get a descent rate of 500 FPM. What this meant was that as you flew towards the runway, you would see the plane descending constantly and the airspeed would not fluctuate.

It was apparent from the crash at SFO that the plane’s tail hit the end of the runway just as the pilot was apparently applying full power. By then it was too late. Why he came in so low and so slow we don’t know. That, I’m sure, will be looked at closely by the FAA and NTSB.

What is lost somewhat in all this, is that only 2 people died and although there were over a 180 people injured, many others survived without injury. Watching the few clips of the crash, I was amazed that the 777 stayed intact after hitting the runway so violently. I think we should commend Boeing for making such a tough airplane. Also we should praise the cabin crew for getting everyone out as quickly as they did. With all the hype about the miraculous nature of people surviving, remember the two things, the strength of the airplane and the training of the crew. That’s really what made this survivable.

Flying is still safe!

Freedom of and from religion

Ever since President Regan, the religious right has made a more and more of an impact on our lives. At first it was just '”those religious nuts” wanting some crazy thing but now it’s becoming more and more overt with more religious intrusion. It’s not out of the ordinary anymore for politicians to promote and proclaim their particular religious view on things. From abortion to contraception to Creation Science intruding into school science classes, the religious right is in many cases succeeding in moving the country to more of a theocracy than a democracy.

As an example of the in roads religion is making, Texas Governor Rick Perry recently signed a “Merry Christmas” law, which allows teachers and students in public schools to say Merry Christmas… something that was already perfectly legal.

At the signing, Perry added: “Religious freedom does not mean freedom from religion”. In other words, we are going to shove our religion onto you whether you like it or not. Perry doesn’t know that religious freedom really means freedom to practice your religion or not to practice ANY religion. Just because a majority of Americans claim Christianity does not mean that everyone else must kowtow to every little religious thing that Christians want everyone to do.

Another example is how Christians are wanting the plaques or stone monuments of the Ten Commandments put up at court houses claiming that we get our laws from them. They conveniently forget about the other 603 commandments in the Bible like how you are supposed to treat women who are menstruating.

Then in Mississippi there is the “Mississippi Student Religious Liberties Act of 2013” which just went into effect.

This law makes student-led, administration-supported proselytizing perfectly legal in the state’s public schools. The state’s House passed it on a 109-6 vote, while the Senate supported it 50-1 (the lone “Nay” vote was cast by the aptly-named Democrat Deborah Jeanne Dawkins). Republican Governor Phil Bryant signed it into law.

What does the law say? While much of it just reinforces laws that are already in place (e.g. Students can pray without punishment, Students can form after-school religious clubs), it also allows for Christians to push their faith onto other students in ways non-believers have fought against. Once again, Christianity is being shoved down your throat whether you want it or not.

Despite all this, the younger generation is becoming more and more “unreligious.” They see religion playing a lesser role in their lives. They see other issues that demand their attention, like the economy, climate change, income gap and health care. For example when the Catholic Church got their feathers ruffled about contraception being offered under Obama’s health care, it was pointed out that over 95% of Catholic women use contraceptives. Spout all you want from the pulpit, dear Bishop, your flock will do what it wants.

Meanwhile we all need to speak up against this attempt to make America “a Christian nation.” By the way, Happy Fourth of July America!

DOMA deep sixed.

It was somewhat surprising that Supreme Court struck down the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) much to the shock of those good Christian family groups. Considering how conservative the court is, it was somewhat encouraging that five justices saw DOMA as discriminatory and ruled it unconstitutional. Good for them.

Of course it didn’t take long for the far right loonies to come up with the “America going to hell in a hand basket” argument. With same sex marriages becoming more and more common, the flakies like Michelle Bachmann and Pat Robertson were warning that next we will let people marry animals and other assorted creatures like Texans….oooops.

Old “foot in his mouth” Pat Robertson spoke up right away. From crooksandliars.com -

Robertson later complained that what had been "called a an abomination in the Bible has been given the status of a constitutionally-protected class."

"Unfortunately it's been cast as a civil rights struggle, and once you say civil rights, you look back to Martin Luther King and the others and say we've got to stand for the oppressed," he shrugged. "So ladies and gentlemen, your liberties are in danger because read the Bible about Sodom and Gomorrah. That's where the term comes from, Sodom."

