Webs’ Random Ideas

If you want a great read on an experience with a Christian Right Mega-Church, go check out Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone article…

No clippings or anything, sorry. But none is needed for this article. It is witty, funny, and stimulating at the same time and just so well written. Go check it out!

Found from Les.

Did anyone else notice how the word “god” is now bleeped from being used in the sense of “god damn” on television? Is this the FCC? I sure hope not.

This was too good to pass up:

(ring, ring) “Hello?”

“Uh, hi Honey, it’s me.”

“Oh hi Sweetheart. What’s up?”

“Well, I just wanted to check to be sure, uh, are we okay with each other?”

“What are you talking about?”

“I mean in our marriage. Is our marriage okay?”

“Of course it is. What’s going on?”

“Well I just heard that the California Supreme Court ruled that no one can be discriminated against in their right to marry whomever they love, and that includes same-sex couples.”

“Wow! That’s great. What’s that have to do with our marriage?”

“Well, some people are saying that this is going to destroy marriage, and because our marriage is so important to me I just wanted to be sure it hasn’t been destroyed.”

Go read the rest at Friendly Atheist…

So there was some interesting conversation going on with my post on religion and the “A” in my sidebar. Basically one user’s comments brought up the question, at least for me, if indoctrination is necessary for any organization to survive, specifically religious organizations.

Religion that is imposed upon another, is not going to be true Faith.

While I agree with that statement, it made me think, “Can religion survive without indoctrination of others?”

I think indoctrination at any level, or for any system or organization is wrong. I would never grow a child up to believe in something. That just wrong for the development of a child. The learning process should never be hindered.

At the same time, can any organization survive without attempts to recruit? Is indoctrination a necessary evil? What do you think?

So the other day I read a post by Paul at Cafe Philos about “Standing up for Nontheists. It’s a very good post and is thought provoking, as all of Paul’s posts usually are.

For years, my deepest, most fervent and heart felt opinion on the ontological existence of deity has been a passionate conviction that the question of whether or not god exists is boring.

This is probably one of the few areas where Paul and I differ. But my interest in the issue comes more from my own stupidity on religion than from anything else. I wasted my younger years not learning all the interesting concepts out there in the world. Which leads to my interest in just about everything nowadays.

The main point made in Paul’s post is his frustration of seeing how atheist are treated in this country. And it can be very frustrating at times for an Atheist. Take the simple definition of the word atheism. It means lack of belief, specifically any religious belief. So Atheists are being mistreated, and in some cases abused, because of their lack of a belief. If that last sentence sounds odd to you, welcome to the world of an atheist.

What is the reason for the bigotry and mis-treatment of atheists over their lack of beliefs? Please tell me it’s not from some misguided thought about how a lack of a belief in any religion predisposes someone to more violence or criminal activity. Hopefully it’s not that myth about divorce rates. Does it have something to do with our lack of beliefs threatening your beliefs?

Whatever the reason, take any question from above and even if the answer is yes, bigotry and mistreatment to any human being is uncalled for. Part of living in a civilized society is treating others fairly, justly, and not discriminating. As well as giving someone the civil rights they deserve so long as they do not remove or encroach on the rights from someone else.

So, as Paul did with his blog, I will be adding the “Scarlet A” to my blog. Not because I necessarily care about the movement of outspoken atheists and not because I am the sort of person to sum up my feelings and thoughts with a bumper sticker slogan. But because I am tired of being treated differently for my beliefs and I want others to know why.

I add the “A” to my blog because what Nicole (see video below) went through is bullshit and undeserved. No belief should exclude someone from treating others fairly and humanely.

Reader Ted introduced me to Randy Newman and I really enjoy what I’ve heard so far. Not only are the lyrics insightful, witty, and well thought, but the music is well produced. The piano, and sometimes instrumentals, behind the lyrics are themselves enough to listen to without any lyrics.

Somebody else apparently likes Randy too as the video below was created a fan using the song “God’s Song”. enjoy!

Below the fold are the lyrics…

(more…)

There is a discussion going on at ***Dave’s blog about morality and technology. Originally the topic was about a study asking respondents about their opinions on nanotechnology; the study was written in Science Daily. From the article:

In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.

To me this seems like a completely silly response. But even more so, it seems like an udder nonsensical question. Now I don’t know what question was asked for sure, I can’t find the original study, but I am assuming the question was along the lines of, “Do you find nanotechnology to be morally acceptable?” Which to me, and ***Dave, seems akin to asking, “Do you find metallurgy morally acceptable?” How can you get a true result from such a question?

I also found this odd from the article:

The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology, says Scheufele, explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.

“They still oppose it,” he says. “They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn’t about informing these people. They are informed.”

I’m not sure I buy that conclusion at all. People in general do not seem to have a full grasp of technology, what it is, where it’s going, etc. If they did, stem cells wouldn’t be an issue of morality and neither would nanotechnology. Below is a clip of a comment I left on ***Dave’s blog about this very subject:

If we stick to dictionary definitions of morality we are dealing with ethical decisions of right or wrong essentially, goodness based on a code of conduct, and/or human ethical decisions. Basically to be moral or immoral you or something has to make a conscious decision based on some kind of code.

So in the extreme case of cannibalism, for example, most people in the industrialized world would come to the conclusion that eating another person is immoral. Our codes of conduct or (un)written rules condone such action. In more remote places of the world it is acceptable and likely considered moral by their code or (un)written rules.

In the case of technology that goes into building a PMFRD machine, each piece of technology is an inanimate object. It cannot make a decision based on (un)written rules. Now maybe the machine on a whole could make such decisions with the right amount of AI. But the machine on a whole is not considered technology, rather a machine or AI robot. And different pieces of technology went into creating this machine. And furthermore, the machine was still programmed to make such decisions based on some kind of code. It still had a creator that decided how to give the robot the ability to make decisions.

You may need to go to the link above for the discussion on ***Dave’s blog for context, but basically technology can’t really be good or evil, people are based on pre-defined standards.

So what do you think? Is technology moral or immoral? Are people good or evil? Do people kill people or do PMFRD machines kill people?

Interesting take on the other side of things.

Excitement is growing in the Northern England town of Huddlesfield following the news that a local man saw an image of the Big-Bang in a piece of toast. Atheist Donald Chapman, 36, told local newspaper, “The Huddlesfield Express” that he was sitting down to eat breakfast when an unusual toast pattern caught his eye.

“I was just about to spread the butter when I noticed a fairly typical small hole in the bread surrounded by a burnt black ring. However the direction and splatter patterns of the crumbs as well as the changing shades emanating outwards from this black hole were very clearly similar to the chaotic-dynamic non-linear patterns that one would expect following the Big Bang”. “It’s the beginning of the world” he added excitedly.

Many people may jump to say this is a hoax, or a farce. But what makes seeing a religious image in toast more credible than an image of scientific theory?

Here are the links:

Original site (down due to being dugg): Satire and Comment
Mirror of site above: Toast site mirror

Sometimes pictures say much more than words ever could

Found via DOF and SEB…