I'm not a fan of beauty pageants, mostly because they seem boring, fake and most of their answers sound shallow. Yet I couldn't help but notice that the new Miss USA, Alyssa Campanella, is not just a "huge geek" but also has no problems accepting that evolution is a fact.
Asked if evolution should be taught in public schools, Miss Campanella replied, "I was taught evolution in high school. I do believe in it. I'm a huge science geek...I like to believe in the big bang theory and, you know, the evolution of humans throughout time."
After the initial celebration, a couple of friends pointed a couple of things that lowered my happiness levels. This shouldn't be much of a celebration, but of shame and indignation, because only 1 of the 51 contestants gave an actually scientifically accurate answer.
What about the other 50? Many of them have no idea what evolution is, or how evolution works. To them, being "beautiful" seems enough. No wonder that many tend to think of girls who participate in beauty pageants as shallow and dumb.
Yet, there is hope. I don't consider myself as a 100% optimist, but if at least one contestant is brave enough to say something that might be deemed controversial or offending by the largely ignorant public avid of beauty contests, then a better future might be possible. A future beauty goes hand in hand with intelligence. That's something I can believe in, since it depends on us.
Around 50% of Americans are creationists. This means, they believe that God created humans and everything that exists as it is right now, which is utter ignorance, not to say pure stupidity and a shame to a country that is (or at least, used to be) first in many aspects. But the numbers among the girls in the contest are worse, since only two of them said something scientifically coherent. I know they are not scientists, but a question like this is similar to "is the Earth flat?"
This is one of the effects religion has on people who has a deep and twisted sense of "freedom"; they think they are entitled to their own "truth", as if facts depended on whether someone wants to accept them or not.
Finally, 98.5% of US scientists accept evolution as a fact. That's certainly a more reliable group than the pastors who insist the Earth is no older than 7000 years and the people who believe them. I have to admit it's hard not to look down on those people.
Finally, because Alyssa Campanella is the new Miss USA, some pictures of her:
You know what? I do think she's pretty, but not "remarkably" pretty. Actually, I think last year's Miss USA, Rima Fakih, was more beautiful. But that's just like, my opinion.
The first thing I admire on Hitchens is that, among the leading atheists nowadays, he is a journalist who doesn't have a very clear "agenda", more than that of rationally putting those who deserve it in their place.
While it's great to see him putting conservative Christians down with his famous "hitchslap", it's also great to see him kicking down the politically correct left, especially when it comes to multicultural issues. Hitchens calls bullcrap when it is needed, no matter how many Muslims are angered by that.
But Hitchens is human and far from being a God. His life is endangered because of a cancer Hitchens himself brought to him, or at least, helped, thanks to his smoking and drinking. Yet, he keeps his attitude certainly is very far from becoming religious. If he dies, we will have someone to quote to those who stupidly say that every atheist converts just before his or her death. And if he lives, well, we keep Hitchens for some more years and will get to say that God wanted to kill him, but he survived.
If you are aware of how politics run in the United States, then you certainly know who Stephen Colbert is
In case you don't know, Colbert is a satirist who parodies right-wing attitudes and criticizes them. Of course, he also takes on liberals sometimes, but conservatives tend to give more material for satire. Like this:
O'Reilly is obviously a moron and Colbert awesomely points that out. The argument of "I don't know how that works, therefore God must be behind it" is just taking pride in one's own stupidity and ignorance, using the later as an excuse to believe in God.
One would thing that, since Colbert criticizes religion so hard, he would be, at least, a non-believer. O'Reilly for example, is a Catholic.
I love my Church, and I'm a Catholic who was raised by intellectuals, who were very devout. I was raised to believe that you could question the Church and still be a Catholic. What is worthy of satire is the misuse of religion for destructive or political gains. That's totally different from the Word, the blood, the body and the Christ. His kingdom is not of this earth.
The first sentence will be puzzling for many, but it shouldn't be. Yes, there are Catholics who are pretty intelligent and won't go along with much of the non-sense that comes from The Vatican. After all, Catholics aren't as crazy as Evangelicals who support Intelligent Design.
The second sentence is kind of puzzling, since the Catholic Church is certainly not a democracy. It's teachings are supposed to be those of the very institution founded by Christ and should not be criticized. To pretend to criticize it, or disobey them, sounds a little bit hypocritical. Yet, if that leads to a more open, liberal and democratic Catholic Church, then might be ok.
The last sentences have two sides that are worth mentioning. First, Colbert criticizes the use of religion for "bad" things, like gaining power or destroying others. That sounds nice. However, it's up to Colbert to make such judgment. But that's not what the leaders of the church think. That's not what the Vatican thinks. It's hatred of gays and atheists, and the destruction of life that comes along with a policy against condoms make it pretty obvious.
