Who is afraid of the big, bad Dawkins?

Jonathan Luxmoore, author of Rethinking Christendom: Europe's Struggle for Christianity, sounds like a man filled with fear. At nearly every turn in his recent article, The Dawkins Delusion (a title giving parody to Richard Dawkin's popular new book, The God Delusion), Luxmoore informs readers about their soon to be overlords--atheist invaders--led by their staunch and patronizing leader, none other than Dawkins himself.

Luxmoore, for his part, holds little hesitation in acquainting us with Dawkins' brilliance as a biologist and, alongside, his equally hideous ability in what Luxmoore describes as "moral speculation." According to him, Dawkins' views of morality are in fact despotic in tone, well beyond merely being uncivilized. He explains:

"Language like this would sound familiar to those who remember the campaign against religious faith in Eastern Europe, where claims about religion's social divisiveness were used by totalitarian regimes to justify savage repression...The utilitarian morality favored by Dawkins was given free reign."

Atheist invaders, indeed. As I read his article, an atheist myself mind you, I could hardly determine if I should gleefully cheer for the advances of atheism in popular and political culture, or cringe in fear at the bloodcurdling monster which has been unleashed in the form of the famous and Orwellian sounding Dawkins that Luxmoore describes.

The feeling was but a momentary one, and once I shook off the notion that Luxmoore might actually be onto something, I instead realized that he was a horribly paranoid and exceptionally bright fellow, not to mention notably religious in some fashion; a dangerous concoction if there ever were one. While he manages to be infectious through his writing, his summary of the atheist invasion remains unconvincing and difficult to digest as terrifying.

Let's be clear here; Dawkins and his ideas, his atheism, much of it is a threat to the religious status quo. Of course it is intimidating, even threatening. Yet, the real source of Luxmoore's fear and anxiety rest with the fact that the Dawkins and the atheist arguments he makes may be both more convincing and sensible than his own. It must be troubling to realize this, especially if you are suspicious about atheist invaders to begin.

Hence, we find Luxmoore characterizing Dawkins in a way that some might describe Iran's President Ahmadinejad, should he somehow be running rampant in the streets of Oxford as a famous biologist in the place of Dawkins. And we find a lurid, even terrifying atmosphere, seeping through Luxmoore's descriptions and synopsis; Dawkins' atheist campaign holds a "chilling eugenic undertone"; Dawkins' influential friends and formidable resources; the atheist crusaders who have risen and "set to fight" as Dawkins sounds the horn against religious fanaticism. Luxmoore paints quite a vivid picture, but a picture designed in the broad strokes of insecurity and tinted with an overriding sense of false, even mildly apocalyptic, religious persecution.

Despite all this, I have to say that his article was still a thought provoking one. It caused me to pause and reflect that we, as atheists, have a duty to ourselves and our fellow man--of any religious persuasion--to ensure that we do not somehow overstep the boundaries of equality, of rational morality, and of liberty as qualities endeared by the vast majority of reasonable human beings that we know. For that much, at least, I sincerely thank Luxmoore for his article.

"What Atheism Offers" series

Earlier today I stumbled across a series of articles, "A Better Life Without God: What Atheism Offers," tendering a look at atheism and what it can offer to the resulting non-believer. In due course, it provides a fairly solid if not brief overview of some of the major misconceptions and core positions related to atheism, as well as the "how and why" atheism is a valuable starting point for a rational person to approach his or her philosophy in life.

Some of the series highlights are common fare, such as the statement, "The atheist, on the other hand, sees this life, the one each of us is currently living, as all we get. Death is final." In fact, the author readily admits that, "This series is written not for convinced atheists...but for those sitting on the fence..."

With this as a goal, the series does seem to provide a cursory yet informative look at atheism--including comments to ensure the reader understands the wide range of possible beliefs and philosophy that can be found in any particular atheist--while not drenching the reader with the heavier and more philosophical arguments for atheism that can be offered.

Even if you are already an atheist, the site looks as though they are attempting to inspire and instigate debate and conversation among visitors, so it may hold some future wealth for interaction and introspection. Perhaps something akin, though less visual, to the recent and often amusing YouTube video-dialogues between the self-described "Amazing Atheist" and other video-atheists and video-Christians alike.


read more | digg story

Bigots assail Christians on Supreme Court (or so says Bill Donohue)

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, is practically foaming at the mouth about "bigots"--atheist and abortion activists, this time--who have cried foul about the five Supreme Court Justices who, more than coincidently, happen to be Catholic.

"The only thing Julianne Malveaux likes better than abortion is Catholic bashing...We need more, not fewer, Catholics on the Supreme Court. But not of the Ted Kennedy kind. We need more loyal sons and daughters."

Umm-hmm. I'm sure Julianne, an American Atheist blogger, I'm sure she runs out to have recreational abortions at every opportunity, she just loves them so much.

Keep in mind, Donohue is the same rabid mouth who exclaimed that a plan by Cosimo Cavallaro, a New York artist (who like Donohue is Catholic), to build a 6-foot tall naked Jesus made of chocolate was "an all-out war on Christianity" and was "one of the worse assaults on Christian sensibilities ever." Perhaps a white chocolate Jesus would've been far more acceptable, we might infer.

