Christmas is Not Christian

One of my friends on Facebook posted this video, and I thought that I would re-post it here. It's a little overzealous in its explanation, but it has plenty of great points to make about some facts concerning the Christmas holiday ... namely that most everything about Christmas has nothing to with Christ or Christianity. Essentially pagan practices centered around a pagan holiday were adopted to be part of Christianity starting around the 16th century - but many of the traditions of Christmas time are unoriginal and date back to practices long before Jesus was around. Check out some of the points and leave any interesting comments you might have:

Because He's a Dick

Debating creationists and intelligent design (ID) proponents is a sort of hobby for me. One of my favorite things to do is find the logical inconsistencies in their argument and point it out to them to see what new maneuvers they will try to get out of the intellectual trouble.

The geniuses over at Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal webcomic have nailed it with a spoof on the well-known argument from design by the 18th century theologian William Paley. You can find the comic here, or see it below:

THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT: The world must be designed (by the Christian God). In the same way that you would look at a watch and clearly see all the parts could not have been made and put together by 'chance', so our world runs as intricate and perfectly as a watch, therefore there must be a designer (the Christian God, of course).

THE PROBLEM: The seemingly 'designed' world is full of sickness, death, oppression, tyranny, and disasters that do not discriminate based on race, sex, or religion. Horrible things seem to happen to people across all economic backgrounds and social classes. This indicates an indiscriminate God, a capricious deity, who randomly punishes humans for any whim. The only way this could be consistent with a deity that is also responsible for designing the world is if that deity is a dick. This is highly incompatible with a loving, personal Christian God.

THE ATHEIST RESOLUTION: Instead of supposing that there is a designer and that he's a dick (which is actually far more believable than the Christian version of a designer who actually cares about people), atheists simply (and correctly) challenge the notion that there is any interventionist, designer, or creator at all. It's not necessary, and our world does not need a creator. In fact, many have argued that the world is poorly designed in many ways, suggesting that there could not have been any overseer in the process.

Mr. Deity's Opposition

My how the Deity has grown ... grown to be despised.  See how Lucy Fair Angel gets sucked into the narrative as the bad "guy" - it even has references to all the skeptical brouhaha about sexism that has been going on recently!

STORM: By Tim Minchin

For everyone who knows me but has never understood how or why I feel the way I currently do about life, science, religion, politics, philosophy ... watch this.  This animated short is based on a performance by the talented comedian, musician, and skeptic Tim Minchin.  His poem is phenomenal and the illustrations are right on point.  Sit back, relax, and think for a change:

Science > Religion

This comic from SMBC sums up exactly why 93% of the top scientists who are members of the United States National Academy of the Sciences are atheist or agnostic:

You Can't Explain That!

Many of you might know that conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly made a fool of himself when interviewing president of the American Atheists, David Silverman, by trying to explain the existence of god by saying, "Tide comes in, tide goes out.  No miscommunication.  You can't explain that".  Justifiably, Bill'O has become a laughing stock of the internet.  Again.

Now there's a fun meme going round that puts similarly stupid phrases above a picture of Bill O'Reilly as arguments that you just can't explain, so it must be true!  Joel shared this via Google reader.  So in the spirit of lampooning foolish TV figures that use terrible reasoning skills, I've made one of my own with the meme generator:

Free Will(y)

Thank goodness for Mr. Deity!  I've now found the perfect response to show the next baptist or evangelical that explains to me that the reason an omniscient and omnipotent god can allow evil is because of free will.  What a terrible reason!  In other words, a god would be choosing evil and suffering so we can have free will?  Doesn't sound like a trade off that a merciful and compassionate god who wants us to be with him/her one day would do.  Let's see how Mr. Deity gets through this:

Thou Shalt Kill?

