Hiatus

I haven’t dropped off the face of the Earth. I do, however, have to take a brief hiatus while I work out everything with choosing what college I’ll be attending next year. Stand by.

Comment Rescue: WTF?

Another (fool’s) golden nugget from David Anderson:

You have your vote count way off. Katz, Henry, Conner, Cloutier, McBride are all people that I think would be likely to support it. This issue has nothing to do with gay rights. On a gay rights issue, you may flip 3 or even 5 of those votes . Marriage has nothing to do with gay rights and everything to do with the dignity of the family.

I bolded Katz’s name because I helped interview the guy for YDM and heard him state explicit, unconditional support for gays (and, yes, gay marriage). Katz will vote “no” on SB 27, and I commend him for it. I can almost understand David’s reasoning on Dr. Katz; after all, he’s from the 4th SD, a majority GOP district. Charlie Copeland was from the 4th.

That said, the 4th does not have Laurel Republicans in it. It has Greenville Republicans in it. As in, fiscal conservatives. These people voted for Romeny, not Huckabee. I’m willing to bet that most of Katz’s constituents either support gay marriage or just don’t particularly care.

To get to my point, though, “this issue has nothing to do with gay rights”? It would sound dumb if it just said “this issue has a little bit to do with gay rights” or “this issue might have a lot to do with gay rights”, let alone saying it has NOTHING to do with it. Anderson’s logic, once again, fails me.

Nerdariffic

My biology class just started the (unfortunately brief) chapter on the origins of life on Earth; to kick it off, we’re watching a special on the biological explanation of origins from the Discovery Channel. Bill Nye hosts it… the name fails me now, but, time permitting, I’d encourage you to look it up. It’s thoroughly fascinating.

Delaware Right To Life, et al.

As I mentioned a few days ago, there’s some religious demagoguing going on in Delaware government, and it would stand to reason that sides are going to start forming. The Young Democrats Movement, for example, is undertaking an agressive pro-gay rights platform this year. On the other side of the equation, we have Delaware Right to Life.

I will not make abortion a serious debate over here. However, a cursory look at DRTL’s blog reveals a post from the Delaware Family Policy Council in support of SB27 and advertising an anti-love pro-family rally at Leg Hall. The first sentence is:

We have a wonderful opportunity to advance traditional family values!

Which should read:

We have a wonderful opportunity to force our bigotry upon others!

I can respect the pro-life movement. I disagree with it pretty fundamentally, but I can respect it. I can not, however, respect the anti-gay movement. It’s a close-minded, malicious, pointless movement which I’m convinced is motivated by dogma alone.

I promised a very cordial woman from DRTL a link, so here it is. That said, the post I cited seems to actively endorse DFPC and SB27.

In return, I’ll ask for enlightenment. Ideally, I’d like an ongoing discussion of some sort. If, for whatever reason, that’s not in the cards, at the very least leave me a comment or write a post responding to a challenge:

A man and a woman are allowed to marry because they’re in love without any expectation of child-bearing. Why should gays not be afforded the same, and what are the benefits that outweigh the cost of diminishing two consenting adults’ ability to express their love for one another?

I look forward to the response.

Question of the Day

Atheists:

What’s your logic in rejecting all of the gods spoken of in history?

Theists:

What’s your logic in rejecting all of the other gods spoken of in history?

An Atheist Manifesto

I decided that the best way to kick off my tenure here at Men of Reason would be to outline exactly what I believe and therefore give the reader a framework with which to deduce future writing. I am a proud atheist who can be described as a secular humanist. I take my morals not from “God” or some higher being, but from the humanist ideal that all humans have worth. I believe strongly that every person has a purpose that is not God-given, but given through the great gift of life. When looking at life, it is important to understand the great gift that it presents to every living thing. Out of the millions of potential people, we made it. In addition, the fact that I do not believe in an afterlife makes the prospect of the present one even more fruitful and exciting. For this life presents us with the challenge of living our lives to the fullest, to making an impact on the earth, so that when we do die, the memory of us is eternal. Many great minds set out according to this philosophy. I don’t live my life looking forward to the prospect of heaven, but I live my life based on the prospect of heaven here on earth.

Greetings!

My name is Read Scott and I too am a college bound high school senior joining the ranks with my good friend, Mr. Marshall in this intellectual exercise we call, “Men of Reason.” Now, I am a recent convert over to the dark side of atheism, as I was raised in a faithful home of loving Protestants, until I began to think freely for the first time.  I did  a lot of research on the existence of our friend, Mr. God. What I discovered was a new passion for theological thought and philosophy, and so here I am joining the intellectual discourse as a new and proud secular humanist. I look forward to picking my brain and trying to make sense of this often untouchable subject of religion. I am excited to discuss and debate.

“It’s Not About Bigotry”

Those are the fascinating words found in a statement of support for an amendment to the Delaware Constitution, ambiguously named the Marriage Protection Act.

I am writing to urge your support for the Delaware Marriage Protection Amendment.

Across the country, the American people have overwhelmingly supported similar measures protecting our shared understanding of marriage as the union of a husband and wife. In 30 out of 30 states where the people have had their say — they have said yes to marriage as the union of a husband and wife.

Recent court decisions in Massachusetts, Connecticut and California show how vulnerable our marriage laws are. Without a state amendment, it’s only a matter of time before activists file a lawsuit seeking to overturn our marriage laws.

Morality?

Among the most common attacks on atheism (typically, in my experience, from less educated theists) is the question of morality. The hypothesis, as far as I can tell, tends to include the following points:

- Without God there is no (objective) morality.

- Therefore, without God, people either don’t know what’s right, or ignore it.

- Society therefore devolves without God.

(I’ll preemptively concede that there are other points in this argument which I’ll address case-by-case if they’re offered. These are just the similar aspects of the arguments I find most often)

I find this ridiculous from the outset. There’s no evidence of this in society. Less than 1% of the prison population in our great Christian nation, with its legal system rooted in Judeo-Christianity, is made of atheists, agnostics and other infidels nonbelievers. Seems a bit low for, at the least, 10% of America. I personally think there’s a false correlation, but you could make a damn good case for a negative relationship between faith and morality.

The Epicurean Paradox

Named after a 4th century B.C.E. Greek philosopher, Epicurus, the Epicurean Paradox addresses the problem of evil. Epicurus, in the interest of full disclosure, was not an atheist, nor was this argument an atheistic one. He was making the case, rather, that God (or, in his case, the gods) is plainly uninterested in people, neither a friend nor an enemy.

God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can.
If he wants to and cannot, he is weak — and this does not apply to god.
If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful — which is equally foreign to god’s nature.
If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god.
If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?

Thoughts?