No religion has the monopoly of goodness, so it's wrong to assume that whatever is bad is opposed to the word of God. The Bible has been interpreted by many in very different ways, both to do wrong and right. But all of them claim to have the correct interpretation.
Finally, I like watching the Colbert Report. It's satire is impeccable. Colbert might think that there is a kingdom for the afterlife, which is ridiculous, but as long as he keeps that himself, no problem with me.
Today Carl Sagan would have turned 76. If there is someone who really tried to understand the universe as a whole, and more than that, present it tu us, so that we can be as much in awe as he was, that person was Sagan. May we always remember him as the man who can teach us something meaningful about the place in which we live, no matter place or time. Happy Birthday Mr. Sagan.
It will take many years for these words to stop having the same mystical meaning they have today. Maybe we will reach one day in which humanity reaches maturity and there is no need to believe in ancient myths, therefore, lacking the need of outspoken unbelievers to stop the madness. But Sagan’s words will hardly lose their poetry about the beauty of our universe.
To be an agnostic has a pretty bad connotation to many, since they are considered cowards and weaklings who can't choose a determined position in the God debate. Believers consider them infidels, while atheists will consider them worthless and weak.
This is mostly because agnosticism is considered as a middle point between theism and atheism, and whoever falls into that category is not only wrong, but also lacks the compromise to behave according to a certain lifestyle. However, to me, that perception is pretty empty and arbitrary, given that it doesn't take into account the difference between knowledge and belief.
I would like to write more about this, which I'll do in the near future. Something I would like to make clear since this moment is that the discussions between atheists and agnostics seem to me worthless, especially when such discussion go the ad-hominem level, with one side calling names to the other, such as “arrogant” or “ignorant”
So, I present to you three great people who have considered themselves agnostics, but not atheists and, for their work, deserve admiration and recognition.
Thomas H. Huxley Huxley was an English biologist who played an important role in the popularization of the theory of evolution, so much, that he received the nickname of “Darwin's Bulldog”. Huxley was the first to use the term “agnostic” to describe his theological position.
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
Despite being skeptic towards the newly proposed theory of evolution, Huxley became one of the most important players in the secularization of Europe. Even though he considered himself an agnostic, Huxley was against every kind of organized religion.
Why do I admire Huxley? In his time, the theory of evolution was new and there were still many questions about it. He took it skeptically, but later became one of its best proponents.
Carl Sagan Sagan is one of the most important figures regarding science and its popularization. As he explains in his books, to know something so formidable and not tell everyone was perverse. And despite that, he never considered himself an atheist.
Sagan would be so useful today, what with all the debates about science and religion. By most definitions he would be called an atheist, but he hated the term. "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."
Now, I don't think atheism is stupid, but to get conclusions without a correct interpretation certainly is. As I said before, atheism, agnosticism and theism are not in a line, in which agnosticism is in the middle. More accurately, it would be a Cartesian plane in which gnosticism/agnosticism (this is, knowledge) is in the X axis, while theism/atheism (this is, belief) is in the Y axis.
Pretty much like this
Sagan is very clear in that position, not just in the interview (some fanatic atheist told me that could have been a fake interview), but also in his book The Demon-Haunted World.
Religious doctrine that is insulated from disproof has little reason to worry about the advance of science. The grand idea, common to many faiths, of a Creator of the Universe is one such doctrine – difficult alike to demonstrate or dismiss.
To better illustrate this point, this is an excerpt of Sagan' series “Cosmos”
To understand the existence of a god could be like trying to understand a tridimensional object while one has only two dimensions. Of course, that doesn't mean that we have to think there are actually tridimensional objects, or worse, think we can understand them.
I think that even though Sagan described himself as an agnostic, he would have been fighting for the same ideals many remarkable atheists have nowadays, among them, tho give science a proper place in our lives and fight pseudoscience and the damage they do.
Mario Vargas Llosa This is why I wrote about agnostics today. Mario Vargas Llosa is an important writer and intellectual in the Spanish-speaking world, who today won the Literature Nobel Prize. For many, Vargas Llosa is a far right activist, while to others is someone who sympathizes with the radical left and its ties to terrorism and communism. In other words, idiots from both sides hate him. I like that.
I also like to read his books. His style is a little bit complicated, since he tends to not follow an order in time and space. But once the reader gets used to that, the book becomes an awesome voyage to the story it is telling.
Even though he run for president in Peru in 1990 for the conservative party, he is not a Catholic, like most of traditional conservatives. He describes himself as an agnostic.
“To be a non-believer was worrying and even anguishing for the Catholics who supported me in the Movimiento Libertad (Freedom Movement) and in the Partido Popular Cristiano (People's Christian Party), especially to those who weren't, as most I knew, routine believer, lax, and purely social, but those who actually wanted to live according to what their faith wanted them to be. I know few Catholics like this.”
