Hehe...this article from Slate.com encapsulated the insanity that has forever gripped the anti-abortion movement. The double-speak required to pass this recent bit of legislation is beyond Orwellian. According to this recent mandate, abortion "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Huh? Can you run that by me one more time? An implanted embryo is whole, separate, and unique? Then why does a mere separation of the placenta from the uterine wall inevitably result in death? Whether it happens via mechanical methods or spontaneously, it seems to be a near certainty that until the point of viability, which is somewhere between 20 and 28 weeks, detaching this supposedly whole and separate human being will result in its demise.

I agree with the author of this article: Abortions should be renamed "separations," and those who choose separation should no longer be held accountable for the consequences. After all, it is a "whole, separate, unique, and living human being."

Quote:

read more

This month's issue of Psychology Today has an interesting piece that reminded me of everybody's dear friend, Vox Day. He asserts in his blog and his book on many occasions that atheists are more likely to suffer from what he terms "social autism"--disorders such as Asperger's Syndrome or mild forms of autism. He bases this on informal internet surveys that questioned people on their personality traits. But is the correlation really there, or is this just another attempt to disparage atheists?

"It's All Geek to Me" by Benjamin Nugent discusses the difference between the systematizing brains of so-called "nerds" and the empathic brains of the more socially inclined. Although nerds, the "intellectually gifted but socially awkward" (p.39), do share some traits of those with ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorders) but not to a severe enough degree to be classified as a pathology. In fact, the behavior can be brought on solely by parenting style according to Dr. Mel Levine, and the socially inept can be taught the skills necessary for more intuitive social interactions. This is where nerdiness differs from ASD. ASD is persistent despite attempts at socialization.

read more

In a recent study, researchers have found that people with higher concentrations of serotonin receptors were more likely to be religious or the nebulous "spiritual." This is interesting because it would explain the connection between transcendent experiences and the use of psychotropic drugs and also the inverse correlation between religiosity and depression. Check it out for yourself:

Quote:

Of Serotonin and Spirituality
Scientists see a biological underpinning for religiosity, and it is related to the neurotransmitter serotonin.
 

Serotonin, the brain chemical crucial to mood and motivation, also shapes personality to make you susceptible to spiritual experiences. A team of Swedish researchers has found that the presence of a receptor that regulates general serotonin activity in the brain correlates with people's capacity for transcendence, the ability to apprehend phenomena that cannot be explained objectively. Scientists have long suspected that serotonin influences spirituality because drugs known to alter serotonin such as LSD also induce mystical experiences. But now they have proof from brain scans linking the capacity for spirituality with a major biological element.

read more

Well, kind of. In animated form.

The SheVibe poster is finished. I guess now I'm an atheist super-hero or something. Like Wonder Woman. Except less clothing. Hmmmm....*having thoughts about what kind of weapon I would have. Like a Reason Ray or something that would suddenly make people logical*

Anyway, I anticipate the usual reaction from the prudes and sexually repressed people. May I say in advance that not only do I not care what you think, I find both the "You're hurting women everywhere" and the "Truly rational people would never submit to a base desire such as...sex" complaints equally ludicrous, and I'll only laugh at you, so save your time and the bandwidth needed to tell me what a horrible person I am. After all, I am the Official Spokesperson of Atheists Everywhere At All TimesTM and something like this will only harm "The Cause." As you can see, I'm already aware of this. Don't make me shoot you with my Logic Laser.

For the rest of you (ie the human beings who accept that sex is a biological function and physical attraction is coupled with that), enjoy. I've got to get back to plotting my nefarious plan to destroy the public image of atheists and women.

read more

Just had to post this so that everybody knows that I am not finished with chapter 4, nor did I saw I was. I found that there was enough material to cut it into 2 posts, and not wanting to make it too long, decided to dissect the foundation of chapter 4--the immorality of atheists, or lack of definable morality--before delving into the specifics.

Geez Vox, you shouldn't be so hasty to jump to conclusions.

