Ready Made

Resurrection

2011-08-15T00:22:00.000-05:00

Time to drag this thing out of mothballs. I'll be trying to update this fairly regularly in the future, as I'm realizing that I have a lot to say again.

Tragedy

2009-03-11T11:21:00.005-05:00

I just read a tragic story about an atheist father and mother after their infant son died 2 days after he was born. The father is struggling to figure out how to tell his family and friends that their assurances that they are praying for him, their words about God's Plan and their surety that the family will be reunited again in the afterlife are not only useless, but insulting and harmful to him, his wife and their process of grief. He doesn't agree, he doesn't believe in a divine plan, he expects to never meet his son again and expressing such things to him merely show that they don't understand his beliefs, or they don't care to.

While someone's prayers and assurances of divine oversight are surely heartfelt, it is insensitive to offer them to someone you know doesn't agree. And it is downright rude and disrespectful to continue to do so if they have expressed their desire not to hear unhelpful things. Kindness and frustration at seeing someone suffer prompts us to offer what little we can, but it is arrogant to continue to offer another person the kinds of condolences that would help you but don't mean anything to them. Don't hesistate to offer your expressions if you know someone shares your beliefs, but how hard is it to leave out your particular beliefs if you know they don't share your beliefs or you're unsure. We all have statements of condolence or sorrow at our disposal, simple things to say you care, that you'll miss the person who is gone or that you hope their pain and loss fades to fond memories.

When someone dies, we should desire to help those hurt most by the loss. If you care for the grieving, it is your responsibility as a friend and understanding person to help them in the way that is most helpful to them, not to you. And the best way to help someone, regardless of their religious beliefs, is not to offer platitudes or expressions of sorrow, either religious or secular. The way you help someone move on and recover from grief and loss is by being exactly what you were before the tragedy - family, a friend, a shoulder to cry on, a person to have a beer with, whatever. Help them rediscover the joy where your lives intersect, and the pain will fade all the quicker for your effort. Being something to them is far better than saying something to them.

Lastly, an inspiring thought on what it is to be alive, from Unweaving The Rainbow by Richard Dawkins.

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.

Mortality

2008-12-22T10:07:00.002-06:00

I like the idea that I'll live forever (or at least a very much longer time than humans do now), that medical advancements will eliminate aging and disease within my lifetime.

But I think the only way to live life effectively will be to always life such that if I died in the next moment, my life would still have had meaning and substance.

"You've given your whole life to be where you are now. Was it worth it?" (Unknown)

I think, at this point, I'd say yes. But I never forget John Stuart Mill on happiness: "Ask yourself whether you are happy, and you cease to be so." Better to fix yourself on some other goal, thus happiness will be an attribute you spontaneously gain upon the way.

God: Less Effective Than $4 Worth of Antibiotics

2008-12-12T09:09:00.001-06:00

Title says it all.

Read this and rage with me.

Society's Fundamental Unit

2008-12-11T12:44:00.002-06:00

(Edit: This thing rambles to some extent, but it's a blog, not a thesis, so fuck it)

I've spent the last couple of days listening and analysing the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the case Varnum v. Brien, which is the case in which the District Court in Iowa declared the law that defines marriage as only valid between a man and a woman is unconstitutional under the Iowa Constitution. Now, there's tons to wade through here, but I won't go into the whole thing. Suffice it to say, I think defense counsel got up and argued against himself, alternately making the case that marriage is and also is not a fundamental right, and then was followed by a superb argument by plaitiffs' counsel. Bad day for homophobes in Iowa. But something the defense brought up consistently, and is often used in argument by opponents of gay marriage equality, and I want to take a bit of time to examine this proposition:

The family is the fundamental unit of society.

This is the assertion, that our entire society is built upon the family, and that without the family, society crumbles. I'm sorry, but no, I think this is obviously incorrect, in the context of the rule of law.

Here in the United States, we were founded on clear principles. They begin in the Declaration of Independence and are further championed through the United States Constitution and all of its amendments. One thing that is fundamentally clear is that society is not based on families. Our society and culture, the rules we live by, the behaviors we tolerate, the punishments we assay and every other aspect of what defines our culture is based on the individual, not the family. The essence of every single article in the Constitution, particularly in the Bill of Rights, speaks to the rights of each individual person. Never, in any of these documents, is the rule of law or basis of society dependent, in any way, upon the rights of families. In no way does a family have more rights than an individual, save where the cumulative rights of multiple people may be summed in any analysis. A family cannot squelch the free speech rights of a member upon reaching the age of majority, nor can the family overrun her right to vote if she is otherwise qualified.

The assertion that the family is the fundamental unit of society is misleading, and brings irrelevancies into the argument. It is easy to nod and agree when somebody states that the family is the fundamental unit of society, because the majority of us (a shrinking majority) were, in fact, raised under the auspices of married parents and our siblings. This family provided our closest companions and most important formative figures, so obviously in the raising of a child depends greatly upon the functioning of this family unit. It is simple to take this a step further and say that the family is this fundamental unit because it is the unit that has the greatest impact upon our upbringing.

But suddenly, we are talking about who different things, one of which is irrelevant in questions of fundamental rights of humans, of Americans. The situation in which the majority of us were raised is a fact that is unrelated to what rights we have as individuals, both within that family and in the context of society at large. One does not gain or lose rights based on whether he or she was raised by a stereotypical nuclear family, a single mother or in a multi-generational household. One does not gain or lose rights based on the functioning of that family unit. The family itself does not, in any case, have more or even different rights than any individual. I would go so far as to say that a family has no fundamental, inalienable rights at all, save for the collective rights of the individuals it is comprised of.

The individual has all the rights under the highest law of the United States, and while families may gain some rights under laws written, they may never come at the expense of the fundamental rights of the individuals within those families, except perhaps in the case of those who willingly choose to surrender some rights in order to enter marriage. But wives do not surrender their right to privacy - their husbands cannot spy on them. Husbands do not surrender their rights to own and maintain firearms - the wife cannot unilaterally remove them. Disputes along these lines may lead to voluntary surrender, or the dissolution of the marriage itself, but at no point are rights taken away. Even those that are voluntarily surrendered are instantly restored upon the divorce, which is possible through unilateral action by a single party within the marriage. When an individual's fundamental right is reasserted, it takes precedence over all other situational and granted rights; you may have to give up those rights granted under the law, but they never prevent you from going back.

