The purpose driven athiest

One of the arguments that religious apologists bring out in support of their respective faiths is that religion can bring purpose and meaning to an individual. They attempt to ridicule the scientific view of man's development (not creation) through evolution as being devoid of purpose or meaning, while holding a religious view of creation as endowing the beliver with a sense that a god is looking out for you and has a plan for you.
To those apologists who would argue this, I would give an example of the 9/11 terrorist attackers. These people had purpose, right? They felt god/allah had a plan for them - to attack the United States. One can readily see from this extreme example that religious delusion can reak havoc and destruction upon society. Most people of sanity would reject the idea that the 9/11 terrorists are sitting next to allah in heaven, surrounded by 72 virgins. Why? Why are we able to reject such a ridiculous idea, yet embrace such similar ideas of paths to heaven outlined in the Bible?
The idea that religion may impart meaning and purpose in some people's lives may be correct, to a degree, but one should look at what exact meaning or purpose it is infusing. We should note that not all such purposes are positive in their benefits on humanity or the individual. Another example - the stance of the Catholic church against condom use. This ridiculous notion, perpetuated in sermons throughout HIV ravaged countries in Africa, has led to the spread of HIV/AIDS. The Catholic church, while doing what it believes is God's will, is in fact contributing to millions of AIDS deaths by helping spread HIV by preaching against condom use. How could this in any way be considered just?
On the converse side, athiests are accused of living without purpose. I, as a "devout" athiest, reject such assertion outright. The greatest example I can give to counter such an argument is to look at the elite scientists in our nation. The National Academy of Science, is one of the primier scientific organizations in our country. To be nominated for admission to this elite group requires high achievement in scientific discovery. So, how many of these elite scienists believe in God? Very few. In fact, 93% expressed doubt or flat out rejection of belief in God, and only 7% expressed a personal belief in God. See link to Nature article here. Yet, how much more purposeful a life could one have than being an elite scientist, discovering the hows and whys behind our world?
I'm sorry to say, religious apologists, that athiests can run circles around you in living purposeful and meaningful lives, without having to resort to fantasy beliefs akin to the tooth fairy, santa claus, or other fairy tales of the supernatural. Further, athiests avoid the moral failings that modern religious beliefs produce in the face of illness and injustice in the modern world.

Gadfly says bye bye to WSJ subscription

I am fortunate enough to inhabit the upper middle class strata in American society. As part of such a socio-economic group, I was also part of the faithful who read the Wall Street Journal.
Not anymore.
I have stood by long enough, reading the ludicrous, vituperative attacks championed on its editorial page.
I can no longer in good conscience continue to provide money and a renewing subscription to an organization that espouses such ridiculous positions.
What kind of examples am I talking about?
How about running editorials from the religious fringe (Dinesh D'Souza), attempting to attack the naturalistic world view of the Brights, yet refusing to publish a scathing rebuttal by Daniel Dennett?
How about running editorials blaming Clinton for the events of 9/11, when it was George W Bush who continued to clear shrub in Crawford instead of pay heed to warnings of bin Laden's imminent attack?
How about running editorials supporting a drug company sponsored free-for-all in prescription drug development, all but emasculating the FDA?
How about embracing the delusional religious radical views of Terry Schiavo's parents, arguing that this poor woman was merely "handicapped" instead of neurologically devastated?
How about embracing the empty arguments of WMDs and terrorist associations of Iraq in order to support the ill fated invasion in 2003?
How about supporting the most disastrous presidency of G W Bush in 2000 and 