The Ultimate Answer Is...I Dunno Know

Who has the "answer" to the ultimate question(s). What happens after death, real death not near death (and I still haven't written about my NDE here, yet, but I will, I promise) and even before that, what happens at birth, or the infamous how can something come from nothing?" I'll tell you who...no one.

First a little side trackin'. Much ado has been made about Richard "Papa Bear" Dawkins in his recent debate with, I believe it was Rowan, when he claimed the true. Papa Bear said he is not 100% atheist and there is a little tiny part of him that is open to the evidence, that is the evidence of something more than this material world and evolution thru natural selection, better and easily known as "God did it."

In the religious magazines and newspapers that I go to (daily) the believers see Papa Bear's admitting the truth, as a point for their side, a victory. "See that, militant atheists, even your very own prophet said so." Not so fast arrogant believers, not so fast.

First of all can the ultimate question ever, and I mean ever, be answered in it's entirety. I believed the most honest answer to that is a definite...no way Jose. Lemmie explain. You got your Joe average priest (molester or not) sayin' that "fo sho there is a God (now gimmie your money...and your boys...young ones)." End of argument. Hell, I dunno fo sho, but does William Lane Craig believe without a doubt that his particular and specific Christian evangelical God exists. Again I dunno fo sho, but my guess is yes. Is that honest or not (not). Ask lil' old me, Team Atheist member, and I'll say," I'm not 100% sure but history tells me that (blank blank) is true.

OK, now some God in the Gaps theory. At one time religion had all the answers: how are people born, why are there erff quakes, what happens after we die and how did the universe we live in come to be (after all it is highly improbable-and that is a truth). Well, then here comes beautiful, critical, honest and scientific...err, science. The common human birth at one time was explained with "God did it." Then scientific/medical knowledge about how reproduction really happens explained those  birds and bees that peeps keep talking about. No one doubts that now. Why do people get sick with colds and flues. Before it was an imbalance of chi, or you angered the god(s). Now...you caught a virus and simple thingies like washing your hands and not touching you face can help in the preventing of catching a virus.

Where "God did it" was the ultimate answer at one time for everything, now we have scientific knowledge that is peer reviewed and independently tested, over and over again. Each time science answers a question, the God of the Gaps gets smaller and smaller (1). One side claims to have all the answers all the time, while the better looking and sexier side claims that Gawd honest truth can change when new and better evidence appears. That is honesty.


OK back to something from nothing and Papa Bear. In his super awesome book The God Delusion, Papa Bear made a 7 point scale of atheism. If your are a 7, then you are undoubtedly, unquestionably, and infallibly, atheist. If you are a one, then the opposite. Papa Bear declared him self a 6 point something (I forgot). He left the door open for evidence (cause he is honest). What believer journalists want you/me/us to believe is that by being honest, Papa Bear is showing weakness. No, it is the exact opposite. 


The smart believers, the ones that have participated in the conversation and know the basic in's and out's of the debate, un-smartly claim that because we (Team Atheist) do not know how something can come from nothing/how the universe began, then we must be totally wrong about everything else and guess what...God did it (create the universe) so shove him in the gap. Forget that history shows that science in its very short existence has answered great question after great question, making the God in the Gaps smaller and smaller. Forget that believers full of faith at one time arrogantly proclaimed that "God did it" when attempting to explain how earthquakes happen, or how babies are born.

An honest person regardless of which side they fall on can only conclude that they/we/us do not know the answers in totality.  How did something come from nothing, or how did the universe begin. Well science said the Big Bang and after that evolution thru natural selection, but what about before the Big Bang-how did something come from nothing. Them=God, Us=I dunno...yet.

Not only do I dunno, no one knows. The difference between the two sides is that one side, the side of belief, arrogantly claims "God did it," while the better looking, sexier and smarter side claims "we do not know as of yet, but we are looking."

Who do you believe? There is one side that says they know without a doubt, but time and time again, their explanation of "God did it" makes less and less sense as peer reviewed and materialistic knowledge becomes available. Simultaneously the other side, the side of science and critical thinking skills says, "we do not know as of yet, but thru cosmology, astronomy and physics, it is our hope to find out."

Here's the breakdown. One side says fo sho they know all the answers all the time and even forever, while the other side says, honestly, we dunno, but let's find out together (and we have been correct time and time again, so trust us).

Who do you believe?


(1) When science is wrong, it corrects itself. That is the beauty of science and that is the arrogance of belief in God did it. God did it never changes, it is the answer for everything everytime throughout the three existences of time (arrogance). The non-arrogance (beauty) of science is that it corrects itself (i.e. ulcers). This honesty is perceived as a weakness to the average believer, but in reality, the ability to change and admit one was wrong at that time...is awesome sauce; while claiming to be correct all the time, but coming up short time and time again is arrogant...and wrong-ville.


* Buddhism, Cosmology and Evolution

* Richard "Papa Bear" Dawkins 


* God of the Gaps Theory

The New Documentary About Christianity That Will Make Us All Cringe

David gets straight A's, well liked, many friends...oh, but teh gay. OFF TO CAMP SINNER.

I ass-u-me that everyone saw the two super horrible (in content not quality) documentaries Lake of Fire and Jesus Camp, right. Well fuck you nonexistent God, there is a new one that we all must see...Kidnapped for Christ.

What can I say, it is exactly like it sounds. Rich evangelical parents that have children with discipline problems, like you know-teh gay-get sent to fuckin' Dominican Republic, to a boot camp type, err, camp.

Really, WTF are they doing, cleaning rocks. WTF.

