Roy Zimmerman is a comedic genius!

The first song I ever heard from Roy Zimmerman was "Ted Haggard Is Completely Heterosexual." That was hilarious stuff. Then, when a video (not the one below) of his popped up on my YouTube home page, I had to check it out, which then got me to check out other videos. I fell in love with this one. I like this idea of a "strawdog" (instead of man), but my favorite part was, "I've got lots of thoughts of my own...no I don't!"

Michelle Bachmann is dangerous scary!

Michelle Bachmann has been scaring me for a few years now. Originally I was hoping she was from some radical district out of Minnesota and wouldn't stand a chance on a national stage. Unfortunately, my hopes are turning out to be just that as they are not manifesting themselves in reality. It didn't take long for me to figure out that she was an Evangelical Christian wingnut, but she does a descent job of hiding it. The Daily Beast has a great article discussing how she hid her views during Monday's debate.

On Monday, Bachmann didn't talk a lot about her religion. She didn't have to—she knows how to signal it in ways that go right over secular heads. In criticizing Obama's Libya policy, for example, she said, "We are the head and not the tail." The phrase comes from Deuteronomy 28:13: "The Lord will make you the head and not the tail." As Rachel Tabachnick has reported, it's often used in theocratic circles to explain why Christians have an obligation to rule.

Note to my father - This here is a reason why it is good to know what is in the Bible. Christians talk to each other in code, so to speak, and it is good to be able to decipher such code.

Yikes! It gets worse when they reveal that she worked as a research assistant on a book that "argues that the United States was founded as a Christian theocracy." Oh, and the author of that book, John Eidsmoe, supposedly has a history of addressing white supremacist groups. And he is apparently one of the guys Bachmann gets her distorted versions of history from.

Reading Eidsmoe, though, some of Bachmann's most widely ridiculed statements begin to make sense. Earlier this year, for example, she was mocked for saying that the Founding Fathers "worked tirelessly" to end slavery. But in books by Eidsmoe and others who approach history from what they call a Christian worldview, this is a truism. Despite his defense of the Confederacy, Eidsmoe also argues that even those founders who owned slaves opposed the institution and wanted it to disappear, and that it was only Christian for them to protect their slaves until it did. "It might be very difficult for a freed slave to make a living in that economy; under such circumstances setting slaves free was both inhumane and irresponsible."

I've heard she also gets history from David Barton, who is known to make obvious factual errors in the things he says.

I really don't even want to touch on her homosexual bigotry. That is a topic that angers me too much. Just go ahead and read it for yourself!

On the plus side of everything, I keep hearing about how even Republicans are not happy with their choices of candidates thus far, so maybe Bachmann doesn't represent the base of the party...at least not yet.

Black Atheists of Atlanta, your hosts are embarrassing!

UPDATE: I listened to the latest Ask an Atheist episode (video to be added later to a future post), and this is some rouge group that split ties with the Black Nonbelievers of Atlanta, which appears to be the rational atheist group in that community. It is still disappointing to see some radical loons carry the atheist banner (so to speak) around.



I know other atheist bloggers have now beaten me to the punch, but I need to get my thoughts out on this episode from late last month. First, here are the important parts, broken up into three videos:








What is to follow is what I put in the description of the videos. This covers my main objections, though they said a lot of bizarre stuff, and I know I didn't cover all of it.

This is from the May 23, 2011 episode of "The Black Atheists of Atlanta." The hosts make many disappointing comments regarding homosexuality.

Some examples include making an argument from tradition, where they claim homosexuality was originally part of Greek and Roman culture. A caller into the show is the most reasonable one pointing out that the Greeks and Romans may just be the first cultures that are known to accept homosexuals [in their societies], but not that the first homosexuals were Greek or Roman. The hosts also claim that African societies are family centered, but homosexuality is not family centered. [How so?]

They also make up scientific laws, such as what they call the "Law of Reproduction." No such scientific law exists. The idea seems to be that for mammals, a male and female is required for reproduction and that all members of the species have a desire to reproduce themselves. (I derive the first part from the obvious as well as commentary and the second part from their claim about homosexuality being a choice...or that one is not "born that way.") They seem to not recognize, or perhaps they are unaware, that evolution works on a species and not the individual. (The idea here being that not all members of a species need to take part in the reproductive process...at least not to the extent they [imply].)

They also discuss scientists being raciest, which is true, but they get conspiratorial about it, denying any evidence that might go against, dare I say, "their agenda" if it came from a white scientist. They give the example of Piltdown Man, which is indeed a good example of European bias interfering with the scientific process, but they, as many creationists likewise do, ignore the fact that there were scientists suspecting it to be a fraud from the beginning. [They additionally ignore (or their conspiratorial thinking causes them to ignore) that the scientific process is self-correcting. Errors/mistakes can and do happen, but the process tends to discard these, even if it takes many years to do so.]

Another error they make is claiming homosexuals claim to be atheists to get out of the church. That is just complete BS from anything I've seen. Many homosexuals do not want to be thought of as atheists because then they will belong to another underprivileged minority. I personally see many try to reform the more liberal churches, using the claim, "God made me gay" to gain sympathy. It is true, though, that there are likely homosexuals who do become atheists partly due to questioning of their religion resulting from the discrimination. However, they don't become atheists simply by not liking the discrimination. It just doesn't work that way.

In summary, I was disappointed in that I heard a lot of the garbage I typically hear from Christian apologists coming out of the mouths of people who are atheists. Well, this just goes to show how broad the "atheist umbrella" is; all you have to do is reject the claims of a deity. There is no requirement that you have to make that rejection through critical thinking.