Many Christians, especially evangelicals, believe that evil things happen in the world because of Satan, not because of God.  This is a typical response to the question "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?"  The other popular response is "You can't know God's plan", implying that even though you *think* whatever happened was bad/evil, in the bigger scheme of things it was probably good (because God did it).  Of course, the implication is that God is the source of all things good, and Satan is the source of all things evil - it's a bit of a tautology, and it's very frustrating to hear these excuses in conversation because it seems that the individuals are just imagining beings into existence (Satan) or claiming your ignorance to account for phenomena that they don't want associated with their God (but should be associated because they demand an all-knowing, all-powerful god).

Well here's something else Christians may have trouble explaining - a simple graph depicting the number of murders that occur in the Bible committed by either God or Satan:

According to the source here (the Bible), God killed 2,391,421 people, but Satan only killed 10.  Note that the Y-axis is logarithmic - this indicates a level of killing by God that is FIVE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE ABOVE what Satan did.  In other words, God killed people 239,142.1 times MORE than Satan did.  I thought that the commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?  I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions.

Information originally shared from a StumbleUpon post.
______________________________________________
UPDATE: For clarification, the SumbleUpon post was referred to me by the noble Greg Barnes, otherwise known as Greggles.

Does "Reason" Dress Dirty or Something?

One of the most frustrating aspects of religion is that it commonly claims truth through personal revelation.  For example, reading through the scriptures, god will "speak" to someone and they will "understand" something that they did not before.  It's interesting though ... I typically read non-sacred books and end up understanding things better too ... but not because a god spoke to me.  I rely on critical thinking processes and reason to compare and contrast ideas, evaluating the benefits and the disadvantages, the truths and the mis-perceptions of each idea.  Religious folk tend to frown on critical thinking in general and attribute any gain in knowledge to a god that they can't see, touch, hear, taste, or smell - to them, Reason is just the driving force behind questions like "Mommy, how did Methuselah live to be over 700 years old before antibiotics were discovered?" or "Daddy, if God's creation is perfect, then why did he/she create the Ebola virus, which kills you after uncontrollable vomiting and bloody diarrhea?"

Reason has long been the bane of the theologian's existence - constantly prodding; questioning; forcing religious leaders to re-think their magical explanations because, as it turns out, there's a natural force that seems to be lurking behind anything at which we turn our microscopes or telescopes.  Although it can sometimes seem that the religious kooks that *you* have to deal with every day are the most zeus-awful ignoramuses that ever existed, take solace in knowing that ignorant and inflammatory religious figures are nothing new - religion has been practicing their aversion to critical thinking for quite sometime.  In fact, one of the most well-known religious leaders, the one who provided the intellectual and emotional vigor for splitting off from the Catholic faith and creating what we know today as Protestantism, spewed some of the most ignorant and vile stupidness long before we had Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.  I give you the infamous words of Martin Luther, from Works, the Erlanger Edition v. 16, p142-148:

Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.

Doesn't that just make you proud to be a protestant?!  And know that this sort of misguided thinking is not out of an unbiased evaluation of the concept of critical thinking or reason.  Martin Luther had a clear agenda:

Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.

Aren't you happy that we don't live in the early 1500s, with Martin Luther as a King? Imagine if he were alive today ... he would burn us all at the stake because of our acceptance of the internet, vaccines, and goodness knows the gays!

Obama *is* Jesus

It's amazing how hypocritical many religious conservatives are, especially the evangelical Christian variety.  In fact, shouldn't the phrase "conservative Christian" be an oxymoron?  In what way would Jesus have been a conservative?  I mean, really.  The number of Christians who go to church and hear/read about the Beattitudes in the book Matthew are oftentimes the ones who go out and vote to disenfranchise groups of underprivileged people - is that really what Jesus would do?  The website Tea Party Jesus has done a fantastic job at revealing the hypocrisy of religious conservatives by taking old images of Jesus in many different settings and putting words in his mouth that are spoken from religious conservatives - it's hard not to cry sometimes at how abject the hypocrisy seems.

