It’s back on. Fort Bragg has approved the atheist festival, Rock Beyond Belief. Be there, 31 March 2012.
Oh, look. The site CSS has been patched up to give the place a more homey, familiar look. Those of you who have a custom CSS file in Firefox might want to remove it now, in case we do more makeovers in the future.
Why? This makes no sense. Ken Ham is putting up a for-profit theme park, has already got big sales tax breaks from the state of Kentucky, and now we learn that he’s also getting a major break on property taxes.
The property tax agreement means the Ark Encounter would pay 25 percent of the local taxes due on 800 acres of property where the $150 million theme park will be built. Mayor Rick Skinner says the reduced property taxes will generate far more revenue than unoccupied land.
Well, with that logic, we all ought to get tax cuts on our homes to just slightly more than the valuation of an undeveloped lot.
Besides, we’ve been hearing all these glorious promises from Answers in Genesis about how they’re going to be raking in big bucks and getting amazing attendance and creating all these wonderful jobs for Kentucky — but at the same time they go begging for special privileges like a bunch of desperate paupers.
Christians. Yeah, they believe in that poverty crap, all right.
(Also on Sb)
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)