Under the auspices of the rule of law, the family is most certainly not the basic unit of society, the individual is. Our principles of rights are based on the notion that fundamental rights are inherent, not granted, and the government serves only to protect and guarantee them, not determine who does or does not get them. Fundamental rights are inherent to all humans, and here in the United States we explicitly name and protect those rights we, at any given time, agree are fundamental rights. At no point do those rights become greater or lesser due to any family situation.

So perhaps part of this is a semantic distinction, as families are, and have historically been, the fundamental units in which the majority of children are raised into members of society. But these families are not the fundamental unit under the law - that distinction lies with persons. By protecting the rights of every person, we protect the rights of all groups. If any groups are protected over persons, then individual liberties can be cast aside. If families are the fundamental unit, then that means persons who are not in families lack equal protection of their own rights, which is explicitly forbidden by constitutional law in the United States. Despite any function any families provide to society, any benefit, these attributes of families never override the core rights of the individuals that comprise them.

Now, whether the state has an interest in promoting "healthy" families is a completely different question, and also brings a whole mess of questions about what constitutes a healthy family. But the core of our law rests on the foundational principle that rights lie with individuals, and it does not matter what groups they may or may not be a part of, their fundamental rights do not change. No matter what inherent rights a person ever voluntarily gives up in order to enter into marriage, to gain someone's trust or for the furtherance of any other pursuit, those rights are never permanently gone save through the most egregious violations of societal behavior standards. Marriage entails nothing of the sort, so it never, at any point, supersedes the rights of the individual.

Thus the fundamental unit of society, when engaged in a discussion about our inherent rights, is the individual, not the family.

The Resurrection of Neanderthal Man

2008-11-25T08:05:00.004-06:00

To get started, an article from Slate (a site that, I must admit, I often re-underestimate, but nevertheless consistently makes me think): http://www.slate.com/id/2205310/

Alright, so the article leaves a big question on the table, regarding the cloning of homo neanderthalensis from the reconstructed genetic code of frozen and other individual neanderthals. If this sounds like Jurassic Park, then you are right on track, because that quite literally the process. It's incredibly unlikely that the ressurrection of a dinosaur species ever happens, simply because it's incredibly unlikely than any DNA survives for 65,000,000 years (or more, in most cases) without almost complete degradation. Wooly mammoths and neanderthals, by contrast, are only a few tens of thousands of years old and there are many specimens that have been encased in ice since the moment of their deaths. Scientists estimate that we have enough genetic material to reconstruct 70% of the wooly mammoth genome, and I haven't seen an estimate for the neanderthal in terms of completion, but I know there is a large, active project seeking to sequence the neanderthal genome in the same way we've mapped the human, chimpanzee and other genomes.

I'll leave wooly mammoths for now, except to echo my brother's first comment about the possibility of their resurrection: "I want to ride one!"

Neanderthal Man, however, is a very interesting species, though. It is the closest relative we humans have. If we share 98% of our genetic code with chimps, we can expect somewhere around 99% to be common with neanderthals. But the genetic similarities are, in an odd way, abstract. Despite the actual code and measurable differences, a difference in base pair sequences isn't something we can conceptualize easily. What is striking about Neanderthal Man is how much like us he is. He had fire. He used tools. He used weapons. He hunted in coordinated groups. He did clever things like stampeding packs of animals off cliffs. He wore animal skins as clothing. Neanderthal Man did many of the things we now think of as "unique" to humans. He helped us (and an ending ice age) drive the wooly mammoth extinct.

And then we made him extinct.

That's an interesting part of this whole debate that I find fascinating. We directly competed with the neanderthals in Europe for thousands of years; tens of thousands. And we won. We survived better, thrived and took all the food. We probably had better weapons (even if neanderthals probably had the advantage in brute strength). And, directly or indirectly, we killed them all. Obviously this was long before modern science or even anything approaching a systematic approach to ethics, but there is precious little difference between us killing all the neanderthals and white settlers killing Native Americans. Ok, that's not true, the slaughter of the native tribes of the Americas was decidedly more malevolent. In the end, however, Native Americans did survive and are just as human as we are. Neanderthals all died, many of them because of us.

This gets trickier when you look at what neanderthals are, and how we should view their species. There's a debate over whether neanderthals are a different species or a subspecies. I highly, highly doubt - as the Slate author points out - that any religious groups will glom onto neanderthals as "real" humans, so they won't have a bit of a problem with genetic experimentation on neanderthals if we resurrect the genome. As long as we don't use human stem cells as the basic building blocks, of course.

The prospect of resurrecting Neanderthal Man (or woman, obviously, I'm simply using an established nomenclature for those who don't read much anthropology) brings all these decidedly odd ethical questions to the fore. Are they human? Should they be given the same rights as humans? Can we just keep them in the lab like so many mice?

Do we have an obligation to bring them back since we are a major cause of their demise?

In my opinion, we should bring back the neanderthals if we can. There are so many questions that could be answered, questions not only about neanderthals themselves, but about our own evolution as well. Their brains were bigger than ours. This does not mean they were more intelligent, massive animals such as whales have larger physical brains but lack human intelligence. But neanderthal man probably had a similar neocortex, which is the key to many of our higher functions. Did they speak? Could they read? Were they intelligent enough to be able to assimilate into human culture if they were raised like a human child? Did they really look that different?

Whatever we learn, neanderthals look eerily similar to humans in light of the fact that we consider them a different species. To a different race, we would probably be indistinguishable, much as most humans wouldn't see much difference between chimpanzees and bonobos. The first neanderthals created obviously could not be "released" upon the world; that would almost certainly be disastrous. But they should be protected, absolutely. And my suspicion is that, exposed to human culture, they would be able to ask for their rights. Should that happen, I can see no reason not to grant those rights, although that is doubtless an incredible political shitstorm. Neanderthals are likely to be so humanlike it really freaks us out as a species, and challenges us in more fundamental ways than any other scientific discover. In fact, I think the only thing that could fuck up our collective assumptions about ourselves more is the discovery of life on another planet. But bringing a species back from extinction?