Of course, conservatives also like to turn our current president, Barack Obama, into a scary Marxist monster.  Conservatives have accused Obama of being too dark-skinned/muslim (the same thing in conservative speak), too socialist, too peace-making, and wanting to "give" away healthcare to the poor.  Religious politicians from the right have attempted character assassination, implying redistribution of wealth and universal healthcare to be terrible ideals ... of course, they think they know what Jesus would do.  This picture pretty  much summarizes my thoughts on the matter:

Chik-Fil-Gay

Chik-Fil-A likes people to eat their chicken, but probably not if they're gays.  It's no secret that they're more Christian than other fast food chains.  They've been in the news recently for supporting antigay politicians in Pennsylvania, and the company gave money to the antigay group Focus on the Family in 2009.

This time they're excluding gay couples from a counseling camp in Rome, Georgia.  Chik-Fil-A funds the WinShape foundation which sponsors couples retreats for both unwed and married couples.

The foundation was asked if gay couples could attend and their response was (via Good as you Blog):

"WinShape Retreat defines marriage from the Biblical standard as being between one man and one woman. Groups/individuals are welcome who offer wholesome, educational conferences and programs that are compatible with Biblical values and WinShape's purpose."

In a follow up response Chik-Fil-A directly indicated that they do not accept homosexual couples at the retreat according to their contract.

Surprise, surprise: a Christian funded group is excluding gays from their couples oriented activities.  Which part of this is "hate the sin, not the sinner" mentality that I grew up with in the South?  Besides, Jesus never had a girlfriend.  And we all know that a man who's in his thirties but has never gotten laid is probably as gay as the day is long - especially if he wasn't laid by age thirty in the year 30 BCE, when people were marrying at age 12.  I know that god must have a soft-spot for gays anyhow - King David, one of god's favorites, had a raging hard-on for Jonathon for like half of the old testament.  Plus, god makes rainbows.  Ergo, god is gay.

So, biblical standard is what is important, right?  Chik-Fil-A wants to keep gay couples out because the bible says so?  Then maybe they should stop and think about whether or not they should abide by any more of the rules set forth in the old testament (or New Testament for that matter).  I bet they would let divorced couples attend the meeting - and it's clear that divorce is frowned upon.

But of course Chik-Fil-A doesn't care about this because their reasoning is not sound - it's just an excuse to bolster their own cultural discomfort in failing to understand something that's foreign to them.  You could try to reason with them, but I have learned in my old 27-years of existence that you're best not to do that: you can't reason someone out of something that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

God Fucks Up: Science Saves the Day

For all of those out there who might still believe in a god, your god is a douchebag – unless, of course, you think that human life results from an embryo naturally developing from the fusion of a sperm and an egg (which is susceptible to teratogens, natural genetic aberrations, environmental influence, etc.).  Otherwise, some deity just gave a pre-born baby a giant deadly tumor that weighs more than the baby itself (pictures below).  Oh, and if you think there's a god behind the natural events leading to human life, I’m sure you also think a god is responsible for creating the universe.  If so, your god is also responsible for everything in it, including the natural phenomena that lead to deadly cancers.  Try as he/she/it might, even divine corruption did not stop doctors from blocking the evil masterwork of giving a baby in gestation a giant tumor.

The fascinating story was recently published in the Journal of Pediatric Surgery entitled: “Preoperative embolization of giant sacrococcygeal teratoma in a premature newborn”.  In other words, “We [doctors] cured a prematurely born baby of a deadly tumor that weighs more than the baby itself.”  This was no small feat – your god has had … well … an eternity to perfect the art of giving living things cancer – scientists and doctors have only had a hundred years or so to really fight back.  Great news: we’re getting better at beating god’s evil plans!  In fact, this particular method of foiling god’s cancer plans has only been used once before.