"Look what happened to Sodom. After a while, there wasn't any other way, and God did something pretty drastic."

Last year, Robertson told his viewers that homosexuality "is somehow related to demonic possession."

And Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars said quoting Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel -

“Today, the United States Supreme Court has lost its legitimacy as an arbiter of the Constitution and the rule of law. Today is the death of the Court’s legacy, because the decision in the Federal Defense of Marriage Act case defies logic and is a pure invention of a handful of Justices.”

Again? That’s the same thing they say after any ruling they disagree with. Whenever they disagree with a ruling, that ruling “delegitimizes” the court. Except, of course, it doesn’t. The Supreme Court gets some cases right and some cases wrong. That is inevitable.

The far right is upset at those “unelected activist judges” that have ruled the way they did, except when they rule to the liking of the evangelicals. Then they are OK.

The far right keeps harping on the sex aspect. Citing over and over again that the Bible says that gay sex is an “abomination”. To my mind marriage is not primarily about sex. Most people these days don’t wait for a marriage license to have sex. Marriage is, at the core, a social contract between two people. In this contract they will share property, earnings and debt. They speak for each other in end of life decisions as well as many, many other things. If they have sex fine. People don’t go to city hall after getting married and declare that they’ve had sex and therefore the marriage is now legit. If sex was the deciding factor in marriage then what about those folk, many older people, who get married and really don’t have sex? Is their marriage not legit?

The Bible thumpers seem to be hung up on sex all the time. My advise is to have some. Maybe it will calm them down. Get off and chill out!

Prayer works. Well……………

The photo at left is from “The Onion”, a satire web site. But it says what others are not saying, namely that prayer just doesn’t work.

I’ve always knew that praying is a waste of time. The recent tornadoes in Oklahoma are a perfect example. Right after the tornadoes, you heard people saying that “they’ll pray for the survivors.” What exactly are you expecting to have your prayers do for these folks? Maybe their home will suddenly reassemble to what it was before the tornado. Maybe a more effective thing to do would be to send money to help those who lost their home, or to volunteer your services in someway. As it is said, praying is something that looks like you are doing something but in fact you are doing nothing!

I’m amused whenever I see the faithful pray. Like Pat Robinson for example, who needs to close his eyes real tight when he prays. He must think that that increases the force field of the pray so that God picks it up easier. Or the folks who close their eyes and raise their hands when praying. Maybe they think that raising their hand changes the frequency to closely match God’s frequency.

All the time you hear that the Pope or other religious figures say that the faithful needs to pray more and harder. I agree. I would like to see Christians not protest at abortion clinics or funerals for veterans or be involved with the right wing agenda. I think they should just stay in their church or at home and pray their little hearts out. If prayer is so powerful, then it should do something. Right? Not holding my breath.

Republicans–what good are you?

I’ve been thinking over these past few years about all the good that the Republicans have done for our country. I’m having a hard time coming up with anything!

Seriously, what have the Republicans done to help our country since they’ve gained control of the House in Washington? Well, 37 or 38 or 39 times (I lost count) they’ve voted to repeal “Obamacare.” Each time they’ve taken this nonsense vote, they’ve wasted time and tax payer money but who cares when your whole purpose for being in Congress is to oppose anything that Obama wants or does.

Well I guess over at www.politicalirony.com, they were thinking the same thing. Here’s what they came up with.

“The Republican National Committee has a newly-redesigned website on which party leaders have highlighted the party’s accomplishments dating back 150 years. For the past 20 years, the page lists the following: a D.C. school voucher scheme (which didn’t work), invading Iraq (which didn’t turn out well), tax cuts for the wealthy (which isn’t exactly an “accomplishment”), invading Afghanistan (which Republicans didn’t handle well), welfare reform (which Clinton signed into law), and the Contract with America (which, again, isn’t an “accomplishment” in any meaningful sense of the word).

The Republican Party kept us safe, except for 9/11 (well, and Anthrax, the shoe bomber, etc.)

The Bush administration captured and brought to justice the top terrorists who threatened America, except for Osama bin Laden

No US cities were destroyed under the last Republican presidency, other than New Orleans

Bush has a perfect record on military invasions of other countries, except for Afghanistan and Iraq

Republicans protected our constitution, except for habeas corpus and the bill of rights.”

