Recently, I read an essay by Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) entitled “There Is No God”, and while I’m in agreement with the spirit of the title, I was disturbed by some of the author’s claims about belief and Atheism. Mr. Jillette contends that declaring oneself an Atheist is easy because not believing in something is simple. He turns that around by saying that he believes there is no God. Essentially, he is saying “I don’t believe in God/Higher Power/etc.” is substantively different than “I believe there is no God”, and by declaring a belief, rather than a non-belief, he has more clearly defined himself.
I don’t believe that the two statements above vary at all in meaning, and I strongly disagree with Mr. Jillette’s assertion that Atheism is about non-belief. The statement “I believe there is no God” is absolutely a tenet of Atheism and to suggest otherwise is an attempt to mislead the reader about what Atheism actually means. Why would Mr. Jillette do this? I suspect that he is uncomfortable with the label of Atheist and that he is trying to define himself in a more positive and palatable way that distances himself from the general public’s understanding of Atheism. Let’s face it, the word atheist has a very negative connotation in our society today and contrary to Mr. Jillette’s words, publicly declaring yourself an atheist isn’t easy. In fact, it’s courageous. Most people have been brainwashed to think that Atheists believe in nothing, are morally bankrupt and are generally dangerous to society. Admitting to all of that isn’t easy.
However, it isn’t unreasonable not to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. Do you believe in the Easter Bunny? Do you believe in Santa Claus? I can say with equal conviction that there is no God as I can say there is no Easter Bunny. When discussing the evidence of God with a religious person, the person will invariably put forth the illogical and circular arguments that he has been armed with through the brainwashing he has received since childhood. In the end though, after you’ve exhausted all of the arguments, the person will say something to the effect of “you just have to have faith.” And you know what? I couldn’t agree more.
The pertinent question is: “what should I have faith in?” This is where Mr. Jillette missed the point of his “I believe” essay, which was surprising given his celebrity status. First, I have faith in myself and my ability to control my own destiny. My life is what I make of it; there is nothing supernatural involved in it. Secondly, I have faith in humanity. I believe that humans can create just societies and governments, can explore truth and the nature of the universe through science, and can lead ethical lives that aspire to a common good. Some may recognize these as characteristics of Humanism, and perhaps Humanism is the next evolutionary step for Atheism. It shows a distinct belief and faith in something (as opposed to nothing) and is where I think Mr. Jillette was heading. He just hasn’t arrived there yet.
For more information on Humanism, visit the American Humanist Association.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Monday, November 21, 2005
O'Reilly and the War on Christmas
November 21, 2005 - CPLA Exclusive
BOSTON - Today, in one of the most brazen attacks in the War on Christmas, Secularist para-troopers stormed the Prudential Mall in downtown Boston in an all-out attack on retailers promoting the Christian holiday. The pagan troops went store to store and dismantled any display that referred to Christmas while holding store employees at bay with automatic weapons.
The assault lasted about 45 minutes and when it was over, the Secularist troops forced retail employees to carry their destroyed Christmas displays outside to Boylston Street where they were piled together and set alight to form a bonfire that could be seen for miles. The atheistic horde even had the audacity to throw Bibles into the flames. The leader of the Secularist mission, General Robert Ingersoll, stated “attacks like this are needed to make a strong statement about the dangers of Christmas in American society today. Don’t be surprised if you see more of these attacks in the coming days elsewhere in America.”
The question now becomes, how should America react to the upsurge in violence in the War on Christmas?
***
Obviously, the above “story” is a bit far-fetched ... or is it? For the second year in a row, Bill O’Reilly has been talking up the “War on Christmas” on his nightly television show, The O’Reilly Factor. This year, O’Reilly is focusing on retailers and their use of the dreaded “Christmas” word in their marketing and advertising. According to O'Reilly, retailers who don’t use Christmas in store displays, etc. are deemed to be exclusionary and hostile toward Christians, and can expect to lose millions of shoppers this holiday season.
Isn’t O’Reilly being a little paranoid here? A sales and marketing executive who was a guest on “The Factor” told the pundit that the point of the "Happy Holidays" marketing theme wasn’t to exclude Christians, but to include everyone, regardless of faith. That didn’t fly with O’Reilly and he told his guest that he thought he was crazy.
