International Blasphemy Day

Happy Internation Blasphemy Day, everyone. I bring you this poem from Cuttlefish. Check out his blog as well, it's a good one. The links at the end of this post.

The first amendment means, to me,
The right to play at blasphemy;
The right to say “There is no God”
Without the threat of firing squad.
To speak, or sing, or draw, or write
And not be paralyzed with fright.
To mock Jehovah if I wish;
To point and laugh at Jesus fish;
And though the image strikes me weird,
To pluck Mohammed’s silly beard.
To say such things as I may choose
Regardless of opposing views.

About the pow’r of Holy Writ
I proudly do not give a shit.

Cuttlefish's Blog

Aren't You Lucky

Fox News is, surprise, a source of lies.

I've been saying this for years, if you get your news from Fox, you're an ignorant fool. Fox doesn't report of reality for, as Stephen Colbert said, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." They report what their audience wants them to.

What I'm trying to say is this: Fuck Fox News.

Nationalism vs. Patriotism

I'm going to go over this quick. Nationalism is the belief that the country is always right. Many religious people, who believe America is God's chosen land are nationalists. They have no reason to disagree with God's whims. If America commits torture, that's okay because God wants America too.

Patriotism, on the other hand, are, in many cases, defenders of the ideals of a country. This word has been dragged down in America by that worthless piece of shit called the Patriot Act. That's always a problem. Make an evil agenda and give it a pretty name.

"How dare you oppose the Patriot Act? That's so unamerican!"

Ignorance, you know.

I saw a picture recently that basically said that Democrats oppose spending tax dollars on killed, via useless wars, and Republicans oppose spending tax dollars on healing, via universal health care.

Anyways, peace out.

Gay Marriage

So, again I've been reading comments. This time, it's on this post.

I suppose someone has to write this and it might as well be me. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter what I think or say or do....so I might as well just go for it.

I do not agree with gay marriage. Call me close minded, or a bigot, or whatever vile term you can come up with. It doesn't change the fact that I have a right to my opinion.

Let me start by saying that my closest friend and most loved sister is gay. I love her more than I love anyone else on the planet. I also love her partner. I don't think they should marry.

Marriage really should be between a man and a woman, as God ordained.

I do believe that they should immediately be able to have a legal relationship if that is what they choose to do. I think they should be able to be each other's legal spouses.

But the church (at least any church I have every been to) follows the bible or the Koran or the teachings of Budda. There is no reference to a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman.

Call me crazy (or whatever else you like).

This is the saddest case of ignorance I know of. The person knows what is right and yet, because their Sky Daddy says otherwise (or, more accurately, a book, which vaguely alludes to the subject, which was written by people who say they spoke to said sky daddy), they refuse to accept what they know is true.

It's nothing short of sad. I want to go up to people like this and give them a hug then calmly explain to them that it's okay, they'll die and become worm food. There is no life after this life and that's what makes this life so important. You have to live every day to the fullest because there is no reward after it. Our morals are better then that of a fictional creator who a bunch of ancient people created. You don't have to ignore your morals to please him. There is no him. Instead, please yourself, your friends, and your family. Be good because it's good to be good. You don't need any reason besides that.

It's so frustrating that there is so many people like this person out there. People that you know are good and caring who, to avoid fear of their own mortality, act evil and controlling in an attempt to appease a guy they have never met.

I wish there was a way to help them open their eyes and, instead of working for their invisible sky daddy, would work to make both current and future humans lives better.

Who said an atheist doesn't have hope? I have hope for religion to die.

Stupid comments

So, I ran across this little article. It's a bit long, so you'll have to click it to read it. Summarized, it equates the belief in a god to the belief that one owns a dog. Basically, an atheist sees no proof that he owns a dog and thus believes he doesn't. A theist on the other hand sees no proof that he owns a dog but assures you he does, stating it is a faith based thing.

Most theists, who don't outright declare the facts science have uncovered are false, believe in the god of the gaps. The god who exists in places science hasn't yet been filled in.