I think the greatest benefit to us as the human species would be the humbling it would bring. We think of ourselves as so special. Maybe I expect too much of the neanderthal's mental capabilities, but from what we've seen from species as distant as the chimp and bonobo leads me to the initial expection that neanderthals will be able to, at least, vocally communicate in modern human language; they have virtually identical "voice boxes." They might be able to read; though we know little about their eyes physically, their eyesight is probably even better than ours since they were much more carnivorous than our ancestors, necessitating sharp eyesight for hunting. Many other aspects of ourselves we think of as so unique and extraordinary would be shown to be just another step in a long line of evolutionary development. Maybe there is something especially great about us and our brains that make us beyond the reach of even the closest relative we have ever had...

But, to be completely honest...I would not be surprised to see a neanderthal, a "cave man" or "cave woman," a non-human, show all the traits and abilities we would attribute to the average human being. They might be more or less intelligent on average; we really have no idea.

Wow, this has been long, but suddenly I'm overcome by the possibility that neanderthals were smarter than we are. That their genetic makeup leads to overall higher cognitive capacities. That sounds odd to us, since we survived, but it wouldn't be the first time a more "intelligent" species was outcompeted by a "dumber" species, causing the first to go extinct. I'm even going to now repudiate statements I made earlier in this post without going back to delete them, because it shows my thought process in this: maybe we didn't have better tools and weapons. Their advantage in strength was probably still there, but they were carnivores and we have been omnivores. They were more reliant on hunted food, and predators are, in general, more intelligent than their prey. Homo sapiens was a hunter as well, so we can't know for sure at this point. But what if homo neanderthalensis was smarter than us but much more dependent on a meat-based diet, whereas we were more flexible omnivores? What we consider the beginning of modern human society and culture did not begin to develop until after we began to practice agriculture, and this development of larger societal groups, the specialization and division of labor it enables is what unlocked the learning capacity of the modern human. What if neanderthals were, genetically, better equipped for this development, but the kickoff never came? Homo sapiens lived in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle for millenia upon millenia before groups in the middle east figured out this growing crops thing. What if neanderthals simply died out before they got that chance?

What if neanderthals were genetically equipped for higher general competence in what we consider uniquely human mental attributes?

What if they really were smarter, all they needed was the foundation of a larger, agricultural society, but they died off first? If they were too dependent on eating other animals to survive the changing conditions at the end of the last Ice Age, and it was merely that homo sapiens was better able to digest and derive nutrition from the barest scraps of plants? What if neanderthals just died before they got their chance to found society.

What if homo neanderthalensis is a better "human" than homo sapiens?

The Extension of Rights

2008-11-07T10:49:00.003-06:00

Barack Obama, as President-Elect, has already directed the creation of http://www.change.gov/, the vision of his upcoming administration. One particular feature of the site that caught my eye was a request for ideas to change this nation. So I will oblige them by submitting my vision. The text of the submission is as follows:

I find myself in a tough position as an American, and I hope that the message of unity and dignity presented by President-Elect Obama will be the beginning of a fundamental change to that position.

What I mean by a "tough" position is this. First, and foremost, I am committed to the principles of the United States Constitution, those principles which have been the bedrock for the development of the strongest, richest and most free country on this planet. The basis for the separation of the 13 original colonies from Great Britain in the Declaration of Independence, the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" joins with the Preamble to the Constitution, that we have a "government of the People, by the People and for the People," to create a foundation for freedom and liberty that is unmatched in world history to date. These documents forged a new, unique nation that has since grown in a never-ending quest to improve itself, to create an ever more perfect union and, in the process, set us down a path to the greatness and strength we now enjoy.

However, what makes the greatness of this nation difficult for me is the strong conviction that these were not American rights set down in our seminal documents. They are human rights. The only part of these principles that is special to America is that we, as a people, have enacted them, fought for them and have at times struggled to live them. We, as a nation, are due special historical status only in our realization that freedom is not free, and that our predecessors have fought and died to secure these essential human rights for the citizens of the United States. They are not special American rights, they are inherent human rights that we refuse to deny any of our citizens.

To rectify this, I hope Barack Obama, Joe Biden, the Congress, the Several States and the People can come together to extend the security and guarantee of these rights to all Citizens of Earth. We are a nation unmatched in history in influence, power and ability to shape world events, to affect the lives of every human being who lives, and it is incumbent upon us that we use this power to leave not only the United States a better place than we found it, but the entire world. We must leave the world, collectively, a more peaceful, secure place and work every moment to take the basic rights we hold as non-negotiable for ourselves and secure them for every human being on the face of the Earth.

We must lead by bringing everyone up to our level, not sinking down to those we hold untenable the treatment of each other within this nation. We must affect change by being change. We must strive to live up to our own ideals in every action we take, everywhere in the world.

To that end, I believe the Obama Administration should and I ask it to take the position that any person, anywhere in the world, when under the influence, control, or military occupation of the United States or in any way subject to our discretion, will be granted the same rights, privileges and protections as a natural-born citizen of the United States. From Due Process of Law to Freedom of Speech, we must extend these basic liberties, universally, where we are able. Undoubtedly, we will incur cost to ourselves to provide these rights to those who do not contribute to their maintenance within the United States, but we, as a global leader, as an affluent and privileged society and as a people of principle, must be willing to shoulder the burden of extending the ideals that have raised us so high. To do less is to fail to live up to our own ideals.

After the initial support of the Obama Administration, this principle should be extended into United States law and, ultimately, written into the United States Constitution, to explicitly and unambiguously state our willingness to take up this obligation. To show the world that we will ever devote ourselves not to American prosperity and supremacy, but to human rights, human liberty and human freedom. There is no inherent difference between an American and any other person on this planet; it is only a favorable turn of historical events that led us to live here, to be lifted out of the despotism that has reigned over the world, and still reigns over the majority of the world's population. A true leader does not stand above the rest, secure in its place and only trying to ascend to a yet higher position. Rather, the great leader reaches back, extends a steadfast hand in aid, bringing all else along as it continues the slow climb to the ever-unreachable goal of a more perfect Earth.

Despite the obvious presence of obstacles and details, this should be the ideal: to treat all humans as if they were United States Citizens. To extend ourselves, our collective resources and will, not as world police or as enforcer of our opinions, but as a secure society willing to exert itself to secure for other societies, for all individuals, those rights we ourselves consider essential and inalienable.

This, I believe, is our true path, if we really believe in these principles we espouse. If we are truly great, if we are truly the world's first step towards peace and unity, then there can be no other path for us.