Gee guys, thanks a bunch.

A blast from the past.

The following  is something I wrote for my FaceBook page back in October of 2010. As a pilot and flight instructor, I’ve had many, many aviation experiences that not many people mighty ever have. This is what I wrote.

The fun of flying

Probably only pilots understand the fun of the following but I thought I'd share it with everyone. It's the reason flying is both fun and challenging.

This past Monday I flew up to Portsmouth NH to pick up my contact with the Army Corps of Engineers for aerial photos. We have a contract with the Army Corps to fly this guy whenever he needs to take aerial photos of things the Army Corps is involved with, like shore line project, illegal construction in wet lands, etc. This time we were to fly to Newburyport and Plum Island to photograph the beach reconstruction project they were involved with. The Army Corps was dredging the harbor entrance and taking the sand from that area and pumping up onto the beach to replenish the shore. Seems people with houses along the beach were seeing their (ours?) beach being eaten by storms. Gee, the ocean eats the beaches over time. Anyone tell them that that would happen?

Anyway, coming back to Portsmouth after we did the photos, I contacted the control tower on approach and was told to plan for a "land long" landing and plan to exit at a taxiway way, way down the runway. Understand that the runway at Portsmouth (formerly Pease AFB) is over two miles long. Small plane drivers like us like to land such that we don't have a long taxi back to where we need to be. The particular reason the tower wanted me to do this was that a KC135 tanker (think Boeing 707) was going to takeoff at the end of the runway AND a corporate jet was going to take off from the intersection of the first taxiway where I would normally exit the runway. Now "landing long" not usually something we teach pilots because we teach them to aim for the end of the runway. Landing long involves flying low over the runway and planning and adjusting things to make sure you land before the turnoff point but not too far away that causes you to take your sweet time leaving the runway. In this case I had a KC135 jet tanker and corporate jet burning fuel waiting for this little Cessna to do its thing.

So I did my best, dealing with a gusty crosswind and landed where I wanted to and exited the runway in fairly short order. I was disappointed that the tower didn't thank me for doing what I was told to do. But it was fun to buzz the runway that low knowing some expensive machinery was cooling their jets (so to speak) while I demonstrated superior flying skills.

Going to Portsmouth is always fun for me as I spend several years there in the 60's in the Air Force working on and watching B-47s takeoff and land. I never thought, some forty years later I would be flying a plane into Pease AFB, landing on the same runway where I watch countless B-47 takeoff and land. Funny how life takes twists and turns you never expect.

Revisionist history, GOP style

The other night, Lawrence O’Donnell, on MSNBC, did a segment on the right wing’s selective memory about terrorism in light of the Boston Marathon attack. Lawrence featured Tom Cotton, a freshman Republican Representative from Arkansas. Now before going into this, it should be noted that Tom Cotton, became a lawyer and in 2004 signed up for Officer Candidate School and requested the infantry.

As a second Lieutenant, he took advanced infantry training, went through paratrooper and Ranger school and was sent to Iraq as a platoon leader in the 101st Airborne. So I commend him for his service to our country and say thank you.

BUT it seems that his view of history is slightly skewed. In his remarks on the House floor he ripped into President Obama saying that under Obama we’ve had five jihadists attacks. He listed the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, the Arkansas recruiting office shooter and of course the Boston Marathon attack.

He also said the “from September 12, 2001, we did not have any attacks under Bush”, conveniently glossing over the worst terrorist attack in our history when 2977 people were killed. Idiots over at Fox News thump their collective chests extoling the fact that after 9/11, under Bush we had not attacks until Obama took over. I’ll take Obama’s record on terrorism over Bush’s any day. The GOP can’t seem to remember September 11, 2001.

First of all, look at the ones Cotton spoke about under Obama. The Fort Hood shooter was a lone gunman with, probably some mental issues but since he was a Muslim, therefore he’s a terrorist! The Arkansas shooter was also a lone gunman and of course he was a Muslim, therefore a terrorist. Ever wonder why Muslims are pissed at us since we invaded a country of theirs without any real good reason?

