Thursday, August 19, 2010

Atheists will be hated by families of fallen heroes

This blog is about an article on CNN's website. Atheists win at removing road side crosses

CNN reports that the atheists have won a battle against unconstitutional favoritism of religion. Specifically, Christian crosses on the roadside that are meant to honor fallen heroes.

Do I know these heroes? No.
Did they ever save my life specifically? No.
Do I owe them? Yes.

Every day, hard working men and women don their gear to protect us on the streets. Police officers who perform traffic stops are heroes. They stop the drunk drivers, reckless drivers, and speedsters who don't stop to think about the lives they may take all because they were more concerned about getting somewhere. Is a human life really worth making it to work on time? You may think so at the time you're running that red light, but if you caused an accident that kills someone, you may think differently after wards.

But for the cops who don't make it home, we owe a debt of gratitude. We should seriously stop and think about the danger they face just trying to earn a living, support their loved ones, and make the world a little bit safer. That's why I support any ways their families need to remember them by. If a family is so emotionally damaged by their loss, they deserve what ever they need to help the healing process. Some of them need their religious beliefs and cling to them like a crutch.

So what?

It doesn't bother me. Two sticks crossed together on a roadside as a memorial does not bother me, hurt me, offend me, or make me upset at the government. Tax payer money is being spent to help remember a fallen hero, and as an atheist, I'm not upset.

Now... if the government refused to recognize the wishes of a family who lost an atheist police officer, or a pagan/Jewish/skeptical/non-believing officer with a roadside symbol that helped them. Then I'd be upset. That's not the case here. Instead, atheists have won a legal case saying the crosses have to come down.

Did you hear that?

We won. We won the right to harm families who are already suffering.

How is that winning?

Sunday, August 1, 2010

How to argue with an idiot

We've heard this title before, "how to argue with..." an idiot, a republican, a democrat, an atheist, a christian... etc, etc. I keep coming across people who want nothing more than an argument where they can claim victory. But so far, all I've come across are the same old arguments and name-calling.

My most recent one comes from a CNN article Black Church: Place of Empowerment. I read this article, and was so upset that people who have been so repressed by an institution could continue to praise and give thanks to that same institution.

I re-quoted the article "Enslaved Africans were exposed to the literature of the Christian Bible, and they found comfort and direction in the same book that was used to justify their enslavement." And I added that I was "pissed off" at the article for not giving praise to the true source of power: the people with the strength to overcome the obstacles set by the institution of faith.

A person replied to my comment and started off with an insult. He called me "dumbalot" as a reference to my user name "teksalot." He accused me of not knowing the Bible and stated that it did not advocate slavery.

My response to his argument is the following from the site: Scary Bible Quotes

On Slavery & Subjugation of Women
Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men.

Peter 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Leviticus 25:44-45
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

Now, how does that not advocate slavery. Actually demanding that women submit to their husbands, and telling you exactly where to obtain slaves sounds pretty convincing to me.

But to get back to my original point in the blog and title. How to argue with...

Everyone, every where, "knows" they are right. I put "knows" in quotes because it is only internally that we "know" we are right. I can not put in words any argument that will change the mind of a reader until they are ready to change their mind. Every Christian "knows" God exists and Jesus is the only true path to eternal salvation and at the EXACT SAME TIME every Atheist "knows" God does not exist and Jesus more than likely is an amalgam of oral story telling traditions from ages ago.

There is no way to win an argument until the other side is ready to change their mind. You can not win an argument with anyone until they decide they are ready to lose.

Sunday, April 4, 2010


I apologize, I did exactly what I said I didn't want to do. I've let this blog slip out of my mind. But I updated my other blog instead

And it actually is a blog concerned with atheism. I posted it on my personal blog specifically because I know a few people read it. I hope the controversial subject of religion makes a few heads turn or at least makes people leave some feedback.

Monday, January 18, 2010


Rather than have this blog fall into the category of 9 posts then stop, I have decided to update on my lack of interest in the atheist field. It's very difficult to care when I work 60 hours a week.

I am trying though. I recently joined the meetup website under the skeptics category.

The next meeting is January 28th and if all goes well, I will attend. I may change to evenings at work or I may be one of the unlucky people who get drafted to serve on a jury. As of right now, I just have to call in on Jan. 22nd and find out if I have to show up.

The upcoming topic is "Can Science and Religion co-exist?" I have no knowledge on previous debates of the topic, but my only question before I can really answer that question is... "What defines a religion?"

If it's the typical dogma + ritual + faith over evidence, then my answer would have to be a big NO! Since science is constantly trying to answer questions, and religion is constantly answering questions with the same answer, I don't think the two can ever peacefully co-exist. Eventually, a person has to choose one over the other.

We'll see how it goes, if I make it to the meeting. I promise to update.


Sunday, November 15, 2009

Well if it's spelled wrong, I guess the whole message must be wrong.

I am recently getting more and more upset with idiots blaming bad spelling for all the problems with a person's message. The only time I think a typo means the outcome is wrong is when we're dealing with mathematics or translations.