On his November 18th show, O’Reilly brought up the subject again with a far friendlier guest, fellow Fox News host John Gibson. Gibson actually has a book on this very topic and based on the transcript of the interview, is even more on the fringe of this subject than O’Reilly is. What this really boils down to is two old guys who aren’t comfortable with how America has changed and is continuing to change. They want everything in America to be just as it was when they were kids. Don’t we all feel that way sometimes? I know that I’m nostalgic about sports from my childhood. However, their paranoia drives them to the belief that their “way of life” is being marginalized. Claims of hostility towards Christianity sounds a lot like the people who organized Justice Sunday and said that “people of faith” were being discriminated against. Clearly, the accusation of discrimination is a powerful tool in mobilizing one’s base and O’Reilly isn’t bashful about calling out to his listeners to enlist them in his battles.
I suppose that this resistance to change is simply an indication as to why Bill O’Reilly is a conservative television host for Fox News. However, his resistance to change has manifested itself into a vision of sub-plots against his core beliefs that actually doesn't exist. I almost feel sorry for the man.
BOSTON - Today, in one of the most brazen attacks in the War on Christmas, Secularist para-troopers stormed the Prudential Mall in downtown Boston in an all-out attack on retailers promoting the Christian holiday. The pagan troops went store to store and dismantled any display that referred to Christmas while holding store employees at bay with automatic weapons.
The assault lasted about 45 minutes and when it was over, the Secularist troops forced retail employees to carry their destroyed Christmas displays outside to Boylston Street where they were piled together and set alight to form a bonfire that could be seen for miles. The atheistic horde even had the audacity to throw Bibles into the flames. The leader of the Secularist mission, General Robert Ingersoll, stated “attacks like this are needed to make a strong statement about the dangers of Christmas in American society today. Don’t be surprised if you see more of these attacks in the coming days elsewhere in America.”
The question now becomes, how should America react to the upsurge in violence in the War on Christmas?
***
Obviously, the above “story” is a bit far-fetched ... or is it? For the second year in a row, Bill O’Reilly has been talking up the “War on Christmas” on his nightly television show, The O’Reilly Factor. This year, O’Reilly is focusing on retailers and their use of the dreaded “Christmas” word in their marketing and advertising. According to O'Reilly, retailers who don’t use Christmas in store displays, etc. are deemed to be exclusionary and hostile toward Christians, and can expect to lose millions of shoppers this holiday season.
Isn’t O’Reilly being a little paranoid here? A sales and marketing executive who was a guest on “The Factor” told the pundit that the point of the "Happy Holidays" marketing theme wasn’t to exclude Christians, but to include everyone, regardless of faith. That didn’t fly with O’Reilly and he told his guest that he thought he was crazy.
On his November 18th show, O’Reilly brought up the subject again with a far friendlier guest, fellow Fox News host John Gibson. Gibson actually has a book on this very topic and based on the transcript of the interview, is even more on the fringe of this subject than O’Reilly is. What this really boils down to is two old guys who aren’t comfortable with how America has changed and is continuing to change. They want everything in America to be just as it was when they were kids. Don’t we all feel that way sometimes? I know that I’m nostalgic about sports from my childhood. However, their paranoia drives them to the belief that their “way of life” is being marginalized. Claims of hostility towards Christianity sounds a lot like the people who organized Justice Sunday and said that “people of faith” were being discriminated against. Clearly, the accusation of discrimination is a powerful tool in mobilizing one’s base and O’Reilly isn’t bashful about calling out to his listeners to enlist them in his battles.
I suppose that this resistance to change is simply an indication as to why Bill O’Reilly is a conservative television host for Fox News. However, his resistance to change has manifested itself into a vision of sub-plots against his core beliefs that actually doesn't exist. I almost feel sorry for the man.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Come out swingin'
Over the last few days, members of the Bush administration have come out with their scripted talking points regarding the Iraq war amidst waves of criticism from all corners of America. Let’s summarize these talking points into a concise list so we can easily parse through the message:
· Everyone had the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion.
· Democrats thought Saddam had WMD too.
· Democrats are contradicting themselves for political gain.
· War critics are re-writing history and are dishonest.
· Claiming that intelligence was fabricated dishonors the soldiers in Iraq.
Of course this is all utter rubbish. Fred Kaplan of Slate does an excellent job of breaking down President Bush’s Veterans Day speech and points out the falsehoods and misleading information contained within. A New York Times editorial also debunks the latest PR campaign from the Bushies.
I’d like to address a couple of these points myself. First, regarding the same intelligence claim, doesn’t it make sense that if everyone looked at the same “cooked” intelligence that they would all come to the same conclusion? Isn’t that exactly what you wanted to happen Mr. President? Of course, not everyone saw the same intelligence, as what was sent to Congress didn’t contain crucial dissenting views.