At about 20 weeks of pregnancy the large tumor was identified as a sacrococcygeal teratoma, or SCT.  Teratomas are special tumors that can also be very dangerous – they originate from your germ cells (the cells that make sperm or egg depending on if you’re a male or a female).  SCTs are one of the most common forms of teratomas because they arise in the pelvic region, right where germ cells can end up if they get off track from your gonads.  In this particular case, the mother was immediately give corticosteroid treatment to ease her immune system and protect the baby.  This particular tumor was immature meaning that it had very aggressive and potentially malignant cells inside it.  After close monitoring of the mother and unborn child, the mother suddenly entered labor at 30 weeks and the doctors had to perform a C-section.  This is what they found attached to the baby after delivering her:

The combined weight of baby and tumor was 3.43 kg.  The tumor itself weighed (1.86 kg) more than the baby (1.57 kg)!  Unfortunately these kinds of tumors are very dangerous to cut off (ressect) because of the huge risk of bleeding.  The bigger the tumor, the bigger the arteries carrying blood, the bigger the risk of the baby bleeding to death before the doctors can save her.  Fortunately, the doctors have science on their side.  After taking a picture called an arteriogram, the doctors were able to see the main artery that was sourcing the blood to the tumor (see the arrow):

 Normally doctors try to keep your blood stream clean of cholesterol – otherwise you might get a clot that will stop the blood flow and kill you.  In this case, the doctors reckoned that they could induce an artificial clot (called an embolism) right at the site of the artery branching off to the tumor to block the blood flow and attempt to choke it off from oxygen and food – this way, when they ressect the tumor there would be less risk of bleeding.  So, they used a commercial product called Gelitaspon (small gelatin sponges) and injected some in the artery leading into the tumor.  You can see here that this successfully reduced the blood flow to the teratoma:

At this point the doctors ressected the tumor and the bleeding was minimal.  Unfortunately there was a lot of cell death from the tumor that had still managed to circulate in the baby’s bloodstream (hemolysis) which caused major problems, culminating in a full on cardiac arrest (heart attack).  The baby’s heart stopped for a full 6 minutes.  SIX MINUTES!  I guess god really didn’t want this baby to be born.

Fortunately, doctors provided injections of gluconate, insulin, adrenalin, hydrocortisone, and other science-y drugs that saved the baby’s life.  After 6.5 weeks the baby was allowed to leave the hospital and has been receiving monthly checkups every since.  Despite a solid effort by your god, the baby survived.

If you’re someone who likes to give a god credit for things like the sunrise, the ocean’s tides, the formation of the grand canyon, and/or the “miracle” of human life, then it’s high time you also start giving your god credit for the viruses, bacteria, and cancers that are so good at destroying human beings.  Let’s face it – if you think a god is behind the scenes of nature, then to human beings, your god is a douchebag.

Glad to be an Ex

This is one of my favorite shorts from a new website called I am an Ex-Mormon:

I would love to see something like this expanded to more than just ex-Mormons. The world could use more examples of how happy (and moral) people are without religion.

Creationists and the 2nd law of Thermodynamics

On the upcoming 17th episode of the Pascals Bettors podcast, we have a Counter Creationism Corner where we discuss a common misconception that creationists put forth about evolution. A favorite claim by some creationists who try to dispute evolution is that “The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution”. Not surprisingly, creationists who claim this know just as little about thermodynamics as they do about evolution. Thomas Kindell, founder and president of Reasons for Faith Ministries, purports just such a claim that you can watch for yourself here - that is, if you can stomach even the first five minutes of it.