Who cares if the word atheist is spelled "athiest?" We still get the message. I used to be a stickler for correct grammar and spelling but over the years I've loosened up.

The reason is because of people like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey speaking out again things like children's vaccinations. Are we seriously so blind that we'd take medical advice from a former playboy and a comedic over-actor?

The CDC has a list of downloadable (excuse my made up words dictionary nazis!) charts here. Each one of these shots listed helps to prevent deaths every year. Now I'm sorry if their kid has autism, and I don't really thing it was caused by vaccines. But wouldn't you rather have a living child with autism than a child who died from something preventable?

Now this whole thing started from a publication in a medical journal:

The only "evidence" linking MMR vaccine and autism was published in the British journal Lancet in 1998 [5]. An editorial published in the same issue, however, discussed concerns about the validity of the study [6]. Based on data from 12 patients, Dr. Andrew Wakefield (a British gastroenterologist) and colleagues speculated that MMR vaccine may have been the possible cause of bowel problems which led to a decreased absorption of essential vitamins and nutrients which resulted in developmental disorders like autism. No scientific analyses were reported, however, to substantiate the theory.

Quack Watch website where I copied and pasted from

The study was discredited within it's own journal because they only "speculated" and never tested! It was never validated. And the fact that autism rears it's ugly head about the same time that vaccines are usually administered meant the study was most like just a coincidence! WTF?!?

People need to keep getting these shots until there is a direct link between vaccines and autism. Especially if they have kids. Kids depend on their parents to keep them safe and alive. If parents really think autism is so bad, maybe they should talk to parents in third world countries who can't get these vaccines and had to bury a child.

Oh wait, maybe you can just go to Philadelphia.

For the record: Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy don't recommend you stop all vaccinations, they only want some removed. Here's the first part of their Larry King interview on youtube. All the other parts will be linked after watching the first part thru youtube's service.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Prop 8

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

I listen to the Good Atheist podcast often, and prop 8 and gay marriage has been a regular topic in the past. Why? Because atheists and gays have so much in common. We have a similar enemy most of the time (religious folks), we have a hard time coming out to family and friends, and we're constantly fighting to gain some recognition as a legitimate community and not some fly-by-night trend.

Gays can now legally marry in Vermont. But not in California. How sad that a state that claims to be so relaxed and kicked-back is so uptight about something as silly as love. Mormons For 8 claims that it has 770,000+ members currently, and only 2% live in the state of California.

Only 2%? Then how the hell did we lose by such a small amount?

Mormons for 8 claims their strategy of grass-roots movement and advertising in a way that made their argument stronger is what won. And they're probably right. After the election, I found out my insanely strange Catholic mother and step-father voted yes on 8. I refused to speak to her for a week but eventually forgave her.

My agnostic father on the other hand was an easy push to vote No on 8. I reminded him of the following points and he agreed that even though he is uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, he couldn't deny humans their rights when our own ancestors had to deal with so many problems.

The 14th amendment: declares those born into citizenship or naturalized as a US citizen can not have laws abridging their priveleges or immunities.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 1954: overturned Plessy v Ferguson stating that separate but equal was unconstitutional.

Loving v Virginia 1967: overturned Pace v. Alabama allowing interracial couples to marry.

Three arguments is all it took to sway the vote of an agnostic. These same three arguments mean nothing to a hard-core catholic mother though. Although she divorced, she knows she can never take communion again and confesses that she is trying to be a good person against it all.

We lost because we couldn't argue against the irrational. The same reason most atheists lose arguments. We can't reason with those who are afraid of offending an all-powerful being. We have to work together or we'll all lose.

So as an atheist, I stand side by side with the gay community. I'm willing to speak on their behalf and willing to fight. I will not be silent for fear of being alone when they come for me.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Jon Stewart on "under God" in our pledge of allegiance

I watched a clip from the Friendly Atheist's blog on Jon Stewart's take on the court's decision that "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional. And I have to agree that while the phrase (being added not by the original author) is discriminatory toward some of us, I think it is a silly lawsuit. Silly because it shouldn't have to happen.

It is just like the stupid woman who spilled coffee on herself then sued McDonald's. It was the woman's fault for burning herself and it was the government's fault for putting itself in such a stupid position. We all know that "Under God" was added in the 1950's because of the communism scare because obviously all atheists are communists (sarcasm).

This is 2009 people! Wake up! As Obama said, this is not a Christian Nation. We are a nation of religious and non-religious people. Believers and Non-believers living together as free Americans.

Our nation's motto should not be "In God We Trust." Our motto was picked out by the founding fathers as E Pluribus Unum. The non-Christian founding fathers had an idea for where we were going and we've lost our way because separation of Church and State keeps having to be re-established.

Now I know a lot of you out there want us to be a Christian Nation or you already think we are, but isn't our time better spent learning what we can about others and branching out our knowledge? Why do we keep wasting tax-payer money on things that we shouldn't have to fight about? If people want to be religious, go right ahead. But it should be a personal, private matter, not a national matter.