…with none of the defining characteristics of a religion. It is because Vox Day says so in Chapter 4, entitled “The Religion of Reason.” Aside from the humorous comparison between an atheist politician and a “toothless, illiterate, homosexual Afro-Hispanic crack whore with a peg-leg,” his opening salvo misses the point when he adds in the footnote that “it appears that telling people how evil and stupid they are may not be the best way of convincing them….” (p. 61) The reason that atheists are distrusted and, in some cases, despised is not because of intellectual elitism and snobbery—it’s because atheism has been caricatured and stigmatized as a pseudo-Satanic cult in most popular media. It is still not socially acceptable to be as open with one’s non-belief as those who believe are. Walking or driving around with merchandise that announces one’s lack of superstitious belief still draws glares or snide remarks mixed in with the head shaking and sympathetic looks. Meanwhile, almost nobody looks askance at people wearing jewelry depicting crosses and dead crucified men, and Jesus fish are practically ubiquitous. Nonetheless, atheists are unpopular—just not for that reason. 

read more

Well, I'm thinking that it's about time to return to the grind here. Sorry, I was suffering from massive drama overload both in my real life and online. Anyway, Vox Day has been on my mind so expect the next installment within a few days. I assume his cronies have already declared victory due to my extended absence, but rest assured that whether anybody likes it or not, I will complete this project if only because I have committed to it and abandoning it would be a concession of defeat in the eyes of his fanboys. That and the fact that there's an incredible amount of material waiting for a refutation. So, if anybody missed me--I'm back. If you didn't miss me, .

Also, I semi-announced this on the boards, but the magazine SheVibe, which is totally NSFW, is currently working on a full-size poster of me which I expect to be totally hawt, so when I have more info on it, I'll be letting you people know. For an idea of what it will be like, check out their Eye Candi or magazine covers sections of their site. (Although, going by what they're saying about it, it should be infinitely cooler. )

read more

The atheist community seems overrun by people who have no desire to reproduce. Not just that, but some even despise the concept and those who continue to do so. This is likely due to the fact that people with high levels of intelligence and education tend to have smaller families, and I am by no means trying to criticize anybodys personal choices, but the oft-quoted and equally misconstrued studies about that correlation lead to division between the "breeders" and the childless.

In the spirit of informed choice, I feel that it is necessary for both groups to understand that repercussions of their chosen lifestyle. The following piece is a tidbit that represents only a small fraction of the data on women's health and childbearing. Contrary to popular opinion, having children makes you healthier. Maybe also insane, but it significantly lowers the risk of certain diseases, including things like breast cancer if you breastfeed (which you should, but that's another topic).

And don't worry--I haven't forgotten about Vox Day. I'm just giving my readers a break.

From http://geniusbeauty.com/news/women-having-children-are-healthier/

Quote:

read more

I've been too busy lately to post on topics when they might actually be fresh (novel concept, I know), but I really wanted to touch on the Pope Benedict soliloquy on sex. Having read Humanae Vitae myself, I am quite familiar with the subject at hand. The Catholic Church, while progressive in some areas, most notably science, still clings to these archaic beliefs about sex and birth control. I guess that's not surprising considering that sins "of the flesh" are considered to be more grave than others, but even within the bounds of marriage, birth control of any sort other than Natural Family Planning (which differs from the commonly known Rhythm Method and is more effective, but not by much).  The HV also addresses euthanasia and abortion, rules for fair and justified war, and other issues that pertain to the creation or destruction of life.

read more

How's that headline? Do I have everybody's attention now? Good. Because a headline like that should get your attention. Would anybody tolerate "Gay Bashing Week" or "Woman Bashing Week?" The very idea is ludicrous. Yet, Dinesh D'Souza can print an article entitled "Atheist Bashing Week" and hardly anybody bats an eyelash. There's certainly not public outrage and condemnation for such blatant bigotry. He was just joking, you say? Even in all of our stunts, which are regularly criticized by atheists (often quite vehemently), we've only dared to tell people that their god doesn't exist or encourage others to say so and post it to YouTube. Even the mind disorder controversy doesn't encourage physical harm or even allude to it. If we haven't had "Christian Bashing Week," you can bet it's because we find the notion repugnant, even in jest.

