Enough for a film festival? I guess so: San Francisco will be having the Atheist Film Festival next week. They’ve got four movies lined up, which isn’t bad; I can think of a few others, but not many.
I can’t make it to San Francisco, so tell me what some other good godless movies might be — movies with no gods, no miracles, no afterlife, no ghosts, no kindly priests being beneficent rather than rapey.
His site, The Blaze, has an article about these crazy conservative Christians who disagree with the mainstream view that there were precisely two people, Adam and Eve, who founded the whole human race. And it has a poll which is going in a predictable direction for wacky Beck.
God created man in present form, as per the Genesis story 75.16%
God created man and the universe, but scientific evolution occurred 17.52%
Man evolved without God’s creation or intervention 4.88%
I’m unsure 2.44%
Maybe we can change some of those numbers around.
This word “god” needs some serious redefining. I keep running into these intentionally obscurantist blitherings about “god” when the definition is clearly bouncing back and forth between multiple meanings. There are at least two categories of gods. Let’s give them different names so we stop confusing them.
Gods as working deities or GAWD. GAWD is an interventionist; it may have created the universe, it has power in the real world, it has a personal interest in human beings and planet Earth. GAWD can answer personal requests, GAWD can carry out miracles, GAWD must be propitiated by thoughts and rituals lest GAWD become wrathful…which is a bad thing that can have dire results in the real world. GAWD is what most religions are about, it’s what most people worship. GAWD is usually portrayed as an omnipotent, omniscient being who is greater than and beyond the universe, but he keeps a hand in and dabbles with virgins and foreskins and sends the occasional tornado and earthquake.
Gods who avoid reality, or GWAR. GWAR is an abstraction, an impersonal and remote being who exists completely outside space and time, who doesn’t actually interact with our world; alternatively, GWAR is simply the state of existence that permeates the entire universe. GWAR does not tinker; it does not modify the rules of existence to satisfy personal requests; it does nothing but be and watch and sometimes, love. GWAR is invisible and indetectable because GWAR does nothing. At best, one can aspire to die and become invisible and indetectable oneself, and then you’ll get to meet GWAR. No religion actually exists to support GWAR. GWAR doesn’t need them, and they don’t believe that GWAR will actually do anything for them anyway.
I can’t say that I’m very keen on this lawsuit by American Atheists opposing the “9/11 cross” in some museum in New York; I can understand that in principle it’s promoting religion, and I look at that random chunk of steel that forms a crude cross and can see that it is abysmally stupid to consider it a holy relic, but man, if atheists have to police every single act of stupidity committed by the human race, we’re going to get very, very tired. We need to pick our battles better, and this one is just plain pointless.
Except for one thing: look at the response it generated when aired on Fox News. EIGHT THOUSAND DEATH THREATS from arrogant Christians. Here’s just a sampling.
I have a recommendation for American Atheists.
Back off on the lawsuit. Come right out and tell the world it’s your error, it’s clear the serious objections to memorializing a fragment of metal that has the simple shape of a cross will not be considered in a rational way, and instead point to these insane, hateful messages from Christians. Point out that you can step away from a divisive issue on the recommendations of many of your constituents, but that Christianity clearly has little to distinguish itself from the terrorists who committed the Trade Towers atrocity: religion turns people into ravening monsters who abandon common decency to defend their bogus tribal mythology.
That people can stupidly fall for pareidolia (and trivial pareidolia at that; that pieces of metal would be connected at right angles in a modern building has zero significance) is not a surprise or a major revelation. That they can defend their misbegotten perceptions with threats of murder and rape is a more important issue.
Last week, I wrote about the annoying backwardness of some old-school skeptics — the ones who want to dictate what is an allowed topic for skeptical inquiry and what is not. I targeted Daniel Loxton for criticism; he’s a good guy who does good work promoting skepticism, but he also has this rather nannyish side that prompts him to deplore everyone else who doesn’t do it exactly like he does.
This week, I’ve found someone worse: Barbara Drescher. Once again, we have someone with a distinguished history in the skeptical movement and great things to contribute, who digs in her heels at these new and different people who dare to intrude on her little domain and offer different perspectives. And I’m going to go further: on some things, she is just plain wrong, persisting in a hidebound version of skepticism that has been dogma for far too long. In particular, she wants to — as is typical — restrict the range of subjects to which skepticism may be applied, and sneers at anyone who disagrees.
She has posted four articles, all spawned by her resentment at what she saw at TAM9. I found them infuriating.
I just learned that Sean M. Carroll is live-Blogging Curiosity, the new television program that asks whether gods exist. Hawking comes out strongly with a confident “NO”. But now they have this horrible, awful post-show panel where they bring in weasely theologians to sow confusion. Carroll is also on the panel, and seems to be the sole rational, godless voice.
If you aren’t watching it on TV, you’re in luck — you’ve escaped the blithering nonsense pouring out of John Haught’s mouth. Read Cosmic Variance instead.
This is a wonderful video debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument. What I really like about it is that it takes the tortured rationales of theologians like William Lane Craig, who love to babble mangled pseudoscience in their arguments, and shows with direct quotes from the physicists referenced that the Christian and Muslim apologists are full of shit.
(via Skepchick.)
(Also on Sb)
Hey, look, James Randi has seen an integral number of orbits around the sun! Everyone congratulate him today.
Also note that I actually have a t-shirt with his face on it.
(Also on Sb)
People keep sending me this cartoon, and I really don’t understand it. Is this an issue? Are there flocks of people fleeing atheism who need superstitious artifacts to ease their way? Some of the readers have been telling me to pay particular attention to the dartboard target of the crazy bearded guy in the lower left…I look at it and see Mel Gibson. WTF?
But that’s OK, they all reminded me to browse Atheist Cartoons, which has some much better cartoons that don’t feature Elvis and Mel. I particularly liked this one, which will throw everyone into a tizzy.
He dares to question your right to bacon? Burn him at the stake!
Oh, boy. Look at these quotes from a recently published magazine article, and try to guess where they came from.
Scientists had also implicitly assumed that the X chromosomes in all women were identical.
We had? When?
The first comprehensive study of gene activity in the X chromosome of women reveals an unexpected level of variation among individual females. This extensive variation means there is not ONE human genome, but TWO – Male and Female.
This does not follow. There’s also individual variation in chromosome 7, and every other chromosome in the genome. Allelic and expression variation do not make for calling every variant a different genome.
Chromosomes are the set of genetic instructions that guide the creation of an organism. Every human embryo begins with two X chromosomes, but in order to be a male, one of the X chromosomes turns into a Y chromosome.
Wait, how? Could this happen even now? Watch out ladies: if you watch too much football, one of your X chromosomes might turn into a Y.
Depending on the gene, having two active copies can matter very little or very much. When genes on the second X chromosome that escape inactivation are expressed, this can create a stronger overall concentration of particular genes.
That started out just fine, and then degenerated into gobbledygook.
Have you figured it out? You’re probably thinking it’s some wacky creationist journal, because they are always written by people who don’t understand science and get the facts all wrong.
But no: it’s from Health & Wellness magazine, written by Angela Hoover. The editor of the magazine.
The title of the magazine is a clue. What the heck is “wellness”, and how is it different from “health”?
(Also on Sb)
