Defaithed

Following an earlier look at a decidedly smarmy and unfunny religious comic strip, here's another peek at faith-generated yuks. (No, I don't go looking for this stuff; this one came via the now-classic route: a "you'll love this" email making the rounds of senior citizens and the related-by-family victims on their mailing lists.)

This strip doesn't seem universally awful. An example:

The following panel was also amusing:

Readeth thou more

"Gosh," you say, "isn't there a Mortal Kombat-fighting game that lets me pit silly cartoon gods against each other – especially one that gives me the panty-waist option of censoring out Mohammed's face if its depiction offends me?"

You're in luck: Faith Fighter has been pleasing humor-compatible gamers, religious or not, for some time now. I just wasted all comers as Ganesha (though on Easy level; I'm lazy that way).

Ignore the mewling "we don't want to offend anybody" disclaimer, and go whip some divine hiney. Before the U.N. takes it away from you anyway.

Play Faith Fighter

Gotta pick a bone with a fellow atheist. From Bonnie Erbe in Atheists, Christianity, Bush, Religion, and Why God Is Not Dead:

During W's presidency, I often scratched my head and asked, after the liberating '60s and '70s, how did we ever go "back to the future" and end up in the political clutches of the religious Right? The fact is, '60s and '70s atheism was a bit too uninformed about the psychological and social benefits of churchgoing. Religion answers the unanswerable. It creates powerful and important social networks among churchgoers. Unless and until atheists, agnostics, and other nonbelievers can somehow replace those benefits, or form their own version of same, religion will continue to be a powerful cultural force.

There's no doubt that religion is a focus of social networks. And whether secularists need to offer some replacement for that force is an interesting and ongoing matter of debate.

My quibble is with "Religion answers the unanswerable". It doesn't. Readeth thou more

Recently, US President Obama spoke to the US National Acadeny of Sciences. Against a backdrop of health and energy crises, he said:

At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science. That support for research is somehow a luxury at a moment defined by necessities. I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been. And if there was ever a day that reminded us of our shared stake in science and research, it’s today. (via Genomicron)

Who the heck would argue with that? Actually, some would. Readeth thou more

Intelligent Design is warmed-over creationism says PZ Myers, and of course he's right. Once again, a nutcase is claiming "Creationism and Intelligent Design are two completely different ways of looking at the world" – when the only difference is that proponents of the latter try to make Creationist mush palatable by invoking science-y words and by being careful not to say "God" when outsiders are listening.

But alas, they keep making their private whispers public. Read the Pharyngula article for a great run-down of Intelligent Design proponents caught in the act of admitting that their Magic Designer is none other than the Abrahamic god of Bronze-Age Middle Eastern cults. It's good to keep these instances in mind, as we'll continue to hear public protests of "God? Who said God?" from the IDists.

My own take on the matter? Intelligent Design is Creationism with flame decals. Nothing more. 

Purpose of this page

Discovery Institute Discoveries: Detailed List by Year (DIDDLY) is a new resource on this site to assist in educating the public on research performed by The Discovery Institute, a US-based think tank with a voice in the public discussion of scientific, social, and educational issues.

DIDDLY will catalog all discoveries, scientific or other, which have been made directly by, or through the support of, the Discovery Institute. Readeth thou more

In the presentation 'Why We Believe in Gods' at the American Atheist 2009 convention, Andy Thomson delivers a beautifully succinct crack upside the head of religion's claim to morality. It's this, 35 minutes into the talk:

MORALITY & RELIGION

• Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what we are told.
• Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right.

I don't know whether that originates with Mr Thomson, but I myself have never heard the distinction expressed so eloquently.

Watch the whole presentation for yourself:

Well put, no?

Beautiful beyond words. This is exactly the list of Christian inanities that's been growing in my mind over the years - plus a few bonus points I never thought of.

Religionists fight back against reasoned arguments with authentic-sounding, authoritatively-delivered nonsense, bolstered by titles like "Reverend" and "Cardinal" and "theologian". But I've yet to see them make a good retort to the most effective weapon of all: ridicule that just tosses their own claims and scriptures back at them. Great stuff!

Over on the FAQ of blog Answers In Genesis BUSTED!, there's a verbose Christian commenter who's utterly gobsmacked by the concept of an apostrophe, yet has the entire universe all figured out in a way we "nothing to live for" atheists blindly refuse to see. For your amusement, I'll take the liberty here of reposting his comment and the reply I submitted.

I ask readers, whether atheist or not: Does either of these really make any more sense than the other?

First, the wordy original: Readeth thou more

What if you took a smarmy televangelist  show - and, Bizarro-world-like, replaced Christianity with its antithesis, Satanism? The result would be... hmm, suprisingly similar to the original!

Via kung fu grippe