Chariots of Iron

In the news we cover witchcraft’s effect on sports betting, Micky Mouse sleeping with the fishes, the French finally grow some balls, the Pokemon effect and the Jewish Gestapo. We also square off on which televangelist has the awesomest hair and discuss the finer points of witch magic on American
politics.

Poseidon Hates Fags?

We do some Q and A with atheist extraordinaire Brother Richard in which we hear the story of how he went from a troubled youth to a mega-church pastor to an atheist to a dirty old man. He raps with us about the state of atheist social networking and the world-wide “atheist movement” and we discuss some of the problems and hurdles we must face in our quest for a sane society.

read more »

Stream this episode!

In this weeks news segment, we discuss “Atheist Idolatry,” death threats, creationism in the UK and Christian storm wranglers and the possible conspiracy to destroy New Orleans through prayer. Plus: how awesome the FFRF is and what to do if a priest tells you to meet him in a hotel room and to bring $1000.

1000 uses for camel urine!

Pharse is in the house and we rap about panspermia and what it means both in relationship to abiogenesis and in relationship to the claims of creationists. We also discover—much to Joe’s dismay—that Virgin and Google will not be colonizing Mars and Lamar schools us on Truthism and the Reptoid cover up.

read more »

Stream this episode!

I was reading an article the other day and renowned physicist Dr. Stephen Hawking stated that the Large Hadron Collider was essential to the advancement and long-tern survival of mankind. He goes on to reassure folks that it will not end the world, but I’m about sick of the fear-mongers surrounding this thing, it’s merely and anti-science agenda wrapped in a self-righteous cloak.

This all got me thinking though about just why I feel having discussions about scientific advancements and discoveries is valuable in an atheist podcast. in going over this I may say some things that make my fellow atheists wince, I may sound harsh and reveal some opinions that the more “religious friendly” atheists may not share. So be it.

If one looks at the history of religious thought one realized that the development of gods was a “first attempt” at scientific thought. What causes thunder? Well, I can make a loud noise by banging these two rocks together, so someone bigger and more powerful banging something even bigger than these rocks together would make a louder sound. Or perhaps, the roar of the great lion is the loudest sound I know, so some bigger beast, perhaps the roar of a dragon is the sound I am hearing. As an early hypothesis for events it’s a workable idea, however it would fail today’s more modern scientific scrutiny as it would either fail the first test or be found untestable. It’s a small step from this level of thinking to entreating these powerful forces for boons, to using “revealed knowledge” from these powerful beings as a tool of control (for good or ill).

The truth is that advancing our knowledge is what is removing the “god question” from the public conciousness. Human knowledge has certainly eliminated the possibility of a “god” or “gods” as presented in nearly every ancient scripture currently known. This is why creationists creationists fight so fiercely against science eduction (trust me, it’s not just evolution they have a problem with), it’s not that they have some problems with the science as performed, it’s that this knowledge contradicts directly the untestable and privately revealed knowledge that religion bases all claims upon. Their case is hurt more by recent studies breaking apart those testable claims they’ve made.

The knowledge provided to mankind through scientific study is more valuable than anything religion has proposed, it has cured diseases, fed millions of people, and vastly increased our quality of life. Religious thought however has been an easy tool of exploitation to make people happy with thier miserable lot in life. As I’ve studied more and more religions I find that most of them add up to the following statement “Do what we say, don’t worry about being miserable, because when you die you’ll get rewarded”. Science on the other hand is about advancing human knowledge so that our lives, and the lives of future generations are better ones. As an atheist I believe that this life here is all you get so I want to make sure it’s the best possible for me and my descendants.

I am sure that some people will point to the disasters of science in an attempt to detract form this view, nuclear bombs, lab-created anthrax and the like. While some atheists would try to counter with the atrocities of religion I intend to go another route. The line of research that brought about the atomic bomb also gave us solid state electronics and MRI imaging, cancer treatments and a host of other medical diagnostic tools. Bioengineering has cured far more diseases than those who have been infected, from the cheap and rapid production of vaccines to new breakthroughs in fighting cancer and degenerative genetic conditions. Religion and science can both be used for benefit and destruction however it is only through scientific research that suffering is alleviated, diseases cured and the overall quality of life for everyone on the planet is improved. In contrast religious thought that attempts to supersede or suspend scientific advance only gets people to accept suffering, disease and be content with their current quality of life. It is, simply those who wish to maintain the status-quo against those who would like to see progress.

