One of my favorite Hitchen's moments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pflU-nnY4MA&t=41m26s

Moderator: "Part of what we are talking about tonight is providing common ground for our public deliberations.  And how can your perspective... "

Hitchen: "Now let's not over do that"

Moderator: "Right, that's right. Let's be tasteful.  Yeah.  How can your perspective provide that common ground if dismisses a large majority of the population as irrational as stuck in what you call, in your book, 'the infancy of our race'.  I mean, doesn't that any remove a room or incentive to try to reason together?"

Hitchen: "Not at all.  I mean, religion is a private matter in my opinion.  I phrase it like this in my book, I just say if you think that there is a creator who has made you especially, and who watches over you and supervises you, who cares about you, wants you to do well and even wants you to survive death, I have to say, I think it's a preposterous proposition because I have to be honest.  And irrational one, a fatuous one and a sinister one, because the idea of want a father who never dies and won’t quit is infantilizing.  But suppose you did think that, shouldn't it make you happy? It doesn't make them happy. It doesn't make them better at all.  They won't be happy until I believe it too. So the first principle is, let's separate that.  Keep it to yourselves.  Go to any church you like.  Build any church you want.  Do it with your own money.  Don't ask the government to teach this stuff to my children in a government school.  We won't have that."

“I don’t when I offended by filthy articles I read about atheists and Jews and secularists, I have bombardments of this stuff all the time, I don’t go out and burn down the nearest mosque because I’ve been offended, do I? Don’t be ridiculous.  But I’m supposed to respect those who do such thing.  I’m supposed to treat them with an extract delicacy.  Why should I be doing that?  Who’s the offended one here really?  I’m not going to make a big point about my feelings being hurt.  I have a thick skin.  I have a broad back.  I’ve studied Socrates and the Socratic Method is more convincing, but you act as if I’m the one who is offending them by saying I find your beliefs rather unconvincing.  And in any case, I’m not going to have them forced on me.  Now is that finally clear?  IS IT?  I hope so.  Good.

I don't know where I found this but I pulled it from my notes:

"Right now, it is raining methane on Titan. The planet Uranus, apparently trying to live up to its name, is orbiting the sun sideways, while Venus spins backwards. There are stars exploding, black holes gorging, galaxies colliding.

And here we sit, on a planet pock-marked by collisions, rocked by earthquakes, shaken by storms. A planet doomed to be fried in radiation as its magnetic fields collapse, until finally the sun grows into a red giant and leaves nothing of the Earth but dust. Here we sit, glasses on our noses, inhalers in our pockets, braces on our teeth, waiting to die as our heart muscle expires, our cells decide to grow forever, or a blood vessel

just pops, and sometimes in unnatural ways, too.

Here we sit, and some of us say, behold, look at the order of it all."

What is wrong with holding moderate religious beliefs

From the reddit /r/atheism FAQ...


"There's a fundamental battle between rationality and supernaturalism, between a worldview based around evidence and facts and one based around faith and superstition. That's the tension between theism and atheism, more so than any actual evil committed in the name of any god. Even if no atrocities or great social injustices have ever been committed in the name of your religion, if there's still zero evidence in favour of your claims, your religion isn't any more credible.

A strongly held belief in the Santa Claus is mostly harmless, and may well help you to be a more generous person, but it still requires you to ignore or rationalize away huge piles of evidence in order to maintain. This sort of Faith requires a suspension of the part of your brain responsible for telling sense from nonsense, and if you're willing to let something so huge as a God Claim through unchallenged, who knows what else might slip through the cracks? Once you admit that you believe in something "because of faith", you are essentially admitting that you don't care whether or not it is actually true. As soon as you stop caring about reality in one aspect of your life, it becomes that much easier to stop caring about reality in others.

The problem isn't specifically a hatred of gays/women/blacks/etc., or an opposition to Cosmology or Biology. The problem is delusion, dogma, and a willingness to ignore reality that one finds inconvenient. As far as most skeptics are concerned, people who believe uncritically in supernaturalist religion, who are willing to continue believing in extraordinary claims despite the complete lack of evidence, have a fundamentally dishonest worldview that can never fully coincide with evidence and rationality.

Furthermore, anyone who demands respect for uncritical acceptance of superstitious nonsense, even mostly harmless nonsense, is indirectly giving aid and comfort to the fundamentalists, because they're making it that much less acceptable to criticize those who hold similar beliefs which are obviously crazy or evil.

It's nice that some religious people share some political opinions with some atheists. It's nice that some religious people don't hate gay people, it's nice that some religious people accept evolution, it's nice that some religious people accept that the Big Bang happened. Heck, it's nice that most religious people are willing to accept that the Earth isn't flat. It's certainly better than the alternative.

But if you think those things are all that we take issue with, or that those are the only things wrong with theism or religion, then you're missing the point.

So, yes, we know you're not as bad as those crazies. But unless you're opposed to all of the things wrong with religion, don't be surprised if you're seen as part of the problem."

The Big Lottery and rational thinking

The winners of last weeks big interstate lottery will split a payout of $656 million.  I was not excited before the drawing and I'm not excited now.  Why? I didn't play and therefore.... I didn't win!  Lotteries are essentially a tax on the math challenged.  States will take home about the same amount in taxes.

Have people really stopped to think about what you are supporting by playing the lottery?  People have gambling addictions and they will always be a certain percentage of the population that needs help.  Those folks are buying lottery tickets every week as well as many other forms of gambling.  I'm not discussing that group here.  They need help.

The next group are the players who buys a ticket every week, but do not have a gambling/addiction problem. What is the demographic of this group?  I bet it's not the same demographic as the folks who appear once or twice a year to buy a mega-millions ticket when it reaches over $250 million.  This group is the same as my social circles that I converse with on a daily basis; my friends, family and co-workers.

I've reiterated my position with many in my social circle over the past week and get a very similar reactions.  "Who is is it hurting?", "It gives people hope and that's a good thing"  Really?  I've heard the same argument to support theism.  Not all beliefs are equally valid and many do not represent reality.  An incorrect belief, here or there, may not be harmless, but it can also result in negative consequences.  Pointing out fallacious reasoning behind these incorrect beliefs is important because beliefs inform your actions.  If your beliefs are in error, your actions are most likely to be harmful in some way.  It is far healthier for society as a whole if the beliefs of the majority are accurate.


If more people would take the time to think about the social and ethical effects of supporting base less hope, perhaps they would arrive at a conclusion that supporting the irrational does slow the moral zeitgeist of our world.

Reason Rally

Sums up the Reason Rally very nicely.  Thanks Seth.

Google, complete my phrase please...

Here's a fun game to play.  Start typing a phrase into google and see what it suggests.  I tried "I don't like it when"  and here's how google completed it:

I'll leave it up to you to figure out what "juice wears tights" is all about.

It's a blast.

Does this mean Atheists can not serve on a Jury in MD according to the State Constitution

Maryland State Constitution Declaration of Rights, Article 36:

"Art. 36. That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come."

Update:

If you look below Article 36 you will find the following statement:"Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion (amended by Chapter 558, Acts of 1970, ratified Nov. 3, 1970)."

From Wikipedia:

This apparently was the result of a unanimous 1961 decision by US Supreme court in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins found that an attempt to enforce this provision violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In 1970, this article was amended to include the sentence "Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion". However the original wording of the article was also left in place, but presumably is symbolic rather than effective.

So why not just change text of the Article to just remove the language?

Turns out that a unanimous 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution override these state requirements, so THEY ARE NOT ENFORCED.

Detail on the Torasco v. Watkins case.