Removing All Doubt

Sarah Palin is not great

2010-01-11T14:09:00.000-06:00

A NYDailyNews poll is rigged. No matter what you answer, the poll is 100% 'Yes, she's great!'.

Accidental programming error? Hmmmm...

Ann Coulter, removing all doubt

2010-01-11T12:45:00.000-06:00

On a Fox News panel discussing Tiger Woods, Brit Hume said, perfectly accurately:
"The extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Hume's words, being 100 percent factually correct, sent liberals into a tizzy of sputtering rage, once again illustrating liberals' copious ignorance of Christianity.

100 percent factually correct? How can an opinion be factually correct? Hume himself even qualified his own statements saying, "it seems to me" and "I don't think." He was clearly stating his opinion.

But Coulter doesn't stop there. She wants to remove all (100 percent) of the doubt:

Most perplexing was columnist Dan Savage's indignant accusation that Hume was claiming that Christianity "offers the best deal -- it gives you the get-out-of-adultery-free card that other religions just can't."

In fact, that's exactly what Christianity does.

And that is quite obvious based on the behavior of Christians. They can do the most god-awful (pun intended) things, and not worry about the consequences. If Tiger was a Christian instead of a Buddhist, it would not change the fact that he cheated on his wife. It doesn't make him any better of a person. And it certainly doesn't add one iota of redemption. But somehow it would make his actions more acceptable to the Religious Right, so maybe it is the best deal.

More on Proposition 8

2010-01-11T12:30:00.000-06:00

From ABC News:

Lawyers defending the ban, backed by a broad coalition of conservative religious groups, argue that a ban on gay marriage is not discriminatory. They say it simply codifies an historic understanding of what constitutes marriage.

If marriage was simply a code, this would be true. But it is not just a code. It is not just an understanding. It gives people certain rights that they did not have as singles. So if certain people are not allowed to marry the person they want to marry, then they will not have the opportunity for those rights, which, by the way, is called 'discrimination'.

Andrew Pugno, removing all doubt

2010-01-11T09:04:00.000-06:00

From CNN.com:

Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for an organization called Protect Marriage, the group that came up with Proposition 8, said he believes the issue was solved when the people of California made their voices heard in the voting booth.

"Seven million Californians voted to preserve or restore what marriage has meant since the beginning of time," he said. "If they're not permitted to do something as basic as that, then there's something, really something, wrong with our system."

If one group of people can deny basic rights to another group of people, then yes, there's something, really something, wrong with our system. If seven million Californians voted to restore segregation in schools, would that be OK? Or maybe you would just like to segregate the homosexuals now? Proposition 8 was a step backwards in human rights, and it's time to move forward.

Patty Jo Marsh, removing all doubt

2010-01-08T10:46:00.000-06:00

A couple in Georgia was arrested for tattooing their kids.

Hmmm. It is better to do nothing and be thought a fool than to TATTOO YOUR KIDS and remove all doubt. Whoa.

I love quotes

2010-01-08T09:06:00.000-06:00

I really do. I saw one recently that reminded me of a resume I put together a few years back. It's very unique, to say the least. I actually had a 'real' resume that I sent out for jobs, but I put this one together as something fun. Take a look, and let me know what you think. And don't forget to read the fine print...I also love math.

Partisan politics at it's best

2010-01-06T08:47:00.000-06:00

The Democrats are really shooting themselves in the foot by fast-tracking the health care bill. So much for Obama's 'post partisan' politics. I keep hearing this eerie voice in my head saying, "That's not change. It's more of the same." The health care bill is really a big disappointment all around, and it certainly isn't going to cure the health care system. And the Democrats are going to pay the price at the voting booth.

Laura Ingraham, removing all doubt

2009-12-22T13:13:00.000-06:00

From an interview of Annie Laurie Gaylor, Freedom From Religion Foundation on The O'Reilly Factor:

INGRAHAM: I have a question. How many members of your organization do you think are, I don't know, volunteering in AIDS orphanages in Africa this Christmas season or this solstice season? A lot of them? Because last time I checked…

GAYLOR: We know that it…

INGRAHAM: ...the Catholic Church and evangelical missionaries and Mormon missionaries are all across places in this Earth of ours that no one will go into.