I am, in this tirade, addressing a certain type of religious thought, and it is one that even the late Pope John Paul II expressed. This thought is that there are some questions that should not be asked because they are the dominion of “god”. If you follow a religious mindset that allows for questioning all aspects of reality, for searching deep into the “hows and whys” of the way this universe we live in operates then, of course, this criticism does not apply to you.

A common creationist ploy (and one that angers me to no end) is to apply the trait of atheism to Adolph Hitler, and try to link this with the atrocities he committed. The eugenics programs implemented by some of Hitler’s underlings was more akin to horse or dog breeding than any true evolutionary process. In fact the idea of “evolution” in general had been around for hundreds of years prior to Charles Darwin’s theory which merely gave this evolution a natural mechanism. The extermination of the Jewish people at the hands of Hitler’s regime was turned into a acceptable practice through an appeal to religion. Weather or not Hitler really believed or not may be open to debate, however any reading of Mein Kampf would lend one to believe that he did in fact believe in god as described in the New Testament.

Science is important because it provides reliable and truthful answers to the questions we all have in a way that cannot be used as a tool of control. No one can tell you you should kill X group of people because a subatomic particle reacting according to the laws of quantum mechanics tells him so. Anyone who proposed such an idea would be laughed at (and probably locked up), as we should laugh at, and lock away, religious tyrants who suggest we kill infidels, homosexuals or any other such group.

You may notice I’ve not touched on ethics or morals much in this post. The naturalistic rise of moral behavior is a subject that I have great interest in and I’ll be devoting a future post to the topic in addition to my thoughts about how a positive atheistc view of the world can drive a very high moral standard.

In the news we get freaky with MILFU (Mom I’d Like To Fixer-Upper) Sarah Palin, we re-visit the issue of the booty-buffet boarding school in Australia and attempt to burn it to the ground with words alone. Also: Jesus with an erection; hot, sexy lower-arm porn; hate preachers and socially endorsed sympathy fasting.

Finally! A bible that is both accurate AND safe for the kids! Find out all about it from this weeks’ ponsor.

In our main segment this week, we discuss creationists and their attacks on science using stupid as a weapon (while simultaneously exposing just how little Joe knows about physics.) You might learn something new about the cold death of the universe and how lighting animals on fire can generate enough entropy so that we don’t accidentally break the 2nd law of thermodynamics and go to prison. If not, you will probably have a few chuckles anyhow.

Stream this episode!

With recent changes in the US Presidential race polls there has been a grasping by the media to explain what is going on. Dubbed the “Palin push” this phenomenon is currently being attributed to an upsurge in political activism by conservative women who see the VP pick as a reflection of their own values.

And herein lies the problem, I don’t really know why it never struck me earlier (maybe it did and I’m just not recalling right now). It’s not that the “Family Values” voter wants a candidate who shares their vales, but rather, wants to make sure that those values are reflected in national policy. They want these values enforced.

Now excuse me, but part of the whole aspect of “Freedom of Religion” is it is an implicit recognition that we all have different values based upon our own faith (or lack thereof), and that one could define freedom is the ability to live within a framework of ones own personal values (excepting where they inhibit another from having the same opportunity).  to the “family values” voter, this is not enough, the presence of those living by a different set of ethical and/or moral behavior, is seen as a threat to their own moral code. This, in my view, is a tacit admission of just how weak they think their values are.

All of us, to one degree or another have a value position we wouldn’t mind seeing enacted into a law, however, flip that coin over and you’re not so happy. Having a particular dogma promoted by a government is great, as long as it’s yours.

I wish that for just a moment voters who value “values” and thier protection would understand this basic fact, that the only way to protect any level of “family values” in by ensuring the freedoms supposedly guranteed by the U.S. Constitution for us to each hold our values as our own. Vote for the candidate that is going to let you hold onto your own values and not subject you to anyone elses.

Over on the Wired.com blogs I saw an interesting article which relates precisely to the segment we did in season one, episode one. The article is here.

Did you read it?

If not, go do so.

I’ll wait.

It’s not that long.

Back?

Ok, now this article does a much better job of pointing out some competing ideas, and gets into some information I did not have time to adequately cover in the segment, I strongly suggest clicking through the links in the article as well. I know that the LHC is dominating the minds of pop-science fans, but these are major breakthroughs going on which implications to chemistry and biology on a par with what is expected to be uncovered by the LHC. So, why is this not getting any press? Well, it’s a much smaller effort, it doesn’t have a cool name with spiffy acronyms and it doesn’t inspire conspiracy theorists and pseudo-scientists to wildly flail their arms about the end of the world.