Most people don’t fully understand, and thus can’t question, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but it has the allure of being one of the foundational tenets of a paradigm in physics, and people more readily question something that is referred to as a “theory of evolution” rather than a “law of thermodynamics”. The idea behind this argument is to present a seemingly longstanding scientific principle pertaining to a hard science, like physics, to topple the weaker, younger science of evolutionary theory. While this type of argument may have some emotional appeal, if creationists knew anything about the timelines of these two disciplines they would know why this is such a farce: Charles Darwin published his book, On the origin of Species, in 1859, but Darwin and others had put forth simple notions and publications about evolution much earlier. Although naturalistic thinking on biology dates back over 2600 years ago to the 6th century BCE with the greek philosopher Anaximander, proto-evolutionary ideas were set forth as early as 1745 by a few natural philosophers like Pierre Maupertuis, and later in 1796 by Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin's grandfather. Alternatively, thermodynamics emerged in the early to mid-1800s, largely due to the work of French physicist Nicolas Carnot, who believed that engine efficiency was the key to help France win the Napoleonic wars. It wasn’t until Lord Kelvin in 1854 that a concise definition of thermodynamics was recorded. Thus, even from the get-go, it seems that evolution has been around as long as, if not longer, than thermodynamics. BUT - this shouldn't matter anyways because it would be a logical fallacy to say that one science is more correct than another just because it has been around longer - so let's move on.

To begin our conversation about this topic, it is important to define our terms. Thermodynamics is the science of energy conversion involving heat and other forms of energy, most notably mechanical work. It turns out that, over time, several laws of thermodynamics have emerged. There are four well-known laws of thermodynamics: the zeroth, first, second, and third laws. The zeroth law is arguably the most fundamental of the four laws, but the need to state it explicitly was not understood until after the other laws had been formulated, in 1931. This law implies the definition of a temperature function, essentially demonstrating the possibility of constructing a thermometer. It is referred to as the zeroth because it is arguably the most fundamental of the four laws, but the need to state it explicitly was not understood until after the other laws had been formulated, in 1931. The first law (1850) is commonly expressed as the principle of the conservation of energy stating that the internal energy of an isolated system is constant - also commonly known as “energy cannot be created or destroyed” - this principle is at work in E=mc2, the equation that demonstrates the force of the atomic bomb, that matter and energy are interchangeable and the conversion of matter to energy is highly exothermic.

The second law (iterations in 1850, 1851, and 1909) states that heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder location to a hotter location. This has to do with the universal principle of decay in the universe. The second law is an observation of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. For example, this is how a space heater would work in your house - if you’re cold, you turn on the space heater - the heat produced in the heater is transferred to the air surrounding the heater which then increases in pressure and diffuses throughout the room until the air in the room produces a higher temperature equilibrium. As a result, you get warmer because the heat from the air is transferred to your body through contact. This is where it gets confusing. ENTROPY is a measure of how much this evening-out process has progressed, and entropy of a system not in equilibrium increases over time.

The word entropy is one of the most misunderstood concepts in thermodynamics, particularly by the creationists. It is a measure of the energy not available for work in a thermodynamic process. Think of it as diffusable heat in a room - the room itself is a closed system, until someone turns on a space heater - at this point, heat energy starts pouring in at one point in the room. According to the second law of thermodynamics, heat will transfer from the heater to the rest of the room. When the heater is turned off, the remaining heat will eventually diffuse and equilibrate throughout the entire room - as this happens, entropy increases until equilibrium is reached, at which point maximum entropy is recorded for the now closed system - but remember! This all changes if we turn the heater on again and create an open system with an outside input of energy.

The trouble with the word entropy comes in with its definition in the microscopic interpretation of statistical mechanics: entropy expresses the disorder or randomness of the constituents of a thermodynamic system. Unfortunately, many people walk away from this definition thinking that entropy = disorder on a macroscopic level. ENTER: the creationists! They think they are clever by saying “HA! You and I are complex and ordered! We could not have arisen through a process of evolution because the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything tends towards increased entropy, or disorder! HAHA!” This idea is absurd on its face for several reasons:

1) Disorder and entropy are not the same - the second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy. There are no laws about things tending to “break down”. There are no laws about disorder as people normally use the word. The 2nd law is about spontaneous heat flow or, more generally, about the impossibility to perform useful work indefinitely. The twists put on it by creationists, including “organized complexity” are entirely fictional.