This is how it goes down typically. The main subject, David, was awaken in the morning at his home, a belt was tied to his waist and he was led to a "transport vehicle." He was not told where he was going and when he got there, a place called Esceula Caribe, he was not told when he could leave.

I don't know if there are straight up beatings going on, but as you can see in the trailer, it is not a place one would volunteer to go to. Students are shown facing a wall at attention, doing pushups in the rain, running, something that looks like cleaning rocks (WTF) and of course the worse punishment of all...reading the fuckin' bible.

WWJCD...not this.

I guess there is something called the Troubled Teen Industry where camps like this are multiplying, growing and are, of course, unregulated. Read the article then scroll down to read Christians in denial say the stupid "This is not Christian behavior."

The film is in the editing phase and they are looking for donations to complete the project.

* Article w/trailer

* Web site Kidnapped for Christ

* Another trailer site with details on where to direct donations

* If you have not see Lake of Fire or Jesus Camp and you are on Team Atheist, youtube it and be shocked...veeerrrrrryyyyy shocked.

Dominionism And The GOP

Wow, just read an epic article at Religion Dispatches about Lisa Miller's op-ed article criticizing "left" leaning journalists and how they are unfair to criticize GOP candidates that are openly and overly evangelical Christians. Miller's claim is that the "left" is unfairly demonizing GOP candidates because they are all Christian-y. Gasp! A complain like that is equivalent to a rapist complaining that the person dude raped is speaking up. One of the beauties of The New Atheists is that the era of Christian privilege and the "no no" of questioning and scrutinizing religion is over. Apparently Miller did not get that memo.

By all means the GOP candidates, and any candidate for that matter, should be questioned about their beliefs; esp. the likes of Perry and Bachmann and Palin. They all subscribe to American Exceptionalism and, my newly learned term, dominionism

American exceptionalism is the (incorrect) belief that America is naturally better than the rest of the world because, get ready for this...Gawd said so. Dominionism is...

 "...in the context of politics and religion, is the tendency among some politically active conservative Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States. It is also known as subjectionism.^[1] The goal is either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law. The use and application of this terminology is a matter of controversy (wiki)."

It is like Christian sharia law. It is elitist in nature and exclusive. It is our way and beliefs, or the highway to heck. This kinda philosophy is unforgiving and you cannot be patriotic unless you subscribe to that thinking. The Seven Mountains theology, dominionism, is what we are up against. "They" have entire universities, radio and TV stations and they are specifically training their Christian warriors to be capable of dominating and taking over. Business, media, the arts and entertainment are all within the plan to take over. Their intent is to defeat the "enemies of faith" which is everything from secularism to the Obama administration (or anything that is not them).

While it is true that the average peep does not know what dominionism or American exceptionalism is that does not mean that the leaders do not. Increasingly the GOP (Gawds party) is using vocabulary that is directly or indirectly conditioning the American public to their beliefs. Often times we hear the reference to "the shining city on the hill." That is Mathew 5:14 that says, " You are the light of the world. A city that is set on the hill cannot be hidden." It is an early example of American exceptionalism and just like so many other bible passages...it is used to separate and divide. It is used for "us v. them" and the propagation of "we are better than you".

You can't rob a bank and complain that you only got so much money. You can't punch someone in the face and complain that dudes tooth cut your hand. You can't claim discrimination because one job out of ten went to a woman or a minority. And you cannot claim that "left" leaning journalist are incorrectly doing their jobs because they are reporting on the beliefs and philosophies of presidential candidate...just because you don't agree with them. Unless you are Miller.

Sheez.

* Super good article from Religion Dispatches.

* The Lisa Miller article on Washington Post On Faith where she complains about the "left" leaning journalism and how they are unfair to Christian GOP candidates.

* Dominionism wiki.

* A Christian Plot For Domination? The Daily Beast.

* American Exceptionalism wiki.

* The Dominion Process. Very good explanation of what it is and just might be a post unto itself. Maybe.

* City upon a hill wiki.

The Australian Baby Giveaway

Dam, look how delicious these cuties are. 

I was a gonna write about how myself and the Norway killer are very similar (and yet different) but I think I'll save a piece of myself for myself (I'm too honest many times). Soooooo, howz about a post on babies and that Catholic church everyone of Team Atheist keeps talking about.

Let's file this one under "what the frack were you boy fuckers thinking." Apparently for four decades Catholic run hospitals forced, that is forced not asked or persuaded, unwed mothers to give up their babies for adoption. I'll pause while that sinks in.

"The inquiry had heard harrowing stories of a babies being taken without their mothers' signing adoption papers, of mothers not knowing what they were signing and of a mother having her face covered by a pillow so that she would never see or touch her baby as it was taken, Siewert said. One traumatized mother had suppressed for years the memory of ever having given birth (SF Gate).

Beer and babies...the winning combo meal.

A spokesperson for the hospital said that the practice was "regrettably common" from the 1950's all the way up to the 70's. If the prego women did not want to give up their babies then they would be threatened with imprisonment or drugged or convinced. It is estimated that up to 150,000 babies were purposely separated from their mothers during those decades.

In true Catholic fashion...they apologized (Mmm, OK, we're cool. NOT). Some peeps are trying to establish a nation program that could reunite the families, offer counseling and perhaps, compensation. My question is...Why doesn't the church pay for that stuff, the government didn't do it, the Catholic run hospitals did it. 150, 000 is a hella lot of separated families-those are lives, human lives. I also wonder if they only gave the children to Catholic households.

It is when I hear stories like this it edges me closer to becoming a full fledged angry militant atheist. The accomodationalist position is totally lame in cases like this. What sin did the unwed mothers commit? If this is Gawds plan, then Gawds plan sucks rocks.

* Article