“When I started my political life, anticipating to, was evident, my adversaries would try to exploit in the next months, I explained in an interview that I wasn't a believer, neither an atheist, but an agnostic, but I wouldn't discuss religion in this campaign. Religious beliefs, just like friends, sexual and marital life, belong to the private realm, thus, they should be respected and never made for the public debate. I also said it was obvious that, whoever governed Peru, should acknowledge that most Peruvians are Catholics, and thus, act with respect to such beliefs.
From his autobiography “El Pez en el Agua” (The Fish in the Water)
Certainly, I do like to see that someone who I admire and agree (me and many others) is also very reasonable.
So, these are three agnostics that I think are admirable and worthy of recognition. And, even though they shun the “atheist” label, in general, we all are non-believers who have similar ideals and have more in common than differences. If we want to reach such ideals, to fight among us is just shooting at our feet.
Today, September 30 most non-believers and intelligent people in general celebrates the International Blasphemy Day. Congratulations to everyone
The reason why it is celebrated today is to commemorate the publication of the Mohammed cartoons and the violent reaction it inspired in the prophet’s followers. Great example of a “religion of peace.”
My perception about blasphemy is not saying something offensive to religion just to piss believers of. I think that is kind of dickish and unnecessary, and doesn’t contribute to the dialogue and will not convert anyone. Of course, whoever wants to do it has the freedom to do so, I won’t stop them. My interest for blasphemy when any material that offers legitimate criticism can be considered blasphemy and thus, prohibited. Like this:
This is the best-known Mohammed cartoon. Is it offensive? Maybe. But there is something behind it, Cartoons, especially political newspaper cartoons have a background an focus on an issue that needs to be criticized. In this case, the violence associated to Islam, represented by the prophet Mohammed.
And what is it that Muslims around the world do? Riot and destroy property, thus confirming the criticism in the cartoon.
Another way to see the problem is when science determines something that goes against what religion has been telling us for years, then being considered blasphemy by the believers who see their cherished myths debunked. A great example is Stephen Hawking.
His words were certainly controversial, and many would love to see them censored for being “offensive” to their beliefs. In other words, blasphemous.
So, here we have two kinds of blasphemes that must be protected in order to ensure a society where freedom of expression primes: Legitimate criticism and the freedom to publish scientific findings that go against religious dogmas.
So, with this in mind, I bring you three blasphemous videos, but with a message that is worth considering.
1. God Will Fuck You Up
The title is a little bit shocking, which made me lose interest at first. But then after listening to it, one realizes that the song criticizes the idea of a loving God that will, well, “fuck you up” if you don’t believe in Him. As you can see, it’s not just insulting for no reason,
2. What Would Jesus Do
I think this is one of my favorite videos on the internet. It criticizes the American conservatives’ idea that Jesus is somehow related to the United States, so much that He would drive a Ford, drink Jack Daniels and use a Smith & Wesson gun.
3. Islam is not for Me
It lays down pretty much most of the despicable customs made in the name of Mohammed and that few have the balls to say out loud.
Finally and to remind us that non-believers are not free to this phenomenon, there are also those who claim to be atheists, but treat a prominent figure (let’s say, Dawkins or Hitchens) as a god, without accepting the idea that they can be criticized. I don’t think Dawkins would like a flock of sheep following him. And if he does, what a deception.
If there is someone who I admire as (or even more than) Dawkins, it’s Carl Sagan. By the way, Sagan never identified himself as atheist, but agnostic. To deny such fact is like raging at the sight of something true, but disgusting to this non-believer’s eyes. It’s almost the same reaction of those who want to ban blasphemy.
I wonder what Raztinger thought while flying to England. Would he be expecting a lot of support after comparing atheists to nazis? Well, certainly that (added to to his record in favor of pedophiles) didn't seat well among the British.
Especially one of our favorites Brits, Richard Dawkins
I'm glad Dawkins understands it like I did. We both are happy that Ratzinger is worried about us, so much that the first thing he does is compare us to nazis. Dawkins explains this might well be to divert the sight from his own crimes.
Great Mr. Dawkins. You can read the whole speech here.
But it wasn't just Dawkins against the Pope. We are used to that. It was thousands of people expressing their disgust with Ratzinger
I'm glad that so many people notice how despicable is Ratzinger and his policies. That gives us hope for a better future.
Just a couple of days ago the Pope landed in Britain and the first thing he did is compare atheists to nazis while trying to get some British sympathy by mentioning its fight against Nazi Germany. Well, Brits could see through that and didn't buy the hateful message from one of the most powerful bigots on Earth
Crowd carries messages condemning papal stance on condoms, homosexuality, women's rights and child abuse scandal
Day three of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Britain and it was a day for protests and anti-papists under bright blue skies in central London. Around 10,000 people took to the capital's streets for a Protest the Pope rally and march against what the organizers called "papal intolerance" and to condemn the state funding of the visit.