2008-09-24T08:59:00.003-05:00

Major news upcoming, but I'm not going to spoil the surprise. Everybody will know October 6th if you haven't heard through a pretty exclusive group. I will attempt to have an editorial published in The Des Moines Register that day or shortly thereafter, along with an effort to get myself invited onto a local radio talk show to talk about the situation. It should be great.

In other news, I've had some interactions with some believers recently. Serious believers; strong believers. Some of these interactions were direct, others were a bit roundabout. I find myself being more charitable regarding challenging their beliefs than I might have thought previously. In the indirect case, I find myself willing to overlook what will likely be a source of conflict in the interest of current possibilities. It's intriguing to me; there still sits an absolute conviction and an unwillingness to compromise certain core (un)beliefs, but that state is softened at the moment.

I suppose maybe I'm just more polite than I gave myself credit for, and also far too easily subverted by a pair of pretty eyes.

In any case, I met with two writers from Veritas Magazine (www.veritasmag.com), which is an online Christian magazine for twentysomethings. It strikes me as an ultraConservative brand of Christianity; at least one of the gentlemen was a Creationist of some sort. He tried to use the classic fallacy of the eye being fantastically more complicated than eyeglasses or a watch, and how that implied there must be something that created it, because complex things don't simply arise out of nothing. I didn't address it very well in retrospect; I merely briefly explained that Darwin had addressed the evolution of the eye in On The Origin of Species itself and that it was very easily explained through evolutionary processes. I went on to give a brief description of the transition from a single, simply light-sensing cell (is it day or night?) in an organism to a patch of cells to a pinhole camera to the modern eye. I don't think I approached it right, though...in retrospect I think I should have instead focused on the fact that we see many different types and orientations of eyes in the world...why do insects and squids and mammals have different eye structures when they do the same thing? Well, now that I think about it, that wouldn't have been much more effective (that is to say, not effective at all).

I've gotten ahead of myself here. That discussion was later, after the interview portion was over. There were four of us present; it was a light night. They asked what we were about, where we got our moral grounding and how we looked at the world. Everyone contributed, and it went well, I think. I suppose we'll have to see how the article turns out. In any case, after the interview was over, we simply had a fairly long discussion about the differences in how we see the world. Nobody convinced anyone else, but I'm hoping we broke down some stereotypes and assumptions. And I hope that comes across in the article. But I suppose we won't know that until the article is published.

AFA: The Hate Rolls On

2008-09-03T13:18:00.003-05:00

The American Family Association is going after McDonald's, organizing a boycott against the fast food company that had the audacity to send employees to a seminar on gay rights in order to align the company's values and policies to protect the rights of members of the GLBT community among its employees:

In January, McDonald’s paid for travel and accommodations for 56 employees to attend the “Pioneer Summit” in San Diego. The purpose of the meeting was to develop a plan to promote the gay agenda within the company. Those attending were thrilled that McDonald’s showed such support for their agenda.
“It was truly inspiring to see McDonald’s Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgender members come together to share heartfelt, personal stories about their journeys, challenges and personal reflections. Better understanding these journeys … will help us better grow our people in the restaurants and across the company,” said Brian Unger, senior vice president.

AFA has asked McDonald’s to remain neutral in the culture battle – to neither oppose nor support the gay agenda. McDonald’s has refused, choosing to support those groups and individuals promoting the gay agenda — including homosexual marriage. A McDonald’s official (Bill Whitman) went so far as to say that those who oppose the gay agenda are motivated by hate.

This was so stupid I couldn't resist...I sent the AFA a reply message. I know it won't do any good, but maybe I'll piss someone off. My message was as follows:

It is really too bad that you people waste time and resources to oppose the freedom of expression and life that McDonalds and many other organizations, in line with our Constitutional rights, work to support and protect. Mr. Whitman is correct to say that opposition to the "gay agenda" is motivated by hate. Except I would add fear, misunderstanding, ignorance and bigotry. There is no gay "agenda" other than to go about life without the interference, hatred and discrimination foisted upon them by organizations and people like the AFA, for the audacity of engaging in consensual acts in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Your opposition to this is an abomination, and a blight upon the freedom this nation was founded to protect and uphold.

I can only hope that your members eventually tire of your endless crusades of bigotry and hatred, and decide to let other Americans live as fits each individual, based on personal choice. Your opposition is based not on any infringement of your personal liberties, but rather because it offends your sensibilities. Well, good people, the offense of your Stone Age morality is not cause enough to restrict the free exercise of the will of others. It is not your place to tell anyone how to live, nor force them to live by your ancient, debunked and spurious rules.

"The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. (...) Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill

I will most assuredly not be contributing to your organization of bigotry, but will actively be engaged, financially and otherwise, in opposing your hideous campaigns.

I think that pretty much says it all. Now I'm going to go send an email to McDonalds in support of their actions, and inform them that I will be eating at McDonalds in explicit counter to this idiotic boycott.

Hallmark!

2008-08-26T14:18:00.003-05:00

What's their slogan? When you care enough to give the best? Or something like that. I don't remember and I don't really much care. Well, I never did before. However, Hallmark now has my explicit support as an occasional card-purchasing consumer. I never cared before, now I'll do an imitation of those stupid old commercials where the guy would give the girl a card, she'd distract him and look at the back to see if it was Hallmark, which was more important than what it said, apparently. Except for me, I'll be sure to buy Hallmark cards from now on. I should probably get to the reason for that.

Simply, Hallmark has begun producing marriage cards for homosexual couples. I'm rather surprised, to be honest...I have some friends who have worked there in the past and I always got a pretty strong Christiany vibe from them. It's always been a private corporation, so that's fine. But now they've firmly entered the political sphere by explicitly supporting gay marriage. Ok, ok, by trying to make money off gay marriage. Good for them. The right to be exploited by the marketing geniuses in this country is a major rite of passage for all minority groups in the US of A.

This development made the fundies really happy. Most significantly, the American Family Association (what a nebulous and misleading name for a hate-fueled, fear-mongering, bigoted organization that exploits stupidity, ignorance and rash judgments) has begun a campaign against Hallmark, soliciting its members and anybody else to send emails to the corporate heads at Hallmark as well as to lobby their local outlets in opposition to gay marriage cards. They set up a website to make it easy for the fundies to send an email to the appropriate parties (seriously, how hard is it to just toss out a few emails? Hell, if I were going to start a campaign like that, I'd toss the emails out on the open web so the spambots got them, too. A nuisance campaign is a nuisance campaign). So all the skylord-fearing fundies, I'm sure, sent in their invective bullshit and Hallmark has a nice collection of love-filled missives. Right. Oh, and they sent out an action alert to recruit more. I know this because I'm on their mailing list. Grumble.

