The HuffPo has a weddings section?

How much mindless fluff infests the HuffPo? I don’t know and don’t want to find out. But I was provoked when someone sent me a link to the article on “Why you aren’t married” — it doesn’t apply to me at all, but I was aghast at what awful advice was being dispensed. It consists of 9 insults: this is an agony aunt who looks at miserable lonely people and tells them how wretched they are. I presume that happy unmarried people don’t exist in her universe.

But it’s the capper, reason #10, that annoyed me most.

10. You’re Godless. Remember how I said that marriage is a spiritual path? Well, we’re there. The point where I suggest something totally radical and punk-rock as a way of transforming whatever it is you have going on (or don’t have going on) in the area of relationships. And here it is: I want you to get a god. Wait, come back! It’s not necessarily what you think. What do I mean by god? Well, I don’t mean a bearded dude in the sky who is going to give you a Mercedes and a husband if you’re good and punish you if you’re bad. That would be Santa Claus. I mean I want you to cultivate a sense of SPIRIT in your life, a relationship with the intangible, the unseen — the power behind the oceans, gravity, chocolate and the Beatles. You know, the thing you experience in life where the hair stands up on your arms? The Big Something. You could just call it Love. Whatever you name it — it’s the game changer. Because when you mix the idea of spirit into your relationships, it no longer matters how many men are, techincally, out there. No more demographics, no more short guys and tall guys or chicks with cankles or ten extra pounds. There are no more lists of things you think you have to have in a mate. There are only two people on a spiritual assignment: TO LOVE EACH OTHER.

Given the other 9, I suppose that was intended to be an insult, too, but it’s just so stupid it bounced off me and stuck to her instead. Love isn’t spiritual. It’s something real. If you start loading up your relationships with entirely imaginary delusions, you’re either going to blind yourself to real problems, or you’re going to be living in a fantasy relationship.

And you know what we call love with a fantasy: masturbation. There’s nothing wrong with that, but you really don’t need to find a partner for it.

Of course, what you then learn is that this person sneering at everyone for not being married is…not married. But she’s been divorced three times!

Why I am an atheist – Nikolaos Mavrantzas

I do not remember all the steps I took on my way to becoming an atheist, but I am an atheist right now because I accepted, at some point, the fact that the universe does not care. I also liked the freedom from all the madness that was imposed on me, having spent two decades of my life trying to fit the loving god / uncaring universe paradox in my head. And then, I noticed that apart from within the edifice of lies erected by the church, there was no indication that a god existed at all.

Nikolaos Mavrantzas
Greece

Absolute certainty, absolute ignorance

Jerry Coyne seems to have just discovered World Net Daily — at least, he’s surprised that a conservative publication would go after evolution. Think again; WND is notoriously demented. It’s full of birthers and other crazies, and they insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and fully accept the argument from Ussher’s chronology.

So he finds an article by a creationist apologist, Carl Gallups, and now I’m surprised: he discovers an original argument for creationism. In addition to insisting that no transitional fossils have other been found, he has a “creative” explanation for molecular similarities between species: it’s so they can eat each other.

When we ingest other living things, the DNA of those living things (fruits, vegetables, nuts, meats, etc.) just happens to be compatible with our DNA so that cellular respiration can take place. If it were not for the fact that our DNA is so akin to all other living things, we could not eat. If we could not eat, we would die.

Is the process of eating and cellular respiration the result of a mere fluke of evolution? Alternatively, could it be that a common Designer made certain that the process of eating and cellular respiration would function in such a precise and perfect manner? Which answer appears to be the most probable to you?

If the supposed cosmic and random happenstance of evolution was the real reason that all living things exist, why, when, and how did this happenstance mechanism decide that living things needed to eat anything in the first place? Would it not be odd that evolution should come up with the idea of food and energy creation through cellular respiration?

Cellular respiration is an astoundingly complex, energy-expending system. Yet in order for life to be sustained, living things must have other living things to ingest. What an odd thing for a mere cosmic coincidence to develop, by random generation. Is it not a strange convenience for evolution that all living things have such unimaginable DNA similarity that cellular respiration is possible?

It’s an impressive example of the difference between certainty and knowledge. Gallups is absolutely certain that he’s correct, but what he reveals in his writings is an absolute absence of knowledge about the subject he’s talking about.

