Chariots of Iron

This week we (of course) bitch about politics and then straight into the news where we touch upon topics such bovine video game violence, who loses when Christian charities get uppity, the glorious train wreck that is Mel Gibson, prayer vs. voting (spoiler: pray, don’t vote–PLEASE!) and the right’s purile attack on the noble fruit fly. Of course, we have to talk about religious child abuse… again. And to top if off we explore the wonderful world of Mormon and papal hypocracy.

Holy $#!+, censorship is hilarious.

The topic this week is Halloween. We talk about it’s origins, what the Church did to attempt to steal it away and how, instead, they popularized it and totally lost control of it. Is Eli and closet transvestite? Wonder no longer, you’ll learn the truth. We also talk about how people who give out healthy food on Halloween are idiots… Actually, we don’t really talk about that, but we totally should have. Bit-O-Honey, people; get on it.

Stream this episode!

In light or recent comments on a CNN interview I’ve really got to come out an scream a little bit. The recent attacks by Elizabeth Dole and Kay Hagen’s response have both ignited in me a rage, and the media have stoked this fire. Democratic Strategist Donna Brazile recently equated atheists with terrorists in the “guilt by association” attacks that seem to be all to common in this US election season.

The facts are as they are, atheists and Muslims in the united states are both having our religious affiliation (or lack thereof) used as a bad word, a label that must be fought against. Well I must say with all sincerity, “FUCK. THAT. NOISE.” While I believe that Muslim’s are just as delusional as any other theist I do not think it appropriate that anyone’s religious affiliations should ever have any implications beyond implying what someone personally believes.

The Dole campaign would have you believe that Hagen’s alleged association with atheists would have Churches burned, Christmas Taken away and the Easter bunny skinned and put in a stew pot. This is like stating that the Christian beliefs of Obama, McCain or Palin would have the US government thrown into a theocracy led by whatever christian denomination these three would associate themselves with. The very concept is laughable, it is, yet another form of fear mongering resorted to when one has to hide thier stance on the real issues.

So here in response is a little piece for all you theists out there to let you know what atheists are.

Atheists are…

loving fathers and mothers, grandmothers and grandfathers, aunts and uncles, sons and daughters.

serving in the armed forces.

sports stars, artists, actors, writers and musicians.

police officers, firefighters, ambulance drivers and paramedics.

doctors, nurse, scientists and engineers.

stay at home moms, corporate executives, homeless panhandlers.

teachers, students, charity volunteers, community service workers.

factory workers, landscapers, line cooks.

rich and poor, old and young, sick and well.

Conservative and liberal.

crying, laughing, smiling, scowling.

voting.

Until this election madness is over. I’ve got to say though that the latest round of attacks the GOP has been leveling on the democratic ticket is a level of hypocrisy that must make the religions of the world jealous. Sarah Palin rails against Barak’s Obama’s promotion of “socialist” progressive taxation (progressive taxation which was also promoted by Adam Smith, the founder of American capitalism, but that’s a whole other rant), while her state dolls out thousand+ dollar checks for the share of Alaska’s Oil Revenues. McCain’s Campaign bullies the L.A. Times to release a video of Barak Obama attending the going away party of fellow University of Chicago professor Rashid Khalidi, while McCain has shoveled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the same professor’s Palestinian Research Center.

But being the junkie that I am I’m starting to really get angry at journalists, not as individuals but as a profession. The method of journalism has always seemed to be to find “both sides” of every story. It seems that with the 24-hour news cycle that the cable news networks have to fill, they’ve got the time to do this for every single story. This often gives voice to radical fringe elements under the guise of “equal time”. A couple weeks ago I went to the CFI kickoff event here in Portland, OR. There Professor Krauss told us why he does not waste time debating creationists. It’s not because, as I’ve heard some say, the mere act of debating gives the appearance of weight to the creationist argument, but because the nature of a debate is, in itself, not an accurate representation of the “controversy”. To truly have a representative debate on creationism/intelligent design vs. evolution you would need to have three creationists on one side of the table and 997 scientists on the other. But again, the fact is that science isn’t decided in a debate or in a court-room, but by the evidence, and until the “opposition” can produce some to support their own claims then they’ve got no debate.