This brings me to the fun part: I love the internet. Digg and Reddit and Fark and who knows how many other sites got ahold of this campaign and launched a counter-offensive: use the AFA's own website and resources to send letters of support to Hallmark. I won't link it all here, but the related discussion threads were hilarious. I took the opportunity to send off a letter of support myself, which resulted in at least 2 undeliverable email returns (more might have filtered into the spam folder later), so congratulations to the AFA for failing even at automated hate mongering. Signing up like that had the unfortunate side-effect of getting me on the aforementioned mailing list...but oh, well. At least I'll have a heads up on their future campaigns of idiocy.

In any case, the end result is that Hallmark has explicitly and publicly remained firm in their decision to make gay marriage cards, so good for them. I'll now be explicitly buying Hallmark cards if I need one in support of their decision. That and American Greetings censored and caused the removal of Penny Arcade's awesome Strawberry Shortcake comic, those bastards. Basically, it means I'm going to pay attention now, instead of grabbing whichever card looks like it doesn't suck.

Oh, and the next of my college buddies or brothers to get married is totally getting a gay marriage card from me. Might be insensitive, might be insulting to somebody, but it's funny, which is the important bit.

Camp Quest

2008-08-05T23:26:00.004-05:00

It's the greatest camp in the whole US!

Holy crap, what a week. Saturday through Saturday of sweating, stinking, lake gunk, sand in uncomfortable places, heat exhaustion, crap food, more physical exertion than I normally go through in a month and all the while being responsible for 7 omnipresent 7-to 11-year-old boys.

But it was an absolutely amazing week. I think it can all be summed up in a paraphrase of an evaluation we got from one of the kids, in response to the question, "What is the most important thing you learned at camp?" The response was everything I could have hoped for: "Knowing that there are other people who think like I do. That I'm not alone."

Win. Absolute win.

Before Camp Quest, it was easy to look at the fight for atheist/non-religious equality and liberty as an adults-only endeavor. I knew people I'd met had kids, I knew some of them left a faith as kids or never had faith...but camp really brought into focus that kids are affected by this, too. We always wonder how pop culture affects children...do video games and music make them violent, does sex on TV turn them into little perverts. Well, what does religion's role in popular culture tell these kids about the fact that they don't believe in god, in any gods? The President spouts religion from his mouth like he's a minister; there certainly isn't much respect for rationality or reason; science and education are being ignored and now actually vilified (where can this opposition to Obama's "elitism" come from other than a general disdain for education, bettering one's intellect and generally valuing knowledge and information?). These kids HAVE no religion, they HAVE no penultimate tradition to which to appeal. And everywhere they turn, they're being shown that the things that matter to them and their parents are worthy of scorn.

Camp was one of the greatest weeks of my life, and I'm not exaggerating when I say it may alter the course of my life. Well, it would be more like the final straw rather than a major turbulence. But I have much more thinking to do before I can rest on a final opinion regarding that particular point.

August 21, 2017

2008-07-01T09:50:00.002-05:00

This is officially the furthest future planning I've ever done. On August 21, 2017, a total solar eclipse will travel across the middle of North America. It will travel across the entire contiguous 48 states, tracing a black marker across the Earth's crust. The greatest and longest solar eclipse location will be in Kentucky, at which point all solar light will be blocked, leaving only a halo of wicked-looking radiation visible. The total blockage of light gives an incredible view of the universe. At least three planets are typically visible, and apparently with a knowledge of the relative sizes, a sense of scale of the Solar System is possible. You stand on the ground for three minutes in absolute, total darkness, with the best view of the galaxy available. Total solar eclipses only happen every year or two, and while many see the big, partial eclipse, only a tiny dot on the surface of the Earth gets the 100% blocking of the sun. Wildlife will get screwed up and crickets will start chirping like it's nighttime. The temperature will drop noticeably. Constellations you've never seen will crop up and your gaze will be flooded with the great white Milky Way.

So on August 21, 2017, I'll be driving to some place in Kentucky, to experience a few minutes of wonder. Anyone want to come?

Stardust

2008-06-23T22:55:00.000-05:00

Fourteen billion years ago, the universe came into existence in what we know as the Big Bang. We don't really know how or why it happened, but we do know that right afterwards, the universe acquired the characteristics it has now. In the early universe, supermassive stars formed, larger and brighter than any blinking lights in the night sky now. These behemoths of nuclear fusion took the hydrogen in the early universe and fired them in the hottest forges that have ever existed. There was nothing but hydrogen, which burned and fueled these tremendous furnaces. Helium and sodium and carbon and nitrogen and oxygen and potassium and silicon and iron and all the rest of the elements were the result. Eventually, these stars - the only source of any element other than hydrogen in our entire universe - ran out of fuel, burned down and exploded into spectacular supernovas, casting their contents across the universe. These elements coursed through the remaining interstellar dust, disturbing them and forming galaxies. One particular galaxy formed in the shape of a spiral, and on a tiny planet orbiting an ordinary star in the backwoods on the edge of a spiral arm of this galaxy, intelligent life arose.

And you are one of those lives. Every atom that composes your body was forged, put together, melded in one of those super stars in the early days of the universe. And they exploded, scattering their contents across the universe like so many motes of glitter. So, when you think about it, in a quite literal way

You are stardust.

And one day in the distant future, billions of years from now, "soon" on some cosmic timescale, Sol will run out of hydrogen. Our sun, fuel exhausted, will expand and consume the Earth, pulling it within its fiery depths. Burned by the fires of fusion, every atom in your body, now somewhere else on Earth except for a tiny minority we manage to send elsewhere, will be ripped apart from all the rest and churn within this great mixing sunfire. And then the sun will explode. Someday, it will explode, and cast its contents back across the stars.

Dust to dust.

Through the galaxy and the universe will all those particles fly, raining down upon other galaxies, stars and, a few, onto planets. And a tiny, infinitesimal fraction - but some nonetheless - will land on a planet that has or that develops life. And that particular planet among the rest that have life will develop intelligent life. And one day, the atoms that now comprise your body will form the body of another being that looks up into the stars and wonders where it came from. And though you will be gone to the universe forever, you know, as well as that creature may know, that you came, that it came, ultimately...from stardust.

