I respond

The latest thing going around the atheistosphere is a list of questions on where atheists get their beliefs. This list helps define what atheism is to the individual atheist.

Funnily enough, and despite there being no dogma, there is a great deal of unanimity in the responses. In fact, far more unanimity than there seems to be within identical churches or from one xian to another. Dare I say it? My guess would be that our lack of dogma allows for simplicity...

So, here goes: My Answers in Atheism -

• Why do you not believe in God? From a rational standpoint, it doesn't make sense to believe in the impossible; and we have found no irrefutable evidence of one - only fanciful stories about him.

• Where do your morals come from? Simply from knowing that to be good, kind and ethical makes life easier for self and others.

• What is the meaning of life? Life has no purpose. But propagation of the species does. What we do with the time we are alive is more important to others, since we have no afterlife to look forward to.

• Is atheism a religion? No. No. And absolutely not!

• If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times? Living the Serenity Prayer makes the most sense: Can it be fixed? Then fix it. If it can't be fixed? Accept it with maturity.

• Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God? Yes. Encouraging people, actively or passively, to believe in a fantasy hinders their maturity.

• Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists? No. They committed the atrocities for political reasons: to gain power and remove threats to it. The "leaders" were only incidentally atheists; their actions weren't to make more atheists. Coincidentally, religion has commited attrocities for religio-political reasons: to consolidate power, to maintain power and to remove threats to it - and to make more believers through terror.

• How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God? Because they were infected with the virus by their parents, starting in infancy. Religion is regional, tribal, and generational.

• Why does the universe exist? The more elegant question is: why does the universe allow man to exist?

• How did life originate? We don't know yet. But it's being investigated both vigorously and rigorously.

• Is all religion harmful? Yes. It holds a false promise of an afterlife. It has an authoritarian power over the people who follow it. It uses their money to glorify individuals (Pope! Robertson! Dobson!) and does little for poverty, disease and quality secular education. It keeps adults in a child-like state.
  

• What’s so bad about religious moderates? Because they stand as a bulwark protecting extremism by protecting and enabling the extremists. Both christianity and islam lean toward terroristic words and actions.

• Is there anything redeeming about religion? I can't think of anything.

• What if you’re wrong about God (and He does exist)? I'll take my chances, thanks. But I'm not worried.

• Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected? Not really. Why should it?

• Are atheists smarter than theists? Not necessarily smarter; but the fact is, the more education you have, the less you believe in god and the less you need faith. Atheism is not for the weak.

• How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity? In my opinion, there was no biblical Jesus; the bible passes off second-, third- and fourth-hand narrative as "eyewitness testimony". Trust me, in a court of law, Jesus would have no "corpus" to be "habeas-ed"! It's all circumstantial evidence. And borrowed from earlier myths...
  

• Would the world be better off without any religion? Yes. Everyone would be rated on their mature judgment and critical-thinking skills. And the money would be put to much better use.

• What happens when we die? The human body is a "wet-cell battery". When the electrical power dies, the body dies and consciousness winks out like a television screen that's been turned off. This concept is too scary for children and childlike adults.

So, that's one atheist's perspective. Feel free to take the questions and answer them yourselves.

"One nation, under...a spell"

Meet Pat Condell. He's an Englishman, who loves America. Or, rather, Pat loves the America the Founding Fathers invented. As he says, "before it was hijacked by xian zealots"...

Cutting-edge medicine and the science-phobic Christianist

Medical miracle for conception-challenged fundie moms? Or the "New Coke" of biological science?

And, hey, how's that overpopulation thing working out for global climate change?

First U.S. Uterus Transplant Planned: Some Experts Say Risk Isn't Justified
(Washington Post--01.15.07)

...[D]octors are planning the first womb transplant in the United States. A team based in Manhattan has begun screening women left barren by cancer, injuries or other problems who want a chance to bear their own children.

"The desire to have a child is a tremendous driving force for many women," said Giuseppe Del Priore of the New York Downtown Hospital, who is leading the team. "We think we could help many women fulfill this very basic desire."

Hunh! Global climate change is caused by overpopulation. Overpopulation is caused by fertile wombs (and low intelligence, i.e. failure to know about or respect the issue of birth control). Doesn't anyone else see the "cause and effect" here?

"It is the convergence of two fields that are already embedded in large ethical disputes," said Lori B. Andrews, a bioethicist at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. "This represents the worst of both worlds."

Several experts said the plan highlights the unique status that childbearing holds in the United States and elsewhere, and the lengths to which some women will go to experience it, even with the availability of such options as adoption and surrogacy.

"I'm not convinced that science and medicine and society as a whole should be putting so much emphasis on having this particular nine-month experience," said Adrienne Asch, who studies family life at Yeshiva University. "Why is that the sine qua non of being a parent? The real work of parenting is in the time after a child is born and is in someone's home."

[,,,]

After performing the complex surgery, doctors would wait probably about three months to make sure the organ is functioning and has been stabilized with anti-rejection drugs...An embryo created through in vitro fertilization would then be placed in the womb. If the pregnancy goes well, the baby would be delivered by Caesarean section to minimize risks from labor and to allow doctors to simultaneously remove the uterus, so the woman could discontinue the anti-rejection drugs.

"We are calling it a temporary transplant," Del Priore said. "This minimizes the time patients have to be on the medications and makes it a much more reasonable risk to take to have a baby."

[...]

"This is not like a kidney transplant -- it's not medically necessary to the woman's life," Andrews said. "Without it, the woman can live a healthy life. She still has options. She can adopt. She can even still have her own biologic child with a surrogate."

Del Priore acknowledged the possible risks, but he and others said women should have the choice.

Women should have the choice to have a baby--BUT NOT HAVE THE CHOICE TO NOT HAVE A BABY? WTF?

Some days, LIKE TODAY, I think all "wombs" (such a quaint word) should be removed and all eggs and sperm be given over to a rational, non-profit foundation...

Quiverfull Families, no birth control/abortion/masturbation/condom-use/gay-sex--we are seriously doomed!

My head hurts...