First of all, this is the tired old "we do good things and you don't" argument, which we all know is just a load of crap. But more importantly, if the Catholic Church would stop telling people in Africa that using a condom is a sin, they wouldn't have to send so many people to volunteer in the AIDS orphanages. Condoms help prevent AIDS. Catholics help prevent condom use. So your wonderful people are encouraging more people to die of AIDS, and then feeling good about themselves because they are taking care of the orphans. So don't brag about the Catholics doing more good things than the atheists. The Catholic Church is doing more harm than good.

Comfortism #8

2009-12-21T13:43:00.000-06:00

Another one from banana man:

The human propensity to gullibility is evidenced by evolution’s many believers.

Just change one word and it makes much better sense:

The human propensity to gullibility is evidenced by Christianity’s many believers.

I love quotes

2009-12-18T10:23:00.000-06:00

Another from Einstein:

Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.

And to think I spent all that time in my childhood reading the Bible. I could have been using my brain!

Comfortism for PZ Myers

2009-12-15T14:42:00.001-06:00

From an email to PZ Myers:

To be wrong is always acceptable, because we are human. But, to be consistently wrong, especially when you call yourself a Professor, is going way beyond the bounds of good sense. Anyone who even gives ear to people such as Dawkins and Kitchens is no less than a fool. There is nothing wrong with being a fool, but teaching others to be one is unacceptable and irresponsible, at the very least. Furthermore, to have a degree or degrees in biology and to still believe in Darwinian theory, shows ignorance in the worst degree. Macro evolution is founded on absolutely nothing but blind faith. No evidence has ever been provided for it. Several hokes and false attempts, but no real evidence. A large group of sciences, including biologists, have concluded that the theory is false. Why, other than you can make a living no way else, that a professional biologist would continue on with such a shenanigan, is beyond comprehension. It is a poison to society and you are one who doses it out. As common as a drug dealer. I hope you will come to your senses, as a thinking rational man, before too long. If it is the result of bitterness about something in your past...get over it.

Let's Comfortize this, shall we?

To be wrong is always acceptable, because we are human. But, to be consistently wrong, especially when you call yourself a Christian, is going way beyond the bounds of good sense. Anyone who even gives ear to people such as Comfort and Cameron is no less than a fool. There is nothing wrong with being a fool, but teaching others to be one is unacceptable and irresponsible, at the very least. Furthermore, to not have a degree or degrees in biology and to pretend to be an expert in Darwinian theory, shows ignorance in the worst degree. Religion is founded on absolutely nothing but blind faith. *No evidence has ever been provided for it. Several hokes and false attempts, but no real evidence. A large group of sciences, including biologists, have concluded that the theory is false. Why, other than you can make a living no way else, that a professional biologist would continue on with such a shenanigan, is beyond comprehension. It is a poison to society and you are one who doses it out. As common as a drug dealer. I hope you will come to your senses, as a thinking rational man, before too long. If it is the result of bitterness about something in your past...get over it.

* No changes were made after this point. Shows just how shallow the argument really is.

I love quotes

2009-12-13T11:07:00.001-06:00

I have an Einstein quote of the day on my Google homepage, and while I have seen most of the quotes at least once before, today's was new to me:

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.

Now if we could just get the religious crazies to do this...

Comfortism #7

2009-12-12T12:21:00.002-06:00

From Ray Comfort's blog:

An atheist is someone who pretends that there is no 'God'.

A Christian is someone who pretends that there is a 'God'.

More empty arguments from banana guy.

Dinesh D'Souza is still confused

2009-12-10T13:04:00.000-06:00

And Robert Lanza is, too.

Comfortism #6

2009-12-09T14:01:00.005-06:00

From Ray Comfort's blog:

It amazing to me that an atheist will use the word "evil" when it suits him, even if it's just in sarcasm. In reality he has no definition of the word. Evil cannot exist. Neither can good. Those who would argue with such a thought will be quick to that it is society (not God) that defines good and evil.

But if society dictates that it is good to kill children in the womb, over a generation the "morality" of the society moves abortion from being something that is considered evil, to being good and right. If the government (society) says homosexuals marrying each other is good, it moves from one generation believing it is evil and it becomes good and acceptable.

If the government says it’s okay to kill blacks, Jews and homosexuals because only the fit should survive, what is morally evil changes to that which is morally good in their eyes.

Let's Comfortize this:

It amazing to me that an 'God' believer will use the word "evil" when it suits him, even if it's just in sarcasm. In reality he has no definition of the word. Evil cannot exist. Neither can good. Those who would argue with such a thought will be quick to that it is 'God' (not society) that defines good and evil.