The most outrageous claim above is the one concerning dishonesty. Vice President Dick Cheney mentioned this in a speech today and while Cheney is certainly an expert on dishonesty (the last time he was truthful on any topic was circa 1620), his claims could only be backed up by further falsehoods regarding pre-war intelligence. At this point, it has become blatantly obvious to me that this administration flat-out lied to get the US into this war. The Downing Street memo, which stated that the intelligence would be fixed around the policy, was the smoking gun. Unfortunately, only the Progressive media saw it that way. The mainstream media (and some of my friends) largely chose to downplay the memo, perhaps thinking such blatant manipulation and conspiracy couldn’t happen. I guess the media forgot about Watergate and the level of conspiracy involved at that time. This memo, and the fact that Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq back in 2001 are two of the more salient points when discussing the dishonesty of this war.
Oh, and what about the claim that war critics are dishonoring our soldiers in Iraq by questioning the pre-war intelligence? Personally, I can’t think of anything more dishonorable than sending people to die in the wake of lies. Can you?
· Everyone had the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion.
· Democrats thought Saddam had WMD too.
· Democrats are contradicting themselves for political gain.
· War critics are re-writing history and are dishonest.
· Claiming that intelligence was fabricated dishonors the soldiers in Iraq.
Of course this is all utter rubbish. Fred Kaplan of Slate does an excellent job of breaking down President Bush’s Veterans Day speech and points out the falsehoods and misleading information contained within. A New York Times editorial also debunks the latest PR campaign from the Bushies.
I’d like to address a couple of these points myself. First, regarding the same intelligence claim, doesn’t it make sense that if everyone looked at the same “cooked” intelligence that they would all come to the same conclusion? Isn’t that exactly what you wanted to happen Mr. President? Of course, not everyone saw the same intelligence, as what was sent to Congress didn’t contain crucial dissenting views.
The most outrageous claim above is the one concerning dishonesty. Vice President Dick Cheney mentioned this in a speech today and while Cheney is certainly an expert on dishonesty (the last time he was truthful on any topic was circa 1620), his claims could only be backed up by further falsehoods regarding pre-war intelligence. At this point, it has become blatantly obvious to me that this administration flat-out lied to get the US into this war. The Downing Street memo, which stated that the intelligence would be fixed around the policy, was the smoking gun. Unfortunately, only the Progressive media saw it that way. The mainstream media (and some of my friends) largely chose to downplay the memo, perhaps thinking such blatant manipulation and conspiracy couldn’t happen. I guess the media forgot about Watergate and the level of conspiracy involved at that time. This memo, and the fact that Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq back in 2001 are two of the more salient points when discussing the dishonesty of this war.
Oh, and what about the claim that war critics are dishonoring our soldiers in Iraq by questioning the pre-war intelligence? Personally, I can’t think of anything more dishonorable than sending people to die in the wake of lies. Can you?
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Thanks Pat!
If further confirmation was needed that Intelligent Design is simply Creationism in disguise, then Pat Robertson just delivered. According to Robertson, the city of Dover, PA has rejected God by ousting the school board that was in favor of including Intelligent Design in science classes. Of course the religious zealot didn’t stop there. The assassination-loving, disaster-targeting mouthpiece of God told the citizens of Dover not to turn to God if a natural disaster strikes their area, as they would get no help from him/her/it. I was surprised that Robertson actually used the term “natural disaster” as he usually calls for God to use his Dial-A-Disaster Machine and send it to the offending community for just punishment. He must have misspoken.
Robertson’s statements today confirmed two things:
1. Intelligent Design has nothing to do with science. It is simply the latest weapon in Christian Fundamentalism’s war against Evolution and the truthful exploration of the universe.
2. Pat Robertson is an embarrassment to himself and the cause he purports to believe in. Publicly, few, if any, will come to his defense over his comments regarding Dover, PA. The credibility of the Religious Right may have been compromised as well since it appears that a nut-job is speaking for God-fearing Christians everywhere.
And while we are on the subject of Pat Robertson, why does this man have any credibility when it comes to the “thoughts” of God. The world seems to be filled with spokespeople for God and some of them must be wrong. In fact, I would guess that Pat Robertson has a 0.00% chance of getting anything right. By the way, if you are religious, do you really want to worship the God that Pat Robertson represents? If you do, then your God is egotistical, masochistic and unforgiving. Those don’t sound like the qualities of a higher being to me.
Let’s face it – all of these people that claim to speak for God are speaking for themselves and are using God as a means of pushing their agenda on others. Yes, it’s that simple and Pat Robertson is your proof. Do something that he disagrees with and you could end up dead, in a hurricane or both. Pat – just go away! You won’t be missed by anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)