Digestion does not require DNA template matching. DNA is a tiny fraction of the content of our food; we’re mostly after proteins, fats, and carbohydrates. When I eat a banana, I don’t rely on sequence matching at all: the masticated banana gets dumped into an acid bath with enzymes (my stomach) that breaks it down chemically, and then moves on to my small intestine where further enzymes demolish the structure of the polymers in the banana. For instance, nucleases dismantle the DNA strands, breaking them down into individual nucleotides, and those are then absorbed into my intestinal walls and used as an energy source and recycled into building my DNA and RNA.

I’m always dismayed at the way these bozos can rant on about metabolism and use fancy words like “cellular respiration”, declaring that they disprove evolution, yet they don’t understand one single thing, not even the most basic concepts, about the process. It’s rather dishonest.

Keep Sanal Edamaruku out of jail

The Catholic church is up to their old tricks again, this time in India. They’re trying to get a skeptic imprisoned for exposing a phony “miracle”.

Sanal Edamaruku, President of the Indian Rationalist Association, has for decades been a tireless campaigner for science and against superstition. He is widely known for his exposure of the tricks used by self-professed ‘God-Men’ and gurus and has often been on Indian television explaining the everyday science behind supposed miracles.

After one such exposure – he pointed out that the “blood” oozing from a statue of Christ at the Catholic Church of Our Lady of Velan kanni in Vile Parle, Mumbai was in fact water from a leaky pipe – the Catholic Church of Mumbai made a formal complaint about him to the Mumbai police. He stands accused of “deliberately hurting religious feelings and attempting malicious acts intended to outrage the religious sentiments of any class or community”, an offence under Section 295(a) of the Indian Penal Code. No arrest warrant has been issued but the case is "cognisable" meaning the police can arrest without warrant at any time. He is being harassed daily by the Mumbai authorities who, under pressure from Catholic groups, are insisting that he turn himself in. His petition for “anticipatory bail” was turned down on 3 June 2012 on the bizarre grounds that he would be safer in custody. If he is arrested he will therefore most likely be detained in jail until court proceedings are concluded, which could take several years. Fearing arrest, he dares not stay long at home or work.

Go sign the petition.

Atheism should be science and social justice, not science vs. social justice

I have received a couple of complaints about Sikivu Hutchinson, complaints that were also cc’ed to a number of big names in the atheist movement, which is weird. Why complain to me? Apparently my correspondent wants me to write a rebuttal to some remarks she made in the May issue of International Humanist News. Here are the offensive comments:

Engaging in science fetishism without a social justice lens merely reproduces the white supremacist logic of the New Atheist Movement.

If much of the New Atheist fervor springs from the endless culture war over evolution and church/state separation, contemporary black humanist ideology emerges from a social justice lens.

[Read more…]

Why I am an atheist – Rod Chlebek

Religion didn’t seem to be very important in my earliest years. We didn’t pray or go to church except for maybe twice a year and then whenever someone died or got married. Strangely, I ended up in Catechism in preparation for First Communion. Somehow I botched that up and didn’t attend when I was expected but I got another chance at it when I hit 4th grade. That was the year I started to attend Catholic School. It was totally voluntary. I wanted to go because my neighborhood friends went there. I made it through First Communion that year being very skeptical about the whole body and blood thing. We were taught that “amen” means “I believe” and that when you receive Communion you are expected to reply “amen”. What bothered me more would have been being the only student who didn’t go through with this. Everyone else did it and believed. I must have been doing something wrong.

[Read more…]

Distilled, condensed, conflagrating stupid

Here’s the most evil thing I’ve ever done: it’s a recording from Trinity Broadcast Network (you are already recoiling) featuring Hugh Ross, Eric Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, and a couple of other guys talking about evolution. Seriously, you will lose brain cells watching this. If you try to sit through the whole two hours (!), you will be reduced to a mindless zombie with a craving for human flesh. So I may be triggering the Zombie Apocalypse by posting this. But, you know, atheist, so what do I care?

I skipped through most of it. Somewhere in the middle, Ross and Ham really get into it over the age of the earth. Unfortunately, it’s mostly the two of them citing bible verses at each other.

I wonder why they didn’t have an atheist or two in the conversation?