But if 'God' dictates that it is good to kill people that don't agree with you, over a generation the "morality" of the religion moves suicide bombing from being something that is considered evil, to being good and right.

If the 'God' says it’s okay to discriminate against blacks, Jews and homosexuals because only the 'Godly' deserve rights, what is morally evil changes to that which is morally good in their eyes.

This may be the truest one yet. Things considered quite evil by most of society are often acceptable, or even 'good' to the religious. Like telling people that using condoms is evil, so that hundreds, thousands more die from AIDS. To the religious, this is good. Better to die from AIDS than to commit a sin.

Web server upgrade

2009-12-07T13:52:00.000-06:00

I've been unable to add posts for a little while because my web host has been doing an upgrade. Ugh. I don't know if anyone has tried leaving comments, but I am assuming those wouldn't work either. Hopefully all is done now.

Atheist blogroll

2009-11-21T09:00:00.000-06:00

"Removing all doubt" has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

Missing the point

2009-11-20T12:26:00.004-06:00

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent, removing all doubt.

Public faces of Richard Dawkins' atheism campaign were ... devout Christian children

Wow, Ruth. Did you even bother to look at the billboard? It says, "Please don't label me," which you promptly did in your headline. You are exactly the reason the British Humanist Association is posting the ads, and you just don't get it. The children may come from "one of Britain’s most devout Christian families," but that doesn't make the children devout Christians. It simply makes them offspring of devout Christians. Please, LET THEM GROW UP AND CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES.

Comfortism #4

2009-11-18T12:38:00.003-06:00

This might be the best one yet. From World Nut Daily

Darwin was a racist, he disdained women. And I'm not making this up. This is all from his own words.

How about:

"God" was a racist, he disdained women. And I'm not making this up. This is all from his own words.

Sweet.

Comfortism #5

2009-11-16T20:24:00.004-06:00

From Ray Comfort's blog.

Words like "seems" and "likely" are always present when a Darwinian believer speaks of what he believes.

Words like "seems" and "likely" are always present when a "God" believer speaks of what he believes.

"God"

2009-11-16T19:35:00.002-06:00

I'm going to start using quotes when referring to "God". It just seems appropriate.

I'm 'pro life'!

2009-11-16T16:37:00.004-06:00

Here's a great post on the Catholic church sticking it's nose into abortion rights and the healthcare debate.

I particularly like a couple of points:

You are so sure God prizes every embryo that you are willing to trade on a world with more unwanted children, more women bleeding to death, more families in poverty, more extinctions, more starvation, and more desperation all around.

...

I believe it is immoral to bring more children into this world than we can care for.

Most people who call themselves 'pro life' really are not. They are 'pro birth'. What happens to a child after it is born is of no concern to them. They believe it is better for a child to be born into poverty, abuse, or a lifetime of health issues than not to be born at all. And they consider this to be the 'moral' view.

They are wrong.

Every child deserves to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuses. Every child deserves access to proper health care. Every child deserves to have food to eat, clothes to wear, and a home to live in. Every child deserves a chance at "life". Every child. I am "pro life".

Dinesh D'Souza is confused

2009-11-16T12:26:00.003-06:00

Dinesh D'Souza seems to think that Muslims are fighting against atheists!

The predominant theme in this literature is that "Islam is under attack" from the forces of global atheism and immorality, and that Muslims should fight back to protect their religion, their values and their way of life.

Really?

REALLY? How many atheists does he think were in the World Trade Center? Or on the planes? Has Osama bin Laden ever even said the word 'atheist'? If they're fighting anything that has to do with religion, it's the intolerance for their beliefs by mostly Christian nations, which is on prominent display here from D'Souza.

I have a new quote for the blog

2009-11-13T08:09:00.001-06:00

"It is better to stay at home and be thought a fool than to get behind the wheel and remove all doubt."

Another billboard problem

2009-11-12T14:03:00.003-06:00

An atheist group has been forced to relocate a billboard because the property owner received death threats. It's another one of the billboards that read "Don't believe in god? You're not alone." Somehow people find this offensive. Of all of the things that could offend someone, I just don't see it. But I think if it's going to be offensive, you might as well go all out. Something like, "Believe in god? You're an idiot!" That should really stir the pot.