2) All systems do not tend toward decay and disorder - on Earth, there are many systems besides evolution that tend toward greater order. Some examples are ice crystals and snowflakes, cloud formations, ripples in sand and water, cracks in drying mud, streams sorting stones based on size, growing plants when “left alone”, and the development of a human from a single cell. These are clear examples of order arising on Earth.

3) Complexity can form from simplicity - take the example of hurricane formation. This is based on the idea of a pan of water with heat applied uniformly to its bottom developing a convection current that is more complex than the still water. Complex planetary ring systems arise from simple laws of gravitation. Complex ant nests arise from simple behaviors. Complex organisms arise from simple seeds and embryos. A good mathematical example of this is the Mandelbrot set which describes fractals:

4) Earth is not a closed system - our planet is not an isolated system. There is a constant input of energy from the sun. Without the sun, it is clear that no life would be possible on our planet. Sunlight (with low entropy) shines on the earth, and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.

5) Even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system - the second law *does* apply universally (to our universe). But it allows for a local decrease in entropy to be offset by increases elsewhere. Intriguingly, the maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant, but because the universe is expanding, its maximum entropy is ever increasing, giving ever more room for order to form. Cool, huh?

6) Increasing order is not a violation of the 2nd law, even temporarily. A violation would be a decrease in entropy without a greater increase in entropy to go with it. Neither growth or evolution violate the 2nd law because both take advantage of local differences in entropy to get work done. Evolution requires only reproduction, heritable variation, and natural selection - ALL OF THESE PROCESSES OBVIOUSLY OCCUR. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE 2ND LAW - if anything, the 2nd law would need to be re-written to accommodate the reality of evolution occurring.

In short, order from disorder happens on earth ALL THE TIME. Creationists who claim otherwise are either deluded or being intellectually dishonest. I'm not sure which of those is worse.

Pascal's Bettors #16

Hey Everyone!

A new podcast has been up since last week. Give it a listen!

A History of God

OK - trying to get back into the blogging world. Just published a new post over at Pascal's Bettors. It's about Karen Armstrong's book, "A History of God". Check it out. I'll be back with more stuff here soon.

Happy Sunday!

Giving up imaginary friends

I am moving across the country soon, and that means lots of cleaning and packing. I have pulled things out of the closet and from under the bed that go back as far as elementary school. It is odd rummaging through personal items like this; it is as if I am rummaging through my own past. Touching the items brings back wonderful/terrible/tepid memories which are linked to sights, sounds, tastes, smells, and feelings. Many of you will experience this phenomenon (if you haven't already) and so it's difficult to share anything original here. However, I wanted to share with you a few of the things I have come across while packing. Two items in particular have brought back a deluge of memories and have confounded my decision to treasure or trash them: one will be kept and the other one will not. Here is a list of some things I have found while packing, and the last one represents my final step in giving up imaginary friends.

Many things I still want to keep: pictures with friends, awards earned, first piano books played from, greeting and personal cards from friends and family over the years.

Some things will obviously be thrown away: old school notes, college dorm room posters, connection cables to a camera that was lost years ago.

A few things will be thrown away with relish: reminders of bad relationships in the past, left-over Christian literature from a different time in my life.

One thing will be burned with ecstasy: Harun Yahya's creationist book, Atlas of Creation, which has served as coffee table book to gawk at with visitors. I remember it being sent to my mentor at Duke - she quickly discarded it and it wound up in my home as a point of hilarity among my friends and especially the Bettors. It's time to move on and that enormous monstrosity of a book will be good for warmth on a cool night and an excuse to get the Bettors together for some quality, heathen good time.