Moving on, the shoe bomber was stopped, the Times Square bomber was stopped and the underwear bomber was stopped. Nobody died! The latest attack was by two individuals who may have been Muslims and were pissed at the U.S.and really did a crude attack. Now they did kill people and the surviving brother will spent the rest of his life in prison if not executed. Do we need to now invade Chechnya?

Further more, Obama has an outstanding record in killing terrorists including Bin Laden, which Bush couldn’t get. Maybe the Middle East is mad at us by our use of drones but terrorists know that Obama will use what ever means to wipe them out.  And Al-Qaida is weaker now than it’s ever been thanks to Obama.

What really bothers me is the fact that the Republicans get their panties in a bunch when it comes to anything resembling a terrorist attack but forget about the 26 people, including 20 children, who were killed by a gunman in Newtown Connecticut, or the Aurora Colorado theater shooting, or the shooting in Tucson Arizona, that almost killed Gabby Gifford, or any of the other mass shootings. To my mind Adam Lanza was a terrorist along with the others that killed people. He may not have been a Muslim but to wantonly kill 20 children for no reason makes him a terrorist in my book. Why aren’t the Right Wing nuts getting upset about that? Sorry I forgot they are in bed with the NRA. GOP = Guns Over People

Debate about nothing?

On April 18, 2013, American Atheists’ Dave Silverman debated Christian apologist Dr. Frank Turek at the Broadmoor Baptist Church in Shreveport, Louisiana. The topic: “What Better Explains Reality? Theism or Atheism?” You can see the entire debate at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ and search to the April 21, 2013 entries.

The debate was good but I struck by Frank Turek’s speaking style which was fast paced and tossing out many, many expressions that, I suspect, went past the heads of the audience who, I’m guessing, were mostly Christians. Reminded me of a used car salesman’s ad on TV. Dave Silverman held his own and was deliberate and specific to the debate topic. I think he did a good job against a slick salesman. Who won? Watch the video and decide for yourself.

I want to focus on Turek’s use of “immaterial, timeless and spaceless” to describe his God. I’m guessing that many in the audience didn’t pick up on what that really meant. This was an example of how Turek tossed out things as a way of baffling the audience with his bullshit.

Now towards the end of Turek’s opening remarks, he had a slide that had the following –

“None of these can be explained by Atheism

CRIMES = Cosmos, Reason, Information, Morality, Evil, Science

All of these realities have an immaterial source or foundation. Therefore when Atheists cite anyone one of them to support Atheism, they are stealing from God in order to argue against Him (and stealing is a crime!)”

I found it interesting that Turek used the acronym CRIME to buttress his argument against Atheism. Framed this way, Atheism is seen by the audience as BAD. So right off the bat, Silverman was cast, not directly, but by inference as a criminal in some sense. I wished that Silverman would have addressed this head on.

Under the heading of Cosmos for example, Turek proclaimed that his God was immaterial, timeless and spaceless without offering any proof or further explanation. How does an immaterial (has no matter) timeless (no constrained by our concept of time) and spaceless (occupies no space) being be and how can this thing exist in the first place? Secondly, how does He, She, or It have the powers that Turek ascribes to it? And just how does Turek know this? But at the same time this thing that Turek talks about loves, hates, forgives and causes things to happen here on Earth. Pretty good for basically nothing thing.

Turek also spent a lot of time talking about how everything must have a cause. This is an old tired argument. I guess he has to bone up on the latest thinking by cosmologists, such as Lawrence Krauss, who says that nothing CAN create something all by itself. In fact nothingness is very unstable. So if Turek’s argument is that this universe could have ONLY happened by his immaterial, timeless and spaceless God, he doesn’t offer any explanation how that can be. Science doesn’t need a cause for the Universe. It just happened!

I guess his whole argument came down to there has to have been some cause to the universe and unless science can show something else, God did it! Ta Da! Sometimes these old tired arguments that Christians keep trotting out, are getting wearisome. But, hey, they really can’t come up with anything new. Think about it.

Gutless!

From John Liming who publishes American Liberal Times

“Something happened in The United States Senate yesterday that I thought I would never live to see – A piece of legislation that was reportedly supported by at least 90 percent of The American People was thrown in the crap can by a bunch of elected officials on Capitol Hill who were reported to be more worried about their own re-election than about the best interests of the people who put them into office in the first place.