2008-04-17T11:52:00.003-05:00

Well, it's been an exhausting week, I'm about ready to drop. Between issues I've had to keep confidential both at work and at home, ten hours of driving over two days, sleepless nights, a near-crisis at work and just not enough time to just relax, I'm about cashed. Oh, well.

I'm getting ready for the best birthday week ever. Well, for a huge nerd anyway. Here's how it rolls:

Sunday, April 27: Mario Kart Wii released.
Monday, April 28: Probably have to do the Geek Squad thing, but it'll be the only night of the week.
Tuesday, April 29: Grand Theft Auto 4 Released. Yeah, that's a big deal.
Wednesday, April 30: 26th birthday. Will still be in mid-20's, so I'm cool with that.
Thursday, May 1: Iowa Secularists Des Moines National Day of Reason event. 7pm Des Moines Botanical Center. Should be an excellent evening, we will be speaking briefly, showing The God Who Wasn't There and reading excerpts from Dan Dennett's Thank Goodness.
Friday, May 2: Iron Man released in theaters. Traveling to St. Louis, will spend weekend drinking, watching Iron Man, playing GTA4 with dudes, maybe chicks. If I thought it mattered, I'd pray not to get in a car wreck, 'cause that would wreck my car and my home theater, which will be traveling with me (I will never purchase a TV again...projectors win).
Saturday, May 3: Hung Over/Playing video games.
Sunday, May 4: Hung Over/Driving home.

All in all, an excellent week for a humanist nerd.

This Makes the Sign Look Tame

2008-04-09T13:37:00.004-05:00

On April 2nd, Illinois State Representative Monique Davis launched into a diatribe against atheist Rob Sherman. You can find details here:

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/04/rep-monique-dav.html

A recording of the exchange:

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/files/DAVIS.mp3

What concerns me most about this is the rank prejudice exhibited here, just as I have seen it on display elsewhere. Here are the major assertions about atheists made by Representative Davis:

- Atheists do not stand for any positive virtues.
- Atheists stand only for destruction.
- Illinois is the Land of Lincoln, where people believe in God - a tacit implication that all citizens of Illinois are theists.
- Atheism is a dangerous philosophy that should be repressed and silenced so children are not exposed to it.
- Atheists have no right to participate in public debate.

These are quite obviously gross misrepresentations, rank bigotry and outright lies. Any person who knows me can be assured by direct observation that I, as an atheist, in no way represent the first two virtues.

The last three, however, are the most troubling assertions. Taken together, they can only mean one thing: Representative Davis believes that atheists are not entitled to the same rights as religious Americans:

- They have no First Amendment rights, as they should be prevented from giving voice to their opinion and philosophy for the protection of children from their ideas.
- Their voice has no place in politics; there is no right to participate in public debate unless you believe in God.
- They are social aberrations that should not be represented by those in public office.
- They have no right to freedom of religion, specifically in their case freedom from having to pay, through the avenue of taxes, for the maintenance of a religious institution.

In short, atheists do not have rights. Rights are the privilege of Christians and other believers. This is a theme I have seen before; the extension of McCarthy-era conflation of Christianity with Americanism. That you can only be an American if you believe in God. As said to me personally, "This is America, where you can believe in anything you want, but you have to believe in something [supernatural]."

I hope I don't need to express more clearly how absurd this is. Read the quote by James Madison a few posts down again if you still don't get it.

I find myself agreeing with Keith Olbermann, who named Monique Davis the "Worst Person in The World" on Tuesday. She should be ashamed of herself; she shamed her state, her constituents and made a bigoted fool of herself in the process. She should do her state a favor and resign.

Published!

2008-04-06T15:39:00.003-05:00

So my letter to the editor of the Des Moines Register was published!

I want to clarify my position a little bit more, based on those comments. I DO think the sign was clever; a nice little play on the Bible verse, "The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God." Psalms 14:1

Yeah, it's clever and I do think it's funny, but that doesn't make it acceptable. Things can be funny and offensive at the same time. As I said, if this was directed at nearly any other group, it would be decried. But because it's about atheists, that makes it acceptable.

It doesn't. We atheists are people, too, and we generally behave quite well. It's not ok to shirk your responsibility to the rest of humanity by blaming us for all the world's problems and it's not ok to be deliberately divisive and sectarian. We're all here together, and the only way we're going to improve anything is by working to improve this world.

How Very Christian of You

2008-03-26T10:29:00.005-05:00

How very sweet of you, Grace West Church.

I saw this sign after a friend asked me what I thought about it. It was right on my way, but I stopped and snapped a picture with my phone after I saw this. For those who are not familiar with the American custom; April 1st is known as "April Fools' Day," a lighthearted day of pranks and jokes. This is obvious allusion to the Bible verse, "The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalms, 14:1)

Now, I'm not mad about this. But a few things strike me:

1) How much outrage would there be if this said, "April 1st National Jew's Day" or "April 1st National Catholics Day"? Yet again we see the rank prejudice in America that indicates religious freedom is common in America - nonreligious freedom is not.

2) How loving and neighborly of them. Unable to keep their bigotry to themselves, they feel the need to display their intolerant message to the world. I am certain this is exactly how Jesus would want you to behave.

Continue to persecute those who do not agree with you, Christians, to the eventual peril of your own freedoms. In the words of James Madison, the principle author of the United States Constitution: "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessment (1785)

Congratulations to the congregation of Grace Hope Church in West Des Moines, Iowa, for living up to the message of Jesus so well.

A Letter To The Editor

2007-05-31T16:15:00.000-05:00

I attended a Des Moines Atheists meetup group, a place where atheists can gather in safety to talk about their journeys as atheists, the challenges they face and issues and causes we can take up in our interests, a couple of weeks ago. In this meeting, one of the attendees brought along a letter to the editor in The Des Moines Register published that day. As a group, we drafted a letter in response. My name and those of some others do not appear on the list, as there are some of us who are uncomfortable jeopardizing social and employment opportunities because we are concerned of the ramifications of outspoken atheism in society. In any case, the letter, which I am proud to say I made personal contributions to, appeared in The Register today.