What it does do though is poke yet another hole in religious dogma. Theistic evolution has become popular in the last 150 years since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Those who still wanted to believe in “God as miraculous creator” could rest happily in the gap that was the first form of life. With significant advances in abiogenesis research (which even I’ll admit are still a long way off)  yet another gap is closed. Now, there are those who believe that all of these scientific discoveries are not guilty of removing god, but merely expose his/her methods of creation. There are not scriptural literalists, and they’ve got a much more grown-up view of their religion. If you’re in this camp, good on ya, we’ve still got some issues to discuss but at least you’re probably not sending death threats to physicists or publishing horrible videos with inane “science” and poor production values.

My second point in this post has to do with the somewhat dismissive tone I used when panspermia was brought up in season one, show one. I’d like to apologize briefly, I was not being dismissive due to a disagreement with the hypothesis. Panspermia is very interesting, however, in my opinion, it is not a hypothesis concerning abiogensis, it more properly falls into the realm known as exogenesis. I dismissed it merely in an effort to stay on topic, although in listening to my own comments I realize I may have come accross as condecending or dismissive of the idea as a whole. For those who do like this hypothesis we will be covering it more in an upcoming show, pairing it with some information on big-bang and expanding universe theory. Thanks for listening!

If you are a believer and you want to get me to believe you’re going to ask me to read a book. Given United States demographics,  that book most likely will be the Bible (in some version or another). And, I would have you know that I have already read it, however if you’d like for me to go over it again I’m going to have a corresponding book for you to read. This book is Breaking the Spell, by Daniel Dennett. In Breaking the Spell Professor Dennet tackles one subject above all others, the idea that it is not belief but “sacredness” that is the problem. The concept that one set of ideas cannot be questioned or criticized because of some special property inherent in the idea or belief itself.

Unlike the other Atheist “Four Horsemen”, Dennett seems to have a sincere appreciation for some aspects of religious thought. His book is far less condemning than those of Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris. The reason I choose this book as the primer I would have any person who wishes to proselyte to me read is that it best expresses my views on religion in general, and I want them to understand what they’re going to encounter if they come to me with their “truths”.

Unlike some of my fellow strong atheists, I am slow to condemn “religion” as a whole, however unlike some others I am very quick to criticize specific beliefs, it may be easy to construe this as myself condemning religion as a concept, when all I am saying is that, “belief X is obviously laughable”. Lamar is correct in season one, show two when he says, “religion does community extremely well”. I believe that it does, and I feel that it can be replicated in a wholly secular way. The problem is compounded in a “faith in a sacred truth”.

The faith in a supernatural supreme being of some sort or another without question is a huge problem for me, it is my nature to question and any idea that cannot be held to scrutiny is quick to fall from my favor. Combine this with the “sacred” concept, that these questions and criticism should not even be leveled and you’re stepping to the plate with two strikes already. The third of course is usually the tone in which the faithful like to preach to the non believer, it’s either condescending or dripping with pity.

I firmly believe that we should place our faith in each other, in those we can hold accountable when that faith is betrayed and in whom we can set realistic expectations of that faith. I have faith that my wife loves me, a faith built on evidence from past behavior and promises made for the future. I have faith that my garbage company will pick up the trash on a weekly basis, based on an agreed upon contract of payment for services and enforced by governmental agencies should that faith be broken. But none of these faith’s are held sacred, all can be held up for question and scrutiny.

In the news this week: What is a “Secular Values Voter?” We also sound off on atheist billboards, religious child abuse, atheists as a political anathema as well as crucified frogs, RATEMYNUN.COM and a sad digression about the state of the Catholic church in which Lamar shows the “moderate” Catholics the back of his well manicured hand. *POW*

We also explore the seedy underbelly of Christian roll playing. Not recommended for the faint of heart!

During our main segment, Lamar leads us through Abrahamic creation mythology and compares it quite handily to other mythologies that we disregard without thought. Christian revisionism, mad biblical discrepancies, animal love parades, Lungdaar: Lord of the Hair People, the inherent imbalance of having two perverts and a normal person running a podcast and other madness.

Stream this episode!

Eli, Lamar and Joe introduce themselves and talk briefly about their history. In the news they cover machete wielding Muslims, Crackergaters, the DNC, the Colonels 11 secret herbs and spices vs omnipotence and a certain youth pastor who rues the day they invented the camcorder. You personally will rue the day they invented Bud Lite commercials. *ominous eyebrow wiggling*

The last half of the show is on the topic of abiogenesis and is hosted by Eli. He leads an interesting discussion on this frontier of chemistry and biology. Lamar gives us a brief primer for next show in which the charioteers will discuss creation mythology.

My Podcast Alley feed! {pca-b5c17c13e85a631e64bb2006f9a4ba90}

Stream this episode!