Anyways, why I'm talking about this article is because of the comments on this article. I will reply to each in turn.

Eventually humans might accumulate enough brainpower to comprehend the vast universe. In the meantime anybody stating ANYTHING conclusive about the issue is just being true to his ignorant nature. The doubters still stand a chance, the athiests are as lost as the dogmatics.

Actually, most atheists don't conclusively claim that there is no god. Most just simply stand on the fact that since there is no proof of a god, it doesn't make sense to believe in one and it is safe to assume there isn't one. I'm sure most theists follow this thought process when it comes to things such as unicorns, bigfoot, fairies, and Santa.

That's cute, but just like most current atheist writings today, you are narrowly defining the beliefs of others for your own purposes. The fact that humans exist and can have a dialog about that existence is sufficient for theories of creation. Now whether you call that process of creation a god and give it a name and personality or just refer to it as physics and biology makes little difference; you still understand that we are creations.

Ah, the good old 'God could be anything' argument. In realization that reality contradicts a sky daddy who created everything, theists sometimes try to blur on observer's understanding of what they actually believe. If you're going to argue for what you believe, don't try to hide what you believe. That's nothing short of silly.

'Process of creation' is a cute term which can be applied to nearly everything. Even evolution could be called a 'process of creation' since it is the way we reached our current existence. This commenter is attempting to sidestep the argument of whether or not there is a creator or not but I've caught his little game.

If you believe there is a deity who created us, you are a creationist. If you don't, you're not. Muddling terms like that is just trying to confuse the issue instead of facing the facts.

Why does the folks at wordpress.com assume there is no dog? The only way there is no evidence whatsoever is if there really is no dog. But no atheist has ever proven the non existence of God (and to be fair, no deist has proven his existence either). But both sides have strong arguments. This article does not explain different terms. Is states that atheism is true if we assume there is no God. So what is the point?

Al: "I have a dog in this house, you just can't see him."
Ben: "Have you ever seen him?"
Al: "No"
Ben: "Have you ever seen proof of him?"
Al: "No, but I have faith he exists."
Ben: "I think I'll conclude that it is highly unlikely that you own a dog."

So, who has a better argument, Al or Ben?

It's called the burden of proof. He who states the claim is the one who has to prove it. In the same way that Al has to prove he has a dog and Ben doesn't have to prove Al doesn't have a dog, a theist has to prove there is a god and an atheist doesn't have to prove there isn't one.

So because you search all of your house and don't see a dog there, you don't own a dog. Fair enough, find me an atheist who has searched all of existence and hasn't found a god and I'll accept that. A better way to say this is to show someone a picture of a random person's mailbox and then ask them if they own a dog. If you have an opinion it has no grounding whatsoever.

Again, an issue of burden of proof. An atheist doesn't have to search all of existence in search of a god. An atheist doesn't have to prove nonexistence of something a theist asserts. The theist is the one who has to prove there is a god.

If someone came up to you stating they're the reincarnated form of Hitler which of the follow would you do:

1. Give him rigorous psychiatric tests to prove he isn't Hitler
2. Ask for proof that he is Hitler and when he doesn't have proof, tell him you don't believe his claim.

As for the other part, if I was shown a mailbox, and told the person who owns that mailbox also owns a dog, I'd shrug and say okay. If you said I should live my life worshiping that dog, I'd request if I could see a picture of the dog. If you said you didn't have a picture of the dog nor any proof the dog exists, I'd laugh at you and walk away.

That's all I have to present to you. As you can see, I hate stupid commenters. I made this post not to call them out, since that wouldn't make a difference, but instead to make an example of them. That's just how I roll.

Glenn Beck

The pulling of advertisers from Glenn Beck is fucking awesome. Wal-mart, Best Buy, Travelocity, Geico, Men's Wearhouse, P&G, Progressive Insurance, Radioshack, State Farm Insurance, and a couple others have all pulled advertising.

Why? Good old Glenny thought it was acceptable to call Obama a racist who hates white people. Surprisingly, slandering our president with baseless lies can piss people off.

Read more on it here