D'Souza's piece may have been tongue-in-cheek, but that is of little consequence to the typical reader who barely scans headlines and will be even subliminally influenced by this, much less those who don't have the reading comprehension to detect his almost imperceptible sarcasm. Could any of you imagine a "Muslim Bashing Week?" Even if a "Ha ha! Just kidding!" is added at the end, it is still extraordinarily offensive, and the fact that he isn't facing scorn for this piece is evidence that people are still permitted to discriminate against those evil godless heathens.

read more

Sorry - this is a long one. For my next blog post, I'll be taking a break from Vox so I can kick somebody else's ass and all of you who keep telling me to drop the Vox project will shut up.  As to the length--I know it's taking absurdly long and I still have 13 chapters to go. I just wanted to do a critique that was so detailed that nobody would need to read the book to know what it says. I may have to go with the more concise plan, though, so I can finish this sometime, oh....before I die.

Vox Day seems to have a proclivity towards using odd anecdotal evidence gleaned from the writings of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens in order to formulate his arguments against atheism, and he continues in the same vein in chapter three. In short order, we discover that “New Atheists” harbor outright hatred for religion and that we “science fetishists” believe that science “dictates” human behavior, rather than merely describing or explaining it.

read more

Hey folks, this is Sapient.  Just wanted to get a copy of some segments we recorded of a recent interview Kelly did.

Feel free to comment right here.

ETA: The link to hear the entire interview is here.

Gah--this is taking so much longer than I thought. I’m going to attempt to keep this brief and only address major points so that I can move on to chapter 3. I already have people bitching that I should just “ignore Vox,” but I have no intentions of doing so. His fan-boys would only claim victory, so plod along with me here. (Pretty please?)

Quote:It is perfectly understandable, but unfortunate, that Kelly is so wedded to an oppositional context that she tends to blindly fall into applying hostile and incorrect interpretations to various parts of the text in which no opposition is required. This does not appear to be a problem of basic reading comprehension, but rather, the result of reading with a critical filter that causes her to react rather than think through her response to what she is reading. This filter, combined with her failure to read the entire book before beginning the chapter-by-chapter review, leads her into a number of completely unnecessary errors in her critique of this chapter.

read more

I am honored to be hosting the 89th Carnival of the Godless, but before we begin, I need to tell the readers something.

All of the following people are bad representatives of atheism.

At least in somebody's opinion. Every person here adheres to a particular viewpoint, methodology, or philosophy with which some other atheist disagrees. Every single one of them. Yet, here they are, spewing their ideas all over the internet with impunity. The horror! What kind of arrogance would compel these people to voice their ill-informed opinions as if they speak for all atheists? You know, they're doing more harm than good.

At least, that's what we're told. That's what "they" (cue spooky music) want us to believe. But how much truth lies in those accusations? Are those statements not also an opinion that may offend somebody else, likely the person at whom they are directed? Might not that also be perceived as detrimental to "the cause?"

read more

I am officially announcing that the next Carnival of the Godless will be hosted here, on my blog, beginning April 13. Be on the lookout for that. I have gotten a bunch of good submissions already.

The following is a "response" from a Vox Day fan. It is relatively devoid of anything intelligent, but I address it because everybody cries if I don't.

Quote:I have some agreement with your comment. However we are not talking proof here, just a suggestion. Correlation implies causation. It is hypothesis generating.

No, correlation does not imply causation, and a hypothesis should be generated before any experimentation is undertaken. The hypothesis comes from pure observation, and is then proven or not by experimentation. Perhaps you should study the scientific method.

Quote:But a brief survey with biases may still be hypothesis generating, it is the more detailed study that confirms or rejects this. And my comment about the onus being on the person denying it is because no matter how good a study is there will always be flaws, and your suggestion allows people to continually say that correlation does not equal causation.

read more