More than 10,000 people. That's a huge number. And those are just the ones who came out from their homes and went to London. Imagine how many repudiate the Pope and what he represents but couldn't make it to the protest.
Ratzinger represents pedophilia, homophobia, intolerance, misogyny, disregard for life, ignorance and abuse of power. And his position as head of the Catholic Church extends that to the institution. The Catholic Church is no more (if it ever was) the moral guide that people in the West looked after.
I don't think anyone has really a problem so big with a group of people believing whatever they want that they would go out and protest against it in such a strong way. People are not angry about Catholic rites, or doctrine. They are angry at the intolerance based on that doctrine and how it acts and influences on the world and on our lives.
Moreover, I would dare to say that Ratzinger's comments comparing atheists to nazis had something to do with the numbers in this protest. How dares the Pope, someone with such a record on intolerance, accuse another group of nazis with a straight face?
You need cynicism the size of the Saint Peter's Basilica to do that.
I would shake the hand of all and every person in that rally.
I really don't want to see the Pope dead (although I would lie if I said that his death would sadden me). I would just like to see him changing his views or losing enough power so that they can't harm anyone. One day, hopefully, one day.
If someone must know how disgusting it is to be accused of being a Nazi, that person must be Joseph Ratzinger. He did join the Hitler youth, but did so because he had no option. The young Ratzinger despised what the nazis did and eventually deserted.
However, here is the Pope, comparing atheists to nazis
The pope urged the UK to guard against "aggressive forms of secularism".
He said: "Even in our own lifetimes we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.
"As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."
Despite the initial outrage and indignation, many other things come to my head
Second, notice that Ratzinger is so desperate and scared that he doesn't elaborate an intricate argument to accuse atheists of being nazis. His argument consists in that nazis wanted to take God out of our society, just like atheists and their "aggressive secularism". That's it. A supposedly educated person can't go further than just compare a group of people to the worst in the world's mind. Just look at the internet. What happens when someone is desperate to insult, discredit or has no argument against his opponent? Reductio ad Hitlerium
Third: Ratzinger is desperate to be seen as the polar opposite to evil. Why? Because he is being seen as evil right now. His protective attitudes towards priests and catholic officials whosexually abused children for decades have taken away much of the Catholic Church's credibility as a moral guide. His power is going down.
Fourth: That his power is going down might be the Catholic Church's own fault, but it's been mainly non-believers in a secular society that have told the world of the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church. Even though it's catholic children who have been abused, Catholics in general seemed pretty dyspeptic about it for decades. It's been critics of the church, such as atheists, who have made this known.
Fifth: Ratzinger is either a huge ignorant or a huge liar. The nazis did not committed their horrible crimes based on their lack of faith. Hitler himself seemed to get along pretty well with Christianity.
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." - Hitler to General Gerhard Engel, 1941
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Mein Kampf
"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation." - Mein Kampf
Yet, let us remember that Nazism was not based on religion or lack of it. If anything, it had some pagan elements that favored the idea of Aryan supremacy. The Third Reich persecuted religious institutions withing Germany, as well as free-thinking or atheist groups. In other words, nothing had to distract the attention from Hitler and the Reich.
Ratzinger's cynicism is outrageous, but we have to understand his position. He is losing power and will do anything to keep it. Secularism gives its righteous place to all religions, a place in the people's mind and away from public policy if religious beliefs are unscientific or discriminatory. So, we are in the good path. Let's keep doing it.
With that ideal, I'll leave you with the Penn & Teller documentary about the Vatican. It's always good to remember it.
If there is a man who has made knowledge his signature, if there is a man who has broken his own bounds to reach the stars very few others have reached, if there is a man who has defeated God's bounding rage, if there is a man whose brain can kick anyone's ass at any time, that man is Stephen Hawking.
In his new book, "The Grand Design," scheduled for a September release, Hawking argues that the universe didn't need divine inspiration to come into being.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," writes Hawking. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists why we exist.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going," he writes, according to excerpts published in the Times of London today.
I've already written about Hawking and his admirable life despite the illness he suffers and could have killed him years ago. Hawking's Lou Gehrig's decease might have left him a prisoner in his own body, but his mind, his amazing mind, is still alive and doing much more than most other people.
This is not the first time Hawking talks so "defiantly" about God. Some months ago he also upset many with his declarations:
This interview comes from some months ago. In his new book, Hawking seems to explain why he doesn't believe in that God created the universe. Many will feel angry at his remarks, which is natural. Many will try to keep people believing whatever they want to believe even if this is something incorrect. Sometimes they will even try to argument by saying that "no one was there, so no one can know", trying to keep the debate out.