Those who desperately wanted the government to “do something” in the wake of all the senseless gun violence that had claimed so many innocent lives over the past few years got their faces slapped, their hearts broken and their confidence in their government shaken because of what I suspect to be no less than the power of a great deal of money and some powerful lobby interests – and I think that is a crying shame, totally unjust and a horrible sign of where this country might be headed if some people don’t get their heads out of their asses.

Some who dwell in the perpetual darkness of contemporary American Radical Far Right Wing Ideology are said to be virtually dancing in the streets because they reportedly  think they have won some kind of victory over the will of the majority of sane and sensible Americans who had placed some hope in the people they had elected to represent their best interests and who then got their rear ends kicked good with that vote up on “The Hill” – the vote that in my opinion, sends a clear signal to every murdering gun-sucking swine out there, “It’s O.k., you can buy your weapons with total abandon now and no one will even ask questions.”

Yes, folks – the gun-tards fought hard on this one!  They  fought hard, they lied about the proposed legislation and they spent enough money to get enough gun owners and other assorted nuts riled up enough to scare the bejeebies out of a few of what I consider to be weak-kneed elected officials – and they got what looks to me like some kind of a victory – for the time being.  It is my personal opinion they probably should hold up on their rejoicing because their glee is premature.  I do not believe Americans will take this incursion into their right to live free of fear from maniacs with guns lying down. This battle is not yet over.

Do not be deceived, my friends – I never did think this fight was about Second Amendment Rights because from my understanding there was nothing in the proposed bill that would have denied any law-abiding citizen their right to own guns – as many guns as they wanted to own – this was never about that but that is what the gun-tards apparently tried to make it about and their message of legitimization of carnage somehow gained enough ears to lead to the defeat of  what many who have their heads screwed on straight consider to be the most common sense legislation to appear before congress in a long long time.

The sad thing about all this to is that there are actually some over on the far right who truly believe that this invitation to disaster was actually a display of legitimate “leadership” on their part.

If those who have expressed such sentiments are alluding to some idea that their “leadership” was commendable because it opens the floodgates to future potential Sandy Hooks, Newtowns and Columbines they might be correct to some limited degree.  I think that is where their so-called leadership will lead – to more victims of more senseless violence somewhere down the road – the only result that I can even imagine coming from a non-restrained proliferation and totally unregulated access to the means to end life by God only knows who.

In my view, this “victory” by the extreme right was not a victory for The Bill of Rights or The Constitution or The Second Amendment.  This “victory” was a victory for insanity – pure, plain and simple and I think The American People ought to use the elections of 2014 to set the record straight on where they stand.”

Amen!

Creationism doesn’t die! Damn it!

Over at the thecontributor.com is an excellent article by the Chief Editor of the blog, Tina Dupuy, In it she writes how she was brought up learning about evolution only to be told by her mother that dinosaurs and people existed at the same time. When asked why there for no dinosaurs alive today, her mother told her "they  couldn’t get on the Ark.” Tough luck dinosaurs.

She makes an excellent point by saying “The creation myth doesn’t harm children; creationism harms schools. Universal public education is there for the public good (a phrase Republicans replaced with the word “takers”). If they’re not teaching basic science then they’re not doing what we need them to do. The integrity of our public schools is what’s at risk.”

In this age where science is needed more than ever, we are hell bent to continue to promote myths over facts. Politicians are so gutless these days to allow Creationism and it’s alternate Intelligent Design to live on in schools. They are so afraid to upset those Christians that they are willing to sacrifice a whole generation to ancient stories, discredited by intelligent people.

Tina ends her piece with this- “In Louisiana, where their “academic freedom” bill was signed by the governor in 2008, private schools that now receives taxpayer voucher money are reported to tell their students the Loch Ness Monster (another mythical creature) is proof evolution never happened. The state is third worst in the nation for math and science.

In the Information Age we’re letting our schools erode.

And with some irony, devolve.”

It’s worth a read.

Obamacare will literally kill you!

Always good for a laugh, Michelle Backmann spouted out another gem recently. In the complete waste of time, the House GOP voted on another bill to repeal “Obamacare.” Michelle got on the floor and opened her mouth and came up with more hyperboles'. She said the Obamacare will literally kill you. How that happens the wing nut didn’t explain. Michelle should be aware of other things that DO literally kill you and maybe we should repeal them too.

