Thinking Unenslaved

Last week, our Round Table discussion was largely devoted to this same subject, but there were several questions/scenarios I’d left on another computer and sadly didn’t bring to the discussion. As well, this is a fairly broad subject with far-reaching implications, and the 47 minutes or so we spent on it last week really didn’t do the topic justice. So, this week, Kile and I will talk about this some more.

Some of the sub-topics we’ll discuss tonight include a) Moving beyond the impact of religion on the Arts, b) Social services without religion (or, uncompelled social services), c) Is it possible to teach strict humanism in education when historical examples mostly involve religious motivation d) Is not Secular Humanism just as likely to fall victim to the vagaries of human character as religion.

The list above is by no means everything we intend to discuss. Zach and Paul will join us if they can, and may well have their own questions for Kile, too.

Please join us for another interesting and dynamic segment of our ongoing discussion on secularism, humanism and atheism in society at 10pm Eastern Standard Time this Wednesday, February 9th here on BlogTalkRadio.

Reminder: ThinkAtheist.com Weekend Podcast on September 6, 10p Eastern. This Sunday’s general topic is Traditionalism. We’ll discuss several forms of traditionalism that are pervasive in our lives, especially these minor forms of religious traditionalism that are quite transparently fixed in our secular lives. There’s a possibility that Dr. Frink will be with us, so keep your fingers crossed! ThinkAtheist.com members: Please RSVP on the event page linked above!

NEXT: Un:Enslaved contributor and fellow twitter-whore, @MovingToMontana, has designed something that every card-carrying atheist needs: the card to actually carry. Download yours today, tonight, or at some other convenient time for you. I’ll eventually get that link into the sidebar, too.

and lastly….what i actually came here to do today….

Look. I’m fine if you want toworship a non-existent “God”, even if your only real reason for doing so is the gross combination of “that’s what you’ve been told to do” and “that’s the emotional crutch you need to have.” Really, it’s okay.

But. Each and every abrahamic religion is premised upon one common concept: FAITH. Without faith, your religion has no meaning, no purpose, no relevance whatsoever. And, functionally speaking, faith is the opposite of fact. So when you start spouting elements of your faith as fact, you have ceased contributing to the formative discussion. And worse, when you spout the “God is Love” stuff, you actively undermine the entire premise of your own faith.

Think about that for a minute. This isn’t a new argument from the atheist standpoint, but this is the exact problem with every abrahamic religion: your God is NOT “Love”. Your God is not even nice. Your God, according to your own Holy Books, is an insensitive, insecure, vituperative ass, wholly and exclusively interested in exactly one thing: the undying devotion and ego-massaging of vast numbers of human beings.

And what’s REALLY ironic about that is the fact (the proven, irrefutable fact), that the God described in your Holy Books is actually just a construct of human thinking. The irony is nearly overwhelming. You ultimately choose to believe in an imaginary God because certain persons from the Bronze Age who sought a slightly more insidious way to control the population (as opposed to simple, direct militarism) made up some quaint fairy tales for you to believe in. And worse than that, a lot of those stories are far from “quaint”. According to your Holy Books, your God is responsible for the deaths of millions, directly ordered the rape and murder of hundreds of thousands of women and children, and even struck down his own people for being as gullible as he supposedly made them.

Yeah, I know, you’ll cast that all aside and argue at me with the other self-contradictory stories from your book of fairy tales. And that’s okay. Just understand that when that’s all you do, when that’s the sum and total of your apparent ability to form cohesive thought, it becomes increasingly difficult for me to swallow the condescension. And yes, when you willfully confuse the concepts of faith and fact, I don’t even try.

photo credit: AFP/Gettty Images/File/Brendan Smialowski

“Comptroller General, David Walker, describes in precise terms the size of the box that the Bush Administration confined him to during his tenure with the Government Accountability Office.”

{David Walker, Government Accountability Office Comptroller General, testifies during a Senate hearing in 2007. Walker announced his resignation Friday, citing “real limitations” on what he could do.}

photo credit: AFP/HU-HO/File

“Please pass all your fetuses to the inner aisle.”

{The new US ambassador to the Holy See, anti-abortion Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon, seen here in a 2004 Harvard University(HU) handout, arrived in Rome on Friday to take up her post, a mission spokeswoman said.}

photo credit: REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

“Oh. Ah mean, Sandy! Heh-heh-heh.”

i admire Jon Stewart. his willingness to play host to controversial individuals is remarkable. one of his latest guests was the Doughy Pantload himself, Jonah Goldberg, who is currently out peddling his latest intellectual diarrhea entitled Liberal Fascism. i just can’t bring myself to link to anything that full of shit, so i won’t.

however, Comedy Central has generously posted the edited interview as it was broadcast, which i do include below. if by some remote chance you were unable to view the episode and the interview in that hole under whatever rock you must live, or if you would enjoy watching Jon treat such an inept buffoon with far more respect than he deserves once again, here it is:

i seriously hope that Comedy Central will eventually make available the entire interview. 18 minutes, it was. there’s enough there for an entire half-hour episode.

this morning, over at Sadly, No!, Cliff wrote an exceptional post which goes well beyond the site’s traditional snark and acerbity. a serious piece on why Jonah Goldberg and the National Review (which employs him) are absolutely No Laughing Matter. i believe it falls in the general category of “must read”, so please do.

apparently, the new spin from the National Review, and the “right”, is to attempt to obscure the negative ground upon which they stand, rewrite history, and redefine current arguments in intellectually archaic memes. this is troublesome, and it is dangerous. and i will admit it is frustrating that such demagoguery and willful ignorance must be given the same freedom of expression as truthfulness, compassion, and other non-stagnant forms of intellect.

but at least we have people like Jonah Goldberg out there, making the self-contradicting spin so blatantly obvious. the “right” continues to support progressive ideals by virtue of its own self-deprecation. it’s kind of beautiful, in a sickening way.

so, thank you, Jonah Goldberg. you’re one of the most helpful douchebags supporting the causes i believe in today!

photo credit: AFP/File/Paul J. Richards

“Responsibilidad gubernamental? ¿Qué es esto?”

photo credit: Brooks Kraft / Time

Here, President Bush receives a special award for “The Most Lives Ruined by Hegemony and Oppression” in 2007.

photo credit: REUTERS/Larry Downing

poses with General Confusion