Donohue has also received flack for various comments he has made on television and radio appearances, including a reference to Hollywood in which he stated:

"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, okay? And I'm not afraid to say it...Hollywood likes anal sex."

Is he...is he insinuating that Hollywood Jews have a particular taste for anal sex? When confronted about his inane anti-Semitism, well, let's just say it contained a solid entertainment value.

Frankly, Donohue has shown a particular venom for all things anal--his own comments being the exception. A person frequently leaves his appearances with the distinct impression that they have just had a brush a particularly strong case of paranoid homophobia.

Could it be an indicator that Donohue is the Catholic equivalent of Ted Haggard? You know, viciously glib about gays and the gay lifestyle when the spotlights are on, but secretly harboring a muscular boy-toy and meth-addiction to fritter his away his free time?

read more | digg story

MSNBC Blasts Jack Thompson's Blame of Video Games for VT Shootings

An article, by Winda Benedetti of MSNBC, provides some needed smack-down to religious anti-gaming Jack Thompson's insistence on video gaming as a center piece of blame for the Virginia Tech shootings.

I highly recommend giving the article a good once over, but feel justified in providing a couple highlights for those who want the skinny in brief. Referring to Thompson's claim that Cho Seung-Hui was undoubtedly a gamer, we have since learned:

"Meanwhile, authorities released a search warrant listing the items found in Cho's dorm room. Not a single video game, console, or gaming gadget was on the list, though a computer was confiscated. And in an interview with Chris Matthews of "Hardball," Cho's university suite-mate said he had never seen Cho play video games.

None of this seems to matter to Thompson."

The article goes on to mention the ridiculous letter Thompson sent to Bill Gates and Thompson's various failed lawsuits against video game companies along the way. The article picks up again with:

"And for all of Thompson's claims that violent video games are the cause of school shottings, Sternheimer points out that before this week's Virginia Tech massacre, the most deadly school shooting in history took place at the University of Texas in Austin...in 1966. Not even "Pong" had been invented at that time."

In all, it needs to be repeated that Jack Thompson is a complete jackass. More importantly, it should be stated that Jack Thompson is a jackass for this reason, if none other; His accusations trivialize and ignore the real and underlying causes which exist for this and other tragedies. His nonsense defers attention and muddies the sensibilities of the uniformed who may subscribe to his baseless and irrational claims, diverting needed focus from the aspects of these tragedies that we do need to acknowledge. Namely among those are the issues of depression, delusion, anti-social and violent behavior (in this case expressed through Cho's writing and plays), and of course, how our society and it's officials may have failed to counter-act events which can lead to tragic situations like those at Virginia Tech.

Clearly, Jack Thompson does more harm than he has ever helped. His lies and grandstanding in the name of a cause having absolutely no foundation in reality is wholly reflective of his ongoing and counter-productive irrationality. The public needs to recognize him for what he is, and then move on, forever ignoring his wasteful ranting.

Sadly, he is just the first of many that this holds true for.

read more | digg story

Cho Diagnosed with Autism?

While watching clips of Cho Seung-Hui as they had first begun to flit across the internet, I mentioned to my wife that something seemed peculiar about Cho's speech. I didn't mean the content but rather his delivery and mannerism. It seemed to me that he may have had some sort of mental handicap, a suggestion my wife wasn't as certain about, yet now appears to have some basis.

Alongside my tenuous observation, an article appearing in the Mirror.co.uk now provides a possible yet critical insight into Cho, as his grandfather's sister, Kim Yang-San, relays to us in the interview:

"He was very quiet and only followed his mother and father around and when others called his name he just answered yes or no but never showed any feelings or (e)motions...Soon after they got to America his mother was so worried about his inability to talk she took him to hospital and he was diagnosed as autistic."

Such a diagnosis goes to explain an AWFUL lot about Cho and his failure or inability to engage in normal social interaction with teachers, college mates, and dorm members. A list of autism symptoms, found here, states:

"Prefers to be alone; aloof manner...Not responsive to verbal cues; acts as deaf...Speech and language absence or delays...Abnormal ways of relating to people, objects and events."

If this is the case, and Cho was in fact autistic, it signals that he may long have been thrust into interaction and positions of social responsibility that he was simply incapable of handling or even comprehending how to negotiate.

It would also seem to reveal a gross negligence on the part of his parents, and a potentially yet equally gross oversight or ignorance on the part of school and mental health officials--in both earlier and later years of his life--all of which may have significantly contributed to Cho's eventual progression toward the horrible events he has now carried out.

I have to remain skeptical that so many people could have been unaware of Cho's autism, if he was indeed diagnosed as such during his youth. How could the mental hospital he was admitted to not know or fail to recognize this? How could the schools and school officials be so flatly ignorant and unresponsive to this situation? Were there no records of this to notify them? Why did the parents fail to inform others? Or did they? Should he even have been at Virginia Tech?

If true, it seems that Cho may have been a tragic victim of his own sort, one who would only now find a truly terrible outlet for his inner delusions, frustrations, and inability to navigate situations the rest of us take for granted.