I feel that journalists need to also take this kind of measure when deciding on how much to weigh the sides of a story. Of course, they’ll never do this. News networks need controversy, they need people arguing, they need political contests to be close, because givens are boring, because, as I’ve said, facts themselves are boring. And here’s where I even out this article, that the public puts up with this is due in most part, to wishy-washy, touchy-feely liberals. Those folks who believe that all opinions are equally vaild, that everyone has a right to believe what they want and not have those beliefs questioned. Well I’m here to say that not all sides of an argument are equal, and sometimes people’s beliefs are just wrong.

In further election related news, further fall out from Governer Palin’s critisizm of “Fruit Fly Research”, the earmark in question was related to research around a species of fruitfly which menaces olive trees, the eramark was authored by a Californa represntative, a state which has a very large annual olive crop. The full details are here at ScienceNOW. This level of ignorance is dangerous, research earmarks made up 4.5 billion of federal spending for ‘08. A large amountof this money goes to our Universtiy system, these research grants drive the advancement of science and keep schools like MIT and Harvard the envy of the academic world. Earmarks may be a problem, but not all earmarks are equal.

In the news: goddesses in diapers, supreme-court smack-downs, orwellian naming conventions, seeing-eye camels and the totally AWESOME atheist bus campaign. We also take a look at the claim that atheists are to blame for EVERYTHING, explore the wonderous world of ritual poop eating and ponder the enigma that is Christopher Hitchens.

She left me for JEEEEEEEEEZUS…

After the break we talk about the CFI event that we attended. We got to (briefly) meet Dr. Lawrence Krauss and guzzle tons of free coffee. It was pretty awesome. We chat a bit about different groups out there and the purposes that they serve and what you can and should do to help them. Yes… you. No, not him… well, him too, but I am talking specifically to you, pal.

read more »

Stream this episode!

Yesterday Joe, Lamar and I sat down to record the show (you’ll see it here soon, trust me). Of course the topic of my last post came up and the conversation got me thinking. There is something more deeply disturbing about the recent comments of the McCain campaign and it’s surrogates. I’ll admit my last post may have been off the mark a bit. The constitution is amendable and thus not a good measure of ones “Americanism”.

Here’s the crux of it, it is *nearly* impossible to be an “Anti-American” American. In order to do so you would have to be in some way aiding a foreign nation in the upheaval and overthrow of the government in favor of rule by that power. The other way would be to attempt to replace the democratic nature of the American government with something less democratic (notice the small “d” here folks).

In a democratic government a nation is whatever it’s people want it to be. As long as voters are aware of a politicians stance on the issues when they are elected to office it is nearly impossible for them to be “anti-American”. This is the strength of democratic nations, it’s laws and policies are mutable. This is why perhaps the most anti-American activity i can see going on right now is the purging of voter rolls in states all across this great nation. To take away the people’s voice, their ability to affect the laws and policies of America, to choose freely those people they would have represent them in government  has got to be one of the most anti-American activities I can possibly imagine.

We’ve got two election scandals going on right now, the one I hear the most about is ACORN, and I have only one thing to say about this. ACORN submits all registration cards to a local elections board it is the job of the local elections board (not ACORN) to validate these registrations. If fraud is to be committed the perpetrators will be found working for these boards, not for some non-profit community organization group. The second I hear less whining about is the massive purge of voters from the rolls, and while I assumed this was because it was probably being perpetrated by both parties I could find nothing but Republicans. These caging techniques are even more despicable in light of the recent home-foreclosure crisis.

So let’s really take a look at what being Anti-American would really consist of, and who is really guilty of such. I know, I’m a “radical militant atheist” who wants to “stamp out” all forms of religion, right? Or am I a red-white-and-blue blooded American who wants to promote debate and open conversation to ensure that all sides of the argument can speak their mind and attempt to sway those still on the fence, so that policy decisions can be made by the voters, armed with all the available information, so that they truly can make up their own minds?