I'd also like to note that the caller in parts 2 and 3 was the most reasonable person in the discussion. It was a shame, I feel, that the caller didn't do a better job calling the hosts on their BS, especially where the caller agreed that homosexuality wasn't "family oriented." I'd really like to know why they don't think homosexuality is family oriented. Yes, I get it that homosexuals cannot have children of their own from engaging in homosexual intercourse. But, the hosts point out that Africans (as well as all humans, though they imply otherwise) are communal. Why can't they consider that homosexuals could have a communal role, such as daycare providers or midwives? It would seem the error primarily lies in that one minute they say the culture is communal and then the next minute it is family-based, which are not necessarily the same thing.

PZ Myers vs. Islamists in Dublin

So, PZ Myers encountered some Muslims at this past weekend's International Atheist Convention (I've also seen it called the European Atheist Convention) in Dublin, Ireland. There are certainly some interesting parts to the video, as I will note below.

PZ: "You're saying Mohammad was some kind of ignoramus living in a cave for all of his life?"

...

Islamist: "In fact, there were no scholars in Arabia in his city. There were only 17 people who could read and write."

...

PZ: "I'm just kind of surprised that your argument rests on the fact that...Arabs were ignorant nomads and knew nothing at all."

Islamist: "Yes, this is what we said, yes." (paraphrased)

Yep, that's right! The Islamists downplay the knowledge of their ancestors in order to support their belief that Mohammad got his scientific knowledge from Allah. The fact is, though, that the Arab world was on the verge of entering a "golden age" in scientific knowledge.

The video gets interesting again around 6:20. It is a bit harder to understand what everyone is saying, as people are talking over each other, but I will paraphrase the best I can.

PZ: "Is that what the Koran specifically says that the bones come first, then the flesh, and then the muscle?"

Islamist: "Absolutely! This is exactly what the Koran says."

PZ: "You've just demonstrated that the Koran is wrong."

Islamist: "How?"

Discussion of Keith Moore's idea that flesh forms after bones (and assumably before muscle). Myers discusses what really happens: muscle and flesh develop simultaneously

Islamist: "Even if that is the case, the Koran is right!"

Islamists discuss how some word in the Koran can mean simultaneously.

So, after admitting that the Koran says the flesh forms first, they back peddle by twisting the meaning of words in the Koran to fit the science. Oh, this sounds all too familiar to what Christians like to do with the Bible..."Oh, this really means this. You have to understand the ancient Hebrew, Greek, etc." ...As if they somehow understand it themselves. *sigh*

A little later on, AronRa points out how people are punished for not believing (just like in Christianity) though no good reason for believing is provided. More apologetics that sound oddly Christian follow.

Gotta Love the Conservative Christian Wingnuts

Here is an article on World Net Daily I found courtesy of Ed Brayton. I personally think it is great that the Federal Reserve is flying the rainbow flag. However, with World Net Daily being anti-gay, some of the commenters have allowed their bigotry to show.

...Homosexuality is a sin against God and he said in his word homosexuals are going to burn in the lake of fire that burns forever but prior to this happening he turns those given to this deviant sexual lifestyle over to a reprobate mind. Keep in mind this is not me judging you but God himself. Romans 1:27-28 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know yes not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Notice the word effeminate! I implore you to repent of this sin turn to God for deliverance. And please don't buy into this I was born this way, God doesn't create people this way just so he can send them to hell. Hell wasn't created for humans but for Satan and his false prophet. Only people that are children of Satan will join him in the lake of fire. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

I hope everyone learns a very important lesson from this and that is when you hire homosexuals and allow them to obtain positions of authority this is what you can expect. This thing "oh well they are good people" or "I know several really good people that are homosexual" still doesn't nullify what we are seeing and what we can further expect from people that are given to sexual lifestyle God condemns and their judgment while still in a natural state is to be given over to a reprobate mind as God calls it. He also refers to homosexuality as an abomination.

For you Christians notice Daniel gives you insight about the anti-Christ and a sign of where we are on God's time clock of the end time. The anti-Christ is a homosexual or at the very least a bi-sexual because of his affection or lack thereof of women. Daniel 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Well, I guess I must at least thank the guy for some insight into the New Testament, which I have not yet read in full. However, this idea from Daniel (from the Old Testament) that "the anti-Christ is a homosexual" that does not "regard...the desire of women" does not really align with Matthew in the New Testament. "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. So, if a man regards his desires of women, he admits to being an adulterer. Otherwise, he could possibly be the anti-Christ. Seems to be a bit of a lose-lose if you are male (and a king, since that is what Daniel is talking about...trying to keep it in context as much as I can, though the poster seems to have taken that passage out of context himself). Am I surprised? No.

Gonna eat a lot of peaches! ...And apples.

Here are a couple of pictures from my fruit trees. The first is an apple tree and the second is a peach tree. This is the first year these trees are producing fruit, so I am not sure what to expect. I'll keep updating on the progress as the year goes by.

P.S. If anyone knows HTML well enough to know if there is a way to put these pictures side-by-side to save space, please let me know how! Thanks!

The results are in!

The battle between PZ Myers and other atheist bloggers/media celebrities (for lack of a better word) to raise money for Camp Quest is over! And the winner is the others, with a total of $13,550.06 to $13,016.01 which means Matt Dillahunty will be dressed in drag for not one but two episodes of The Atheist Experience!