Arguments over Intelligent Design

2007-05-23T14:50:00.000-05:00

What follows is my response to a debate with a coworker regarding intelligent design. I won't post his argument here without permission, nor my entire argument. What follows is a response to the assertion that the world is perfectly suited to us, our bodies appear to be designed to do so many wonderful things. This argument is the singular basis of Intelligent Design. I respond as follows:

Your general argument is a common one - argument from design. Everything appears to be perfectly set up for life and life itself looks like it was designed, so therefore it must have been designed by something. Every building must have a builder, right? Every painting a painter? Voltaire pointed out rather nicely a problem with this argument (paraphrased): "you must also then argue that the feet are made to be booted and the nose to hold up spectacles." Voltaire went on to indicate that even if it were designed, from this singular argument, it only follows that something did the designing of the matter present, it does not require, on its own, that said designer either created the matter from nothing nor was in any way infinite. The appearance of design does not prove design.

Many people do accept the argument, however, but, to my mind, it doesn't answer any questions. If God created the Universe, then what created God? The common response is that God is timeless, endless and infinite; he always was. What is the difference, then, between saying God always existed and saying that the universe always existed? In either case, you have something that was always there. Such an argument only convinces those who already believe in the designer. To take a step back, to drop the presupposition that there is a designer in the first place, will show you that this argument falls into an infinite regression, where, if you require a first cause, something must have preceded that cause. Which needed something before that cause. This is no different than saying there -was- no first cause. I don't have an answer to how the universe started, nobody does, but we're getting closer all the time.

But, if I may borrow liberally from Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a very well-respected astrophysicist and the host of PBS' NOVA Science Now, I don't think you can even reasonably claim that the universe is a perfect creation designed with humans in mind. To illustrate this, just think of the vastness of the cosmos and how much of that volume consists of places you can't live. The overwhelming majority of the universe will kill you - instantly. The majority is empty space, and even the rest, where there is matter, cannot support you. You will suffocate, freeze or be burned by radiation. And even on this one planet, which I like to think of as Spaceship Earth, as it is our only lifeboat in the vastness of space, we can only live on 1/3 of the planet. Even within that space, there are deserts, glaciers and other places where, again, we cannot live until vast amounts of technology is brought to bear against the forces of nature, long after evolution has led us to such technology. Beyond even that, look at the defects in the human condition: disease, birth defects (the cause of the majority of which are not even known), radiation, famine...the odds are stacked against us. And in our course around the galaxy on our backwoods spot on a spiral arm, we are bound to eventually be taken past a supernova, blowing away our atmosphere completely and extinguishing nearly all life; certainly all humans. We are on a collision course with the Andromeda Galaxy, guaranteed to end the life of a number of stars in spectacular gravitational rifts that tear our spiral apart. Even within our own living bodies, we have remnants of past ancestors such as our appendix (guaranteed to rupture and kill a percentage of us), a single opening for eating and breathing (guaranteeing that a percentage of us choke to death), the remnants of a tail at the base of our spine, ridiculous and pointless urges such as murderous rage and the impetus to commit rape...these are evolutionary byproducts that are wholly unfit for an intelligent being. But they probably served us at one point, and one day they may be gone. And it's not like it's asking much for a "designer" to fix these flaws. Dolphins eat and breathe through different holes. Why not us? Even our eyes, which are often held up as something that absolutely proves the design of a supreme being, are pitifully blind. Only a tiny, tiny majority of the electromagnetic spectrum is even detectable...and even the birds see better.

Finally, I want to examine the possibility of life's generation elsewhere. There are currently three places outside our own planet where life may form or have formed in the past: Mars, Europa and Enceladus. These places have or had liquid water. An atmosphere or oxygen or even the sun's energy is not required for all life...proof for this can be found in the vents on the ocean floor, where microorganisms (which are more distantly related to bacteria than we are to bacteria) live on solely vented heat and sulfur ejected from these vents. No photosynthesis, no oxygen. The heat on Europa and Enceladus is generated entirely by the gravitational forces of the planets they orbit. Cracks, fissures and a nearly craterless landscape show that they are geologically active, and Enceladus is actively spewing liquid water into orbit around Saturn. Granted, it is likely impossible that anything as complex as even protozoans could ever evolve in such a place, but if life is there, it means life itself, simple, singular, organized life, is not special; life may be inevitable. And if life is discovered in any of these places, even simple, simple life, then we can be nearly certain it has formed elsewhere. And in those rare places that are as forgiving to life as on Earth, orbiting a forgiving star, then perhaps it is inevitable, given billions of years, that trial and error compounded over millions upon millions of generations leads to a creature as clever as ourselves. We don't have proof of this yet, but the possibility is truly staggering.

Editorials

2007-05-21T13:11:00.001-05:00

This week I applied to be a Young Adult Contributor to the Des Moines Register. My sample essay follows. You can read the article it references here.

In Rekha Basu's May 20th editorial, she examined the possibility that an Iowa State professor has been denied tenure due to his personal belief in Intelligent Design. Rekha did well in staying neutral and examining the seriousness of a charge of bias, but I am not so interested in neutrality.

I have two minds on this. First, my gut-check reaction is one of satisfaction. Intelligent Design has passed no benchmark whatsoever in pretending to be anything but Christian belief attempting to explain cherry-picked observations in light of pre-existing beliefs. The recent Dover case illustrated past any reasonable disagreement that Intelligent Design starts with religion and ends with a false concoction of “evidence” that fails to stand up to any rigorous examination.

However, after a few moments my irritation with Intelligent Design fades: is it really in our best interest to decline the work of professors because of personal beliefs that do not extend to the classroom, or even if they do? Some of our greatest scientific discoveries have been ridiculed, persecuted and ignored until the evidence can be gathered to support them. I will only mention the irony that in the past it has often been religion persecuting science and today we have precisely the opposite. We should want the best science in our classrooms, nothing less. Unfortunately for Intelligent Design, it is not science, let alone good science.

I do not know why Professor Gonzalez was denied tenure. What I can say is that, were it granted, I would have no major problem with it - as long as time were not given to Intelligent Design in the classroom or state-funded research until sufficient evidence were gathered to even minimally prop up these theories. I have trust that our collegiate students would be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, and the better science will win out.

Doubt.