However, this argument from ignorance fails miserably when we consider the amount of knowledge that we have even though there are no first-hand sources available. We might not have been there, but we know how to analyze clues and make observations in order to draw a conclusion. Just like Sherlock Holmes
Of course, Hawking's brain can kick Iron Man's ass anytime, anywhere
So, the "we were not there" is no excuse to keep an "I don't know, so I can believe anything, no matter how nonsensical that is" position. There are answers, and it doesn't matter how much you might dislike them. They are true.
No, it's nothing about waging war on religion or anything like that, so, don't get all worked up. The idea came to me from a Facebook game, Castle Age, in which there is an option to got to war against other players. To do so, you have to choose your 7 best generals (including you) and put them in charge of different places in your castle.
I know, sounds awfully geeky, but let's put that aside for a moment.
I was thinking, if I had to choose 7 atheists to have by my side, this would be my War Council:
The West and East ramparts would be guarded by Daniel Dennet and Michael Shermer respectively.
Daniel Dennet is an American philosopher whose philosophy research has been very related to evolutionary biology. Dennet is a member of the Secular Coalition of America and, along with Dawkins, a proponent of the Brights Movement.
Michael Shermer is the founder of the Skeptic Society and editor in chief of the Skeptic magazine. Shermer used to be a fundamentalist christian, but then became a non-believer. He tends to use the label of "Skeptic" instead of "atheist", "agnostic" or others. Christopher Hitchens would guard the Mage Tower (hopefully he wouldn't mind the title). Hitchens is journalist and a writer, very outspoken against religion. Maybe most known for his book "God is not Great", he also writes for Vanity Fair, Slate, and other magazines. Sadly, Hitchens is now suffering from esophageal cancer, but doesn't have any plan in converting to any faith. Dr. Eugenie Scott is in charge of the Tower. Dr. Scott is a physical anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education. She is a strong critic of "Intelligent Design"and has been a key advisor during the trials that involve creationism in schools.
Hemant Mehta, a.k.a. "The Friendly Atheist" goes in the Archer Wall. Mehta, while not as prominent as the others, is one of the best known bloggers regarding atheism. Mehta authored the book "I sold my soul on eBay" in which he "auctioned" his time and went to church. Few days ago, he wrote a column for the Washington Post regarding the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero.
ZOMGitsCriss guards the Armory, in part because I like to think she will be near me. Cristina Rad (her real name) is a videoblogger with a Youtube channel in which she posts videos criticizing religion in a very interesting way, using sarcasm, common sense and her unique sex appeal.
Finally, in the Main Gate, Richard Dawkins, along with me. It's hard to say something unknown about Dawkins. Most non-believers have heard of him, and if not, they will. Dawkins is, besides a leading scientist, a prominent atheist activist. Because of his strong vies against religion, he is sometimes a polarizing figure among non-believers. But, it's undeniable that many things about the atheist movement wouldn't haven been possible without him.
So, this would be my "War Council". Maybe not the most leading figures within the skeptic movement, but a very varied group. A philosopher, a journalist, a blogger, a videoblogger, a scientist, an editor, and the ultimate activist. What else could I ask? Well, there is something I would ask:
Yes, the title is a reference to that movie that just came out, I think, last weekend. Yes, I know, it was kind of silly, but had lots of geek references that made it funny. Also, I had a cute girl with me, so it was a good time.
So, yes, I enjoyed the movie. However, the guys from CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) didn’t
First of all, let us know who are those talking. CBN is a network founded by one of the biggest Christian assholes, Pat Robertson, who is well know for blaming Haiti’s "pact with the Devil" for the quake they had at the beginning of the year. Focus on the Family on the other hand, is an organization founded by James Dobson, which purpose is to “nurture and defend the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide”, such as school prayer, corporal punishment, opposition to abortion, feminism, porn and gambling, and of course, demonization of homosexuality.
Ok, so we know the sponsors are world-class bigots. But let’s forget about that and pay attention to the message
The newscaster says “beware of the anti christian messages out there”. So, there must be some movies that say very clear that Christianity is a bad thing, or Christians are just mindless sheep, or stuff like that, right? Well, check it out:
Well, no. If you see what the “Plugged in” guy says, it’s all about the fact that Ramona (the main female character in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World) has had a girlfriend. Add to that, the fact that Scott’s roommate is gay.
Look at the far right. That was the problem
Apparently, that makes it unfit for 13-year olds, because, well, no 13-year old knows that gays and lesbians exist. Or, if they do, they should now that their way of loving is, wrong, evil, and, anti-christian.
I think I have stated it before, that I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe. The problem comes when “different” becomes “anti”; when “different” becomes the enemy. I might not care much if this were just one bigotted redneck talking in his mobile home, but that’s not the case.
We are talking about these views in a broadcasting network, with millions of people watching, founded by “respectable” members of our society, despite their bigoted and anti-scientific views. Yes, I say “anti scientific”, because, gays are not evil, Haiti’s quake had its origin in plaque tectonics and the Earth is not 6000 years old.