May you be cast onto a steaming dung-heap, thou armpit of Satan!

The next time you find yourself in heated debate with an irrational and immovable fundamentalist, rip out a cannon made of the ilk they will fear and respect; an Old Testament approved biblical curse, courtesy of the Biblical Curse Generator!

This also works great if you want to freak out your atheist buddies by making them think you have had an overnight conversion at the local mega-church. If you want a more Catholic feel to the prank, be sure to compliment it with splashes of holy water and in-your-face thrusts of a large but crudely made wooden cross as you deliver the generated curses.

It also generates a fantastic ice-breaker to use on a salesman while you make a major purchase, such as your next automobile. Few things will help you bargain them down to the rock-bottom price like a biblical curse or three!

Finally, if you are stuck in a long line--perhaps at the Department of Motor Vehicles or even a busy Taco Bell--this makes for a surefire method of speeding things up and convince fellow customers to give you front-of-the-line access. This method seems to work strongest if you show up wearing only a garbage bag.

read more | digg story

Cho possessed by the Devil?

Lauren Green, religious correspondent for Fox News, pathetically asks the question, "Could Cho have been possessed by the Devil? Could that explain the massacre at Virginia Tech?"

Interviewed for the article we learn from Oral Roberts that, "..,there's no doubt that this act was Satanic in origin." Sadly, Roberts informs us that we'll never know if "Cho was 'possessed' or 'oppressed'" by Satan because, well, Cho is dead now.

Fortunately, Roberts was able to determine all this based on "what I've seen and heard in the news." From that I think we can also clearly infer that a little hocus-pocus on the part of Christianity could have averted this absolute tragedy--you know, by casting out a few devils, all that sort of thing.

To be fair to Green, she at least made an effort to include multiple viewpoints regarding the possibility of Satan as an instigator for the massacre. Along the way she wryly informs us that "Atheists don't believe in the Devil or demonic possession," and even speaks briefly with Michael Shermer to learn more on a godless and skeptical opinion of the matter.

Personally, I'm considering an e-mail to Fox and Green to suggest that she expand her role from mere religious correspondent to also become the alien correspondent. It seems equally as viable to believe that malevolent aliens were using mind control techniques to force Cho to carry out the vile events at Virginia Tech, and that they are in fact the true villains behind the scenes. That and video games, of course.


read more | digg story

Rush: Righteous Defender of Video Games?

As a follow up to yesterday's blog entry, I thought I might stun you with this revelation: Rush Limbaugh has slightly moved *down* on the jackass severity system.

Once you've picked yourself up from the floor, keep in mind that it is most likely a temporary situation--surely he'll say something to slide back up the chart. Before you think I've gone mad or have made some gross error, let me elaborate a bit as to how he managed this remarkable feat.

As mentioned yesterday, jackasses tend to prominently exhibit their jackass-ness within short proximity to most major calamities or tragedies. Rush surprisingly demonstrated a bit of restraint and--gasp--even logic, rather than simply throw banal rhetoric and blame to politicize the Virginia Tech shooting. Let me provide some brief excerpts from the conversation between Rush and a caller (or check out the full transcript for yourself here):

Caller: "... What I really think is an issue is video violence, video gaming. I will guarantee you, I'll bet my last dollar in my pocket, that this shooter will be found to have been a compulsive video gamer, and when people are living that kind of lifestyle--and college students do this a lot."

Rush: "Not every video gamer goes out and murders 33 people on the college campus, though. There's more to this than that...In this case, let's not jump the gun on this guy and make him a video gamer. We'll find out soon enough everything we want to know about this guy, and I guarantee you that much of what we find out will be America's fault. Just be patient. This stuff will come out."

Rush, continuing a bit later: "How many millions of people play video games, and how many millions of people have guns? If you start blaming the video games, you may as well demand video game control because it's the same thing when you start trying to blame guns for this. You have here a sick individual, an evil individual who committed a random act. But if you want to start blaming the video games, this guy was this or that, weeeeell, then you've gotta maybe talk about banning them because that's the same tack that's taken with guns."

Okay...so it wasn't a perfect display of logic or a total failure to start loading his cannons in preparation for blaming something. What it wasn't, however, was some knee-jerk commentary that blamed someone or something external for the tragedy when, as he acknowledges, no one has the first inkling what influenced the killer, so far.

As an additional note unrelated to Limbaugh and in reference to the possibility of Scientology weighing in on the Virginia Tech shooting; I have so far been unable to dig up anything concrete establishing that they have, indeed, blamed psychiatric drugs (or psychiatry itself) as a factor. This is not to say that they haven't--I just don't know for certain--but so far I've not heard or seen anything beyond the source highlighted yesterday. One way or another, the jackass meter is going off, and the jackass may be the site acting as source for the claim rather than Scientology. Go figure!

I did, however, come across this amusing commentary--in the form of a comic strip--expressing how the media as a whole can set off our jackass detectors. This should be a given, as the mass media will happily insinuate and lay blame in any number of ways, before uncovering the true source or cause for an event such as the Virginia Tech shooting. Naturally, this means that virtually everyone in the mass media is a jackass, but you probably knew that already.