One thing will be kept, though my instinct was to throw it away or burn it: my journal from spring semester of sophomore year in college. The journal spans roughly eight months, surrounding my study abroad in Spain. This is back in the days when I dated girls and was a Bible-believing Christian. Reading the first entries of this journal were gut-wrenching. Such a stupid, silly young guy - confused about sexuality and even more confused by the universe. The beginning of that journal represented my thoughts unfiltered, yet imbued by the world-view of the small, conservative, hardcore Christian upbringing of my childhood. It pains me to see how lost I was then, and how the people I trusted were not the ones who would lead me out of the woods. After reading a few of the early entires I wanted to throw the journal away, and so I did. And I sat there. Then I picked it up out of the trash can and kept

reading - month three, month five, month seven. I changed so much over those eight months. I came out of the closet to my girlfriend. I started to seriously question basic religious and theological paradigms. Questions - by the end of the journal it is filled with questions. I found solace in quotes by Albert Einstein, Oscar Wilde, and Michael Shermer. The seeds of questioning had been implanted, and this journal represented the time of my life when those seeds were nurtured and fertilized. I cannot throw this journal away - I will keep it and cherish it.

One thing has been most difficult to throw away, but today it has finally landed in the trashcan: my teen study bible (see image). It has been packed away under my bed for the last five years - untouched, unused, but worn at the seams from the decade of use during my adolescence. It has been packed away because of some unrecognizable emotional connection to it the last time I came across it. Now the edges are shorn, and the margins are filled with thoughts, references to other verses, and prayers. Many selfish prayers, some unselfish prayers, few original thoughts. It represents a time in my life when I relied on the authority of others to answer the important questions, and a time when I often spoke out loud to an imaginary person (or persons - I could never quite figure out the trinity). One major difference between my bible and every other book I own, is the number of questions written in the margins. In fact, I cannot find even one question scribbled anywhere. I have many answers and references written inside, but no questions. It has bee

n many years since I last prayed (around five or six) and I realize now that any former ambition to read and study the bible was stymieing my personal and intellectual growth. It is of no use to me now, like a sock with holes in it. It is old, dirty, and I harbor negative feelings towards it, like an ex-boyfriend's toothbrush. It represents a childhood, fairy-tale belief. It is now in a place where socks with holes, old ex-boyfriends' toothbrushes, and imaginary friends belong: the garbage.

I recommend to any Christians out there still reading this that you take the only good piece of advice that your bible has to offer:

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me."

--1 Corinthians 13:11

Welcome To This World

Re-post from Pharyngula.

The most disturbing thing about this video is that, even though it's made by The Thinking Atheist, I can imagine it being shown in a church to the approval of the congregation.

New Podcast

Hey everyone,

Just thought I'd let you know that Pascals' Bettors has our 5th podcast up on the site for you to download. Give us a listen and send some feedback - we'd love to hear from you!

(You can also subscribe to us via iTunes and follow us on Twitter @PascalsBettors)

The Look of a Heathen

Let me set the stage:

Bojangles. 1:30PM.

ENTER: Me, the hungry atheist.

I order my favorite 4-piece supreme dinner, mashed potatoes with gravy, delicious honey mustard, and sweet tea. As I sit at the table eating this feast of kings, a suspicious looking middle-aged woman, placing what I assume to be jesus-tracts on cars outside, enters the restaurant, approaches me, and asks, "Do you know if you're going to heaven?"

Wondering at first if I was being recorded from some clandestine location for television, then realizing 'hey, this is north carolina, so probably not' I responded with, "What do you mean by heaven?" She looked confused, started to say something, but I just cut her off and said, "no, I'm not going to heaven." She proceeded to tell me that I could get to heaven through Jesus (if I wanted). I simply replied, "But I do not want to go to heaven."

Not to be de-railed with her witnessing, she sounded very parental and said, "You realize that you're talking about where you will spend eternity." I replied, "I intend to spend eternity where everyone else does - in the ground." With a glazed look in her eye and a forced smile on her face she blurted, "god bless you" and walked away.

I'm so proud to say that after four years of trying, I finally *look* enough like an atheist to get preached at like one by strangers. Thank you, Bojangles. Thank you, Durham.