2007-05-07T10:28:00.001-05:00

I was driving home in a pretty nasty rainstorm this past Sunday when I heard a program on NPR called "Speaking of Faith." I wouldn't have listened, but the guest was a woman who wrote a book on the history of doubt; the history of people questioning religion on all levels. It was long and interesting, but there were a few points she made that I think are very important:

1) Very old religions did not have the idea of faith: belief without evidence. They simply had no doubt. The Greeks and Romans, however, had a very powerful history of doubt. In fact, by and large they discarded their religions toward the end of their respective golden ages, near the supposed time of Christ. In fact, the Roman Empire was largely secular until the fourth century, when Christianity took hold. It was here that the idea of faith was invented. You believed in spite of the large history and rich tradition of doubt. This is where belief without any rational or empirical reason to do so became a virtue. This was the birth of the Christianity that persecuted doubters for centuries and laid the foundation for today's fundamentalist movement.

2) The greatest religious thinkers have contributed more to religion than the assured. St. Augustine in particular was a heavy doubter, despite his sick and wrong-headed interpretation of a huge number of Christian theologies. But those interpretations largely form a fundamental layer of Catholic reasoning. Particularly the idea of Original Sin, which Augustine invented out of thin air.

There was a lot more to her talk, but I'm having a hard time remembering it all. I had a hangover, what do you want?

For my own part, I'm wading through Sam Harris' The End of Faith right now, while concurrently reading The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. Basically, when I can stand to read Case for Creator, I do so, and when my brain hurts from the inanity and drivel of that pile of garbage or its sheer ignorance angers me to where I want to tear the book apart, I turn to End of Faith.

For its part, The Case for a Creator is stunningly vapid. It takes the arguments of two scientists, repeats them verbatim, argues by fiat that these arguments tear down the entirety of the rest of science's discoveries and states that we must have a creator. Uh, ok. Let's not forget that BOTH of these scientists are involved with The Discovery Institute, which perverts science and engages propaganda for the sole purpose of getting Intelligent Design into public discourse and schools. The arguments are just stupid. Unfortunately, I recognize them as stupid only because I have a talent for scientific reasoning; you will have to take me at my word that I have cultivated a natural talent with specific and applied development of my analytical mind. I do not expect most people to be able to cut through the bullshit in Case for Creator to deconstruct the arguments. I will not do so here; Google shalt set thee free. Suffice it to say...Strobel is hopelessly ignorant and profoundly, simply wrong on everything I've read in the book so far. Unfortunately, I think I'm on chapter 3 and have a long, long way to go. But I will persevere, because this guy sells a shitload of books and it's important to understand the arguments of the opposition if you hope to convince them otherwise.

I'm not very far in The End of Faith yet. Expect more on this later. Most of it so far differs little from the multiple speeches, presentations and debates of Sam Harris that I have watched online. It is more detailed, but I'm going to give it more time before I weigh in. I suppose I should do the same for Strobel's monstrosity...but it's so bad I just can't.

Sometimes I wish you could beat the stupid out of people, but it doesn't work and when tried too often it seems to have the opposite effect. Besides, violence is wrong. And if anybody thinks this paragraph is anything but a mildly amusing musing, then you're set up by your prejudices to hate me already so it doesn't matter what I say. And don't bother e-mailing me to tell me I'm horrible for wanting to physically torture the religious, because you missed the entire goddamned point.

Hypocrisy

2007-05-03T13:40:00.001-05:00

It's funny how so many members of such a "tolerant" religion can be so two-faced. When you come right down to it, the members of the Christian Fundamentalist movement in this nation are probably the most bigoted, discriminatory group there is. Their defining characteristic as Christians is that the Bible is right and everything else is wrong, so your disbelief - or even your lesser belief - in the Bible's literal truth is enough to put you in a category of immorality and sin. Even more "moderate" Christians suffer from this same bigotry...even in my own family it was only with their need to rectify the fact that I am an atheist with what seems to me to be an unwillingness to accept that I would qualify for hell that made them modify their preconceptions of atheists. I've publicly stated, multiple times, that I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit, which earns me eternal damnation no matter what, right? Nevermind that I am a good person. I try to do what is right, within reason, but I feel no need to get into specifics.

What brings this topic to mind is the treatment of Pat Tillman's family by one of his commanding officers. You can read an article about it here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-koehler/the-crusaders_b_47556.html

Basically, Lt. Col. Kauzlarich has intimated that the Tillman family is unable to deal with Pat's death because they are atheists, and atheism fails to provide a way to cope with death. In a sense, this is true. A non-theistic belief generally rejects the idea of an afterlife, and death is truly, profoundly tragic to someone of this worldview; someone who believes that this life is the only experience we will ever have. I believe this outlook to be far and away more respectful and reverent of human life than any faith that teaches that this is a simple placeholder...some kind of proving ground we stumble through to earn the right to go to an ultimate paradise.

The Lt. Col's comments are typical of many theists: a bigoted, uninformed idea of their outlook on life. Those who have faith propagate among themselves the idea that atheists are materialistic, narcissistic, selfish, immoral hedonists who care for nothing more than themselves and their immediate happiness. This could not be further from the truth. Anyone who believes this and knows me personally must carry some kind of double standard in his or her head through some truly admirable intellectual acrobatics. Atheists love. Atheists care. Atheists live this life to the fullest, many of them holding the view that the way to live the best life is to make life better for one's self AND one's fellow man. We are social creatures, altruism is in our basic nature, and we desire to help one another. We expect help. You do not need the Bible to tell you what is right and what is wrong. In fact, coming to decide right and wrong is impossible using the Bible alone; it contradicts itself in many, many ways. The most obvious of these ways is, of course, the difference between the vengeful, genocidal Yahweh of the Old Testament and the merciful, loving Father of the New Testament. In fact, if these books weren't joined together, you'd probably think they were two separate religions.

This has been something of a wandering half-rant, but the basic point is this: Christians, despite their supposedly tolerant, loving worldview ("Hate the sin, love the sinner"), are profoundly intolerant, judgmental and bigoted. Thankfully, I have not yet felt this personally as an atheist, but I'm new to atheism. The only people who know are a few close friends and my immediate family. I was somewhat worried about my family, but thankfully they love me enough to bend their worldview to accommodate their belief in my salvation, despite my utter rejection of the beliefs they hold. I have no doubt, however, that if my ideas ever spread and my own persona becomes better known in the world at large, I will see much of this bigotry - including personal insults and probably threats to my well-being and very life. It was hard enough to admit in the face of tremendous, unconscious social pressure that I do not believe in any god or gods...let alone the fact that some will actively persecute me for this belief.