Then there are two other reviews that I don’t care much about. “Eat, Pray, Love” sounds like a chick-flick that doesn’t get my attention, but, by the comments of that guy, is “anti christian” because Julia Roberts tries to find the “divinity within herself”, and because it “asks the right questions” but answers them in the wrong way, meaning, not in the Christian way. Because, well, for these guys, anything that is not Christian, is anti-Christian. It’s “new agy” and that gets them worried, because someone might want to think differently. It says that we are “spiritually divine” and that is sad and scary, for these Christians. “An anti-christ message”
Please, wake me up when it's finished
Finally, “The Expendables”. Obviously, it’s not a family film, but apparently not even christian grown-ups should see it, since it receives a “thumbs down”. Maybe that “born again” thing leaves them being children forever. See how easy is for children to believe in Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy? Yeah, like that.
In my efforts to remain centered, while I admire Dawkins, I try not to celebrate just anything he does or says. But I have to admit this was really good.
Men who inspire greatness are usually seen in literature as those that not only make history but whose works serve as fuel for others to do the same. Undeniably, two of those men live today.
The first time I saw Nick Vujicic was on a Youtube video in which the smiling limbless guy did his daily routine as normally as he could. As most people who get to see the video, I was taken aback and after finishing it I had great admiration for that guy.
The second time I saw something about Nick was less mystical. I was presented a longer video with one of his presentations in which he basically said "Life can be pretty bad, but God is the way to make it worthy." That made me rise an eyebrow and (I have to admit it) lost a little bit of my respect for that guy. Of course, I still admire him, mainly because he does something I don't think I might be able to do. But the message that I got was that his success, his energy, his happiness, was all because of his belief in God.
Then I remembered someone else. Someone who had to go through something similar. Stephen Hawking.
It's certainly bad taste to compare them, but for the sake of this blog, I'll do it. Nick was born limbless and had a not-so-nice childhood that made him very depressed. Then somehow he had an epiphany that his achievements actually inspired people and decided that somehow God had gave him that power. On the other hand, Stephen Hawkins had a normal and brilliant childhood, but during his early twenties he started losing movement in his limbs, until he got to be how we think of him today: immobile and incapable of talking without that mechanical voice, but with one of the most brilliants minds ever.
I don't know which one would have suffered the most. The one who never knew anything but the limbless life he had, or the one who had everything and lost it all.
The difference is that Nick attributes his success to God, while Hawkins shunned the idea of a personal God that would help him succeed. This is very clear in one of his quotations about God and science
"What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," Hawking told Sawyer. "They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."
[...]
There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works
I wouldn't dare to tell Nick that his belief is wrong and that he should stop believing in that. Whether real or false, that belief has worked for him and taken him out of a rather miserable life. But that way is not the only way. God, Nick's God, the Christian God doesn't have the copyright of salvation and happiness. Stephen Hawking beautifully demonstrates that disbelief is no obstacle towards greatness. He didn't need of God, or Jesus, or repentance, or anything like that to be an inspiration to others. He did it by himself and by whatever means he found. Those means don't include a god.
Finally, If I had to rely on some of them, I would totally go for Hawking. Vujicic lives a great life and inspires many, that is undeniable. But Hawking does that, and, is one of the greatest minds in the world. Vujicic is cool, but Hawking is awesome.
When life gets tough, it's because God is scared of your progress
Yes, today is Christina Rad, a.k.a. ZOMGitsCriss' birthday. Who is she? Well, she is something awesome, sarcastic, intelligent, hot, funny, brave, talented and beautiful like no one else. Oh, and she has one of the cutest accents I've ever heard
You can check for yourself:
I don't exactly remember when was the first time I saw one of her videos, but I'm sure I was totally stunned at her attitude and explanations to all the nonsense she sees. I always am.
Normally I don't watch videos of people looking at a camera and talking their mind. Those videos are usually made by people who are not very articulated and that assume that others will watch their video just because they have something to say. Some might like to do that. Not me. I'm still old fashioned and like to write blogs.
But she is not like that. As soon as you put one of her videos, you notice that there has been a great effort into assembling it. There has actually been some post-production, whether it is the effects on the video or the edition of the same.
There are even some others that definitely were planned and prepared. Like this one, for Valentine's Day:
I must have seen that poem around 10 or more times. I just couldn't believe so much awesomeness.
But there is more
Criss also takes on Islam and cusses. Besides all the ass-kicking she gives Islam, I was astonished as how well she does in front of the camera. She doesn't pause, she doesn't hesitates, she looks directly and manages to have a very nice body language instead of just standing there. That takes talent, far beyond memorizing a script.
That video was just perfect. And that includes her. Thunderf00t might be one of the best known Youtube atheists. But if I had to choose, I would choose Cristina a million times.