To quote the great cdk007, “Think about it.”

I’m going to chime in a little on politics due to recent comments by Alaska Governor and Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The Governor stated at a campaign rally that she enjoys going to “Pro-American” parts of the country, implying of course that some areas of this nation I call home are not “Pro-American”. While this is a shameless “wedge strategy” to malign the generally democratic-leaning urban areas, pandering to rural voters. I take umbrage as an urbanite. We’ve seen recent (and not so recent) comments by politicians maligning atheists as “Unamerican” or implying that being atheist is unpatriotic, so these comments again raise my ire.

In response I thought I’d do a little experiment (being the scientific-minded fellow I am). I’m going to break down the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, arguably the most important document in the founding of this great nation and see where a stereotypical liberal and a stereotypical conservative stand on each of them. I could go through the whole constitution, but I feel this is a good litmus test. Please keep in mind that these are taken as the “stereotypical” views of these positions and do not reflect my own personal views on these amendments. Text of the amendments is taken from Wikipedia.org.

1.) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Liberal View – “Well, except for hate speech”.

Conservative View – As long as that religion is a christian one, and no one is burning flags, or desecrating a host, or taking prayer out of school, or….

Advantage: Tie.

2.) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Liberal View: Guns are dangerous and should be outlawed, see there it’s tied into a “well regulated militia”.

Conservative: See there “shall not be infringed”, it is the right of “the people” to keep weapons.

Advantage: Conservative

3.) No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Liberal: I don’t want to house a warmonger!

Conservative: Get off my lawn! My property, my rights!

Advantage: Tie

4.) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Liberal: Everyone has a right to privacy, what they do in thier own homes with mutual consent is nobody’s business but those involved.

Conservative: If you’re not doing anything wrong then you’ve got nothing to hide.

Advantage: Liberal

5.) No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Liberal: Due process is important, sometimes the guilty may go free, but it’s the price of living in a fair and just society.

Conservative: I don’t want a rapist or a murderer to go free just because some police officer forgot to fill out a form, or signed on the wrong dotted line.

Advantage:Liberal

6.) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Liberal: No problems here…

Conservative: well, unless they’re a terrorist! Stupid trial lawyers!

Advantage: Liberal.

7.) In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Conservative: Fine by me…

Liberal: Me as well

Advantage: Tie.

8.) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Conservative: Well, unless they’re a terrorist…

Liberal: It’s important that America takes the high moral ground as an example to the rest of the world, what right do we have condemning torture if we inflict it ourselves?

Advantage: Liberal

9.) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Conservative: Unless they’re a Homosexual…

Liberal: Spot on!

Advantage: Liberal

10.) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Conservative: That’s right, let the states decide!

Liberal: If we’d have let the states decide how would Civil Rights, or Reproductive rights or the rights of Women stand today?

Advantage: Conservative.

Totals:

Advantage Liberal: 4

Advantage Conservative: 2

Tie:4

So, who’s really more “Pro-America”? Liberals agree with 8 of the first 10 ammendments and Conservatives agree with 6 of 10. Grading like a school I’d give liberals a “B” or high “C” and Conservatives a “D” or high “F”. It’s clear both groups have work to do if they want to be 100% in-line with the values the founders of this nation held dear, but it’s fairly clear that some have more work to do than others.

In this weeks news segment we cover the train wreck of presidential debates, the discovery of the oldest bible on earth and how embarrassing it is for Christians, the relative worth of making empty declarations and whether it is acceptable to call Elizabeth Dole a “dirty skank #$%@!.” We also talk about the line between religious belief and child abuse, the FFRF and how awesome it is and we investigate the merits of “helmet beatings” as stop-smoking cure.

Parting the Red Sea is apparently a 12th level spell.

In the main segment of our show, we talk about the fall of man. The Charioteers take a bite of the Fruit of The Knowledge of Good and Evil® as we get into the meaning and implications of the literal belief of the Abrahamic creation mythology. We discover that Ken Ham isn’t as crazy as he seems! Well… I guess that’s a lie. He is as crazy as he seems. Sorry.