Cars literally kill you every day. We should repeal them.

Airplanes kill people every day and we should repeal them.

Trains kill people, on the train or off the train. We need to repeal them.

Hospitals kill people. We should repeal them, except for the ones that cure people.

Water kills people, We should repeal water – wait global warming will take care of that.

Ships kill people, we should keep them in port and don’t go on them.

Guns literally kill people except the ones that use the gun to kill others to protect themselves. But we don’t talk about that.

Why the good people of Minnesota elected her to Congress is beyond me. I hope they are embarrassed.

Supernatural–really?

According to Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, 1962 edition, nature is defined as “the sum of all things in time and space; the entire universe.” If nature is the entire universe, how do we define supernatural? Back to Webster – supernatural is defined as “existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man.” Definition 2 of supernatural further states “attributed to hypothetical forces beyond nature; miraculous; divine.”

If nature is all that we are aware of or have experience of, how can we be aware of the existence of something like “supernatural”? What we only have knowledge of is the universe, the sum of it. What we only have experience with IS the universe. I contend we have no knowledge or experience with anything outside the universe. True we don’t know all there is in or about the universe but so far our experience and our exploration has shown that what we have discovered locally seems to be held throughout the known universe. So where or what is this thing called supernatural?

I contend that supernatural does not exist. If it did exist, then we would have knowledge of it and therefore it then becomes part of nature, i.e. the universe. In other words, supernatural is a nonsense word.

The question of the existence of a god is a good example. The claim is made that a god exists but so far there has been no material, definitive, testable proof of its existence. As long as there is no solid evidence of a gods’ existence, then the question of a god remains a hypothesis.

There has been much written about some of the characteristics of a god such as omniscience, omnipresent and omnipotent. But I prefer another characteristic, location. According to the Bible, a god created the world. Most of the story of the creation event concerns itself with the creation of the Earth. Somewhat implied is the creation of the universe, e.g. “let there be light!” Genesis 1:22. So following the line of logic that says if a god created the universe then that supposes that the universe did not exist at some time in the past and then this god brought it into existence. That further supposes that a god exists in some realm “outside” our known universe. Or does he/she/it?

Some have proposed that a god is the universe or that the sum total of all that is, is a god. I prefer to look at the question more simply. If a god exists, where does he/she/it exists? The answer is either in the universe (as part of it or it as a whole) or outside of the universe in some other realm. Either answer poses problems.

Consider the proposition that a god exists outside the known universe. If a god exists outside of the known universe then that presumes that “something” outside our universe exists. And it follows that a god resides in this “something”. That immediately begs the question of what is this ‘something” that a god resides in? If then there is something beyond our universe, could there not be other universes? Cosmology delves into the multiverse theory as something that is plausible but as of yet, no evidence exists to support the theory.

But assuming that a god exists outside our known universe, and that there is the possibility of other universes that he/she/it deals with, are we his favorite? Maybe we are just an experiment. Since the Bible states that god has always existed, maybe we are just one of many universes that he/she/it puts together just for the fun of it.

Now think of the other possibility; that god exists in our universe; that there is nothing outside of what we know or see of our universe. Since we have pretty good evidence that the laws of physics operate the same in the observable universe, it can be assumed that a god or any god must be subject to the same laws. But wait. Christians will maintain that god can do what he pleases, regardless of the laws of nature, for example Jesus stilling the waters by his words. That leads to two other lines of questions. If a god exists in the universe and is not bound by the laws of nature as we know them, is then god just a real smart entity who knows more than us? Or does god operates under his own rules, laws, etc. How can he operate in the universe and not run into conflict with the laws of nature as we know them? It’s like having a bonfire in a solid ice cave. The fire would eventually melt the ice and the melting ice would put out the fire unless there was a trick involved.

Dealing with “supernatural” is fraught with contradictions. I contend that since this question can not be reasonably resolved, atheism is the default premise for dealing with the universe.

President Barack Obama, part two

Well Barack Obama has been sworn in for a second term and now the GOP has more time to display it’s brand of idiocy. All the rants they had proclaiming that Obama would be a one term president are fading fast. Now they’ll chant to keep Obama ONLY a two term president!