Miss Cristina, I salute you.
To watch more of her, visit her channel ZOMGitsCriss She also has another channel for movie reviews: CrissReviews She also has a blog, which she doesn't update very often, but fans of her will be pleased: k-rina And finally, her Twitter account
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League For Religious and Civil Rights, called the decision "mind-boggling" and "indefensible and obscene," speculating that anti-Catholic bigotry was at play.
"Malkin has made his decision to stiff Catholics," Donohue said. "His decision to double down at this juncture - in the face of massive support for our request - is something he will regret for the rest of his life."
Donohue thinks that because he and his supporters want to use the – again – privately owned building to commemorate Mother Teresa birthday, it has to happen. Otherwise, that is “discrimination against catholics”. And once that conclusion is reached, they can get very angry and, guess what, will demonstrate against the building.
The Catholic League plans to demonstrate outside the Empire State Building on August 26, which would have been the 100th birthday of Mother Teresa, who cared for the poor and homeless of Kolkata (formerly Calcutta), India. She died in 1997.
Maybe the owners don't want to do anything for the Mother Teresa because they saw Christopher Hitchens's documentary. Maybe they don't want to because then any other religious organization would be asking for it. Whatever is the cause, the important thing is they don't want to. Period. It's not a public place, it's not a joint building, is it too hard to understand that? Apparently for hardcore catholics like Donohue, it is.
Lady Gaga is playing Madonna copy cat, squirming around half-naked with half-naked guys, abusing Catholic symbols—they're always Catholic symbols—while bleating out "Alejandro" enough times to induce vomit. Dressed occasionally as a nun in a glossy-red habit, the Madonna wannabe flashes the cross, swallows a rosary and manages to get raped by her S&M boyfriends. Hence, she has now become the new poster girl for American decadence and Catholic bashing, sans the looks and talent of her role model.
In case you want to watch the video, here it is
To me it's not a very remarkable song, the video is kind of boring and, yeah, it might be repetitive. But to make such a fuzz about it just shows how much of a cry baby and a victim-complex this guy has.
As PZ Myers put is in his Pharyngula, "I watched the whole thing, with its muscular young men gyrating in jackboots and tight shorts and nothing else, the weird headgear, the sadomasochistic imagery, the black leather uniforms, the flaming homoeroticism, and I was thinking, yeah, all that does remind me of Catholicism. I didn't think it was Catholic bashing, though. I thought it was a recruiting video." In other words, the catholic church has more to be worried about from within itself than from a building owner a music video.
Beautiful, beautiful and delightful 24 years old middle eastern princess. Rima Fakih was born in Lebanon, but moved to the United States when she was still a kid. Before coming to the US, Rima studied in a catholic school; however, she is a Muslim, but also celebrates Christian rites.
Yes, you read it well, a Muslim.
An incredibly hot Muslim. I think this might be why Muslim men might want their women to be all covered. The desert is already too hot.
But if you think that is her hottest picture, think again. Besides winning the Miss USA pageant, she also won a pole dancing contest. The proof is here:
But wait, she is no airhead. Rima Fakih graduated from the University of Michigan-Dearborn with degrees in economics and business management, and plans to attend law school after her year-long reign. Truly amazing girl. Really, who needs 72 virgins? Whoever has love would already be in heaven.
But there is more. She also worries about others; she is an advocate for breast and ovarian cancer awareness. She also supports insurance paid birth control, an idea that many Christians reject. Which leads me to to most important of her characteristics,
Rima Fakih represents a liberal and successful Muslim, a woman who values education, who takes big decisions and who enjoys her sexuality. This is a double win, since, in on side, she sets an example for other Muslim women to break the chains that Muslim traditions have imposed on them; and, on the other hand, if that is not true, if there are many Muslim women just like her, then she makes an awesome job of putting them on the table and telling the world "Hey! We awesome Muslim girls do exist!"
"To say that she is a Muslim is inaccurate. No Muslim woman can call herself a ... Muslim and be on stage with her bikini," Ghazal Omid, a Muslim scholar, posted on her Facebook page.
This is exactly the same attitude that some Christians use when saying that someone who doesn't comply with their points of view (even if they also believe in Christ) are not "Real Christians." According to Omid, Rima Fakih is not a "real Muslim" because of her enjoying of her sexuality, whether it is posing in a (wonderful) bikini or doing the pole dancing. My guess is that to be a "real Muslim" she has to use conservative clothes and do nothing that is related to sexuality. Pure bullshit.
On the other hand, we have the American conservatives, who I bet, see this as a threat to the establishment. So they are going to look for any reason to put the new queen down, even if it is a very stupid reason:
Debbie Schlussel claims (but presents no evidence) that "at least three of Fakih's relatives are currently top officials in Hezbollah and that at least eight Fakih family members were Hezbollah terrorists."