Stream this episode!

I’ve always had a biog problem with Pascal’s Wager, and I am surprised how often it seems to be used. Often this is just a first line of approach by evangelists trying to get me to come around to their side of the fence. Of course a common argument that people use against Pascal’s Wager is that any omniscient god could easily see through a “saying you believe just to get to the good place” type believer.  My issue is this, coming from the non-believer perspective, is that once you get someone over the god-hump how would you then convince them that you’ve got the right bead on the all-mighty? Considering that many religions like to lump those who in other religions in with non-believers (or do I go to a slightly more or less burney-pitchforky-kind of place? because I’m an atheist as opposed to a, for example, Buddhist?).

For the sake of my following, slightly math-related, rant I am going to actually give the faithful a *BIG* benefit of the doubt here and give a deity a 50-50 chance of existence (in all likelihood I’d say that given the total lack of and substantial evidence this chance is several orders of magnitude lower).

So 50% Chance there is a god and I better do what he/she/it says. 50% chance I’m already doing just fine enjoying the very real miracle that is intelligent life (thank you law-of-large-numbers!).

Now how am I to judge the likelihood that any of the “revealed truths” that humankind has ever believed in is the correct one? Once again giving the faithful a big leg-up in this example and ignore all the religions that no one follows anymore, although to be accurate I would have to include these, of course I’d also have to include the chance that some guy in west dumbfuckibad got the real revealed truth but was nailed to a tree by the first person he told… there’s really no way to count those. I’m also not including Scientology amongst the possible “correct” religions, nor small cults, tribalism, all the varieties of paganism, spiritualism, etc… But for the ease of the example I’m going to give those faiths that I do use all an equal chance of being “correct”.

• Christianity
• Judaism
• Hinduism
• Sikhism
• Islam
• Shintoism
• Jainism
• Zoroastrianism
• Cao Dai
• Confucianism
• Taoism

Now We also have to realize that amongst some of these religions there are sects who wholly believe that members of differing sects within the faith are also dammed, here I’m going to pick out some of the more major ones

• Mormonism – Christianity
• Catholicism – Christianity
• Protestantism – Christianity
• Sunni – Islam
• Shiite – Islam
• Orthodoxy – Christianity
• Orthodoxy – Judaism
• Reformed – Judaism
• Conservative – Judaism

And there are even sub-sects of the above… especially when it comes to Christianity, it’s ridiculous.

So we have a final of 18 faiths to pick from (in reality there are so much more and it’s why Pascal’s Wager is the biggest joke in evangelism) this gives you a 2.778% chance of having the “right” religion. Now let’s look at my 50% chance that atheists are right now we can add to that all the works based religions who pretty much don’t care that I don’t believe or who say belief is secondary to just generally being a good person as your key to the big eternal sky/reincarnation/whatevertheheck bliss. This gives us back 22.223% of the “Faith pie”, because as long as I’m not a total bastard I’m pretty much ok. So based on these very basic percentages If I choose whatever faith I’m being evangelized at about I’ve got ~3% chance for all that afterlife wonderfulness, a 22% that I choose your faith and it really didn’t matter, still get the cool afterlife stuff, a 25% chance of burning in hell, and a 50% chance that when I die it’ll pretty much be the same experience as I had before I was born. So instead of the 50-50 the faithful like to spout at you for the good ol’ wager, it’s more like 25%-75% and they’re asking you to take the 25%.

You’re asking me to play spiritual roulette… and every believer is betting. They’re sacrificing their time and money, they’re making other people’s lives miserable all because they think that 00 is where the marble is going to drop.

Sorry, I’m not playing your game.

In truth the chance that any single religious nutbag coming to your door is actually correct about any of these matters is as close to zero as makes no odds, to be fair we’d have to consider every religious belief held by anyone who has claimed the miraculous occurred because of their faith, because that’s all we have, claims.

I’ll take the evidence over the claims anyday.