But the nuts are still out there as exhibited recently by one letter to the editor in my local newspaper blaming atheists for all the evil in America.

“However, more needs to be said, and in explanation of all too much evil dirty work, I have to point to 50 years or more of the promotion of atheism. That needs to be recognized as a smoking gun, as truly God-fearing individuals do not resort to vicious slaughter for the sake of worldly fame or infamy. That so often has been the obvious motivation of such murderers, who did not believe in the existence of God and an afterlife in a place called Hell.
Thomas M. Stachura
Auburn”

“Truly God-fearing individuals do not resort to vicious slaughter” says Mr. Stachura. I guess he needs to check some history books to see what “God-fearing individuals” have done over the years. Salem witch trials, the Crusades, burning heretics at the stake, just to name a few.

Then another person responds by piling the blame on those atheists and even going so far as to tell them to get out of the country!

“It's time to stomp out atheists in America. The majority of Americans would love to see atheists kicked out of America. If you don't believe in God, then get out of this country.
The United States is based on having freedom of religion, speech, etc., which means you can believe in God any way you want (Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, etc.), but you must believe.

I don't recall freedom of religion meaning no religion. Our currency even says, "In God We Trust." So, to all the atheists in America: Get off of our country.

Atheists have caused the ruin of this great nation by taking prayer out of our schools and being able to practice what can only be called evil. I don't care if they have never committed a crime, atheists are the reason crime is rampant.
Alice Shannon”

By the way, Alice, freedom of religion does mean freedom from religion. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Paine, and others didn’t want religion to dictate how the government should conduct it’s affairs. And they went out of their way to make sure people who didn’t want to be involved in religion weren’t treated unfairly.

I also liked the comment about believing in God in any way you want but “you must believe.” Sounds a little like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Islamic countries. How would Alice like it there?

But what I liked was this post from “Bill in Portland Maine” in the blog Daily Kos to all Republicans. I couldn’t have said it better.

"Suck it.

To Rush Limbaugh, who said "I hope he fails" on inauguration day: Suck it. He didn't.

To the birthers, whose claims about Barack HUSSEIN Obama's "questionable" citizenship were nothing but racism cloaked in concern-trollery: Suck it. He's a two term Kenyan president now.

To Mitch McConnell, who said his #1 goal was to make Barack Obama "a one-term president": Suck it, turtleman. #44 is #44 for another 4.

To John Boehner, who as House minority leader yelled "Hell NO you can't!" to Obama's first-term agenda: Suck it. Hell YES he could!

To former South Carolina senator and tea party organizer Jim DeMint, who said the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would be "Obama's Waterloo": Suck it. It so wasn't.

To the tea party idiots who hoisted signs at their Obamacare protest rallies that read, "Bury Obamacare with Ted Kennedy": I'd rather bury your ideas with Reagan. Suck it, jerks.

To Mitt Romney, who ran the most classless and bullshit-dense campaign of any presidential candidate in my memory: Here's something you can scrawl on your Etch-A-Sketch: S-U-C-K-I-T.

To Dick Cheney, who said America would be less safe under Obama: sir, the attacks of 9/11/01---and there were four of them---happened on your watch. Obama killed bin Laden and there were no al Qaeda attacks on American soil. So suck it. Right after you take a remedial gun-safety course.

To all those ignorant fools who called Barack Obama a Muslim, a Kenyan and/or a socialist as if those are all inherently and self-evidently "bad" things: grow the fuck up. Right after you suck it.

To Sean Hannity, Karl Rove and Dick Morris: Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!!! Suck it.

To the Wall Street banksters, who….. who…..  hell, I can't even begin to write the words that describe your obscene, cold-hearted, destructive, greedy and soulless behavior over the past four years. Just suck it.

To all the governors and state legislatures that tried their damndest to rig election laws so they favored Romney over Obama: Suck it. All you did was ensure that voters were more committed than ever to making sure their votes were counted.

And to President Barack Hussein Obama, who withstood all the slime, slop and sleaze that the conservatives' political, financial and media catapults could hurl at him: Carry on. Congratulations. And enjoy your day.”

Can I get an amen?