Sure, because fundamentalist terrorist would love to see a Muslim woman be presented in public wearing a bikini. Moreover, what do her relatives have to do with her? Furthermore, the accuser presents no evidence for this claim. Are these people for real?
Anyway, conservative stupidity/bigotry is no news. What is news here is that a young female Muslim might be a very important icon for the portrayal of Muslims in the media. Sayid Jarrah already did something. But now our icon is real. In a time in which Muslims freak out about cartoons and try to separate themselves from the rest of the world for not having the capacity to accept criticism, Rima Fakih shows that a set of beliefs and common sense can coexist in the same person.
No matter how much we can criticize Christianity or Judaism or any other set of beliefs, we have to admit their degree of intolerance will hardly hold sway against what Muslims can show us
So, first: They didn't even show Muhammad's image. Yet, it's sole mention is enough to drive radicals to threaten with death to the South Park creators and end up "like Theo Van Gogh" who, as the report said, directed a film criticizing Islam and was killed by a radical Muslim.
This sole fact is enough to show to what extents Muslim fanaticism can go. There are plenty of films and documentaries criticizing Christianity, I think the last and most successful was Religulous. Yet, as much as its creator, Bill Maher can be despised by the religious, he hasn't received death threats, less attempts to kill him.
Theo Van Gogh didn't have that much luck, the only difference being that he criticized a less tolerant and more fanatic set of beliefs.
Second: The website states that their statement is not a threat, but a warning. Does "if you do such a thing, you *might* end up killed, in the same way that another person who (according to our standards) disrespected what we hold so precious" doesn't sound like a threat? Obviously, it does.
Third: According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali (the writer of the film directed by Theo Van Gogh) the Quran calls for the assassination of anyone who criticizes Allah, the Quran or the prophet Muhammad. Yet, many Muslims don't act upon such call. That's a good thing, the same thing that many Christians do, so that they don't act following crazy statements in the bible. That kind of "cherry-picking" is ok, until the argument that "the bible is the word of God and, therefore, perfect" is made. Then it just sounds hypocritical.
Fourth: South Park creators say that it would be "hypocritical" to not make fun of Mohammad after making fun of almost everyone. Yet, they had the images of Muhammad covered. It's clear that they are afraid, even in a society in which freedom of expression is regarded as one of most essential rights. To that extent has reached the Muslim fanaticism.
Finally, there is one "what if": What if those weren't "real Muslims" and just Jews disguised as Muslims trying to make Islam look bad. Because, you know, threatening people and acting violent after Islam has been criticized is not what Muslims usually do. Islam is a religion of peace, right?
If you follow international news and pay attention to the ones referred to the catholic church, then you know what is going on right now. In case you don’t know, the ongoing topic right now is this:
RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.
As epic as this sounds, it’s not quite accurate. It gives the idea that Dawkins himself (actually, along with Christopher Hitchens) are going to wait for the Pope to come down his plane and, with a bunch of cops, take him prisoner.
Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson's subsequent 'Put the Pope in the Dock' article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5366.
The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.
So, while Dawkins is a strong supporter of this initiative, the ones actually carrying this action are the lawyers.
Now, I am really doubtful that this is going to work. I don’t think that the Pope is going to go to prison, even though he should if proven that he knew about the abuses and did nothing to prevent more or to punish the sex abusers correctly. I don’t think that he is even going to face trial, even though, again, he should.
What I think is that the Catholic Church is going to lose a lot of support and credibility. And that is a good thing.
We know who Richard Dawkins is. We know he is using this situation to attack the Pope and the Catholic Church with an ungodly force.
But that is the perfect and logical thing to do.
One doesn't need to be Richard Dawkins or even a non-believer to be outraged at the thousand of abuse cases that the catholic church, as an institution has covered and, by doing so, condoned. Any person in his right mind can see that the catholic church gives more importance to its image and public relations than to the children's well-being, children that were given to it and supposed to be taken care by priests who were educated following the guidelines of such church.
The catholic church needs to lose part of its power, power given by many who trust it as a lighthouse in a sea of darkness. It's priests need to be distrusted at first and then gain the confidence they deserve, just like anybody. It also needs to be held accountable by the many crimes it has helped to cover, just to keep a good and holy image towards the world.
Of course, there are going to be those who will oppose this initiative. They will defend the church and protect the church, no matter how many proofs there are that show its abuses and how the abusers were protected. They are going to defend the Pope even if it is found out that he didn't do much to prevent such abuses. That is the kind of people who need desperately to believe that God is near them and is represented by a church made of men, and no matter what, they will prefer keep its crimes unpunished than lose that security that such institution gives.
But also there are going to be some that will stand for justice, even if that means criticizing the Pope. To them, my respects.
The Pope is very unlikely to stand trial. It would be great if he did, since it would show that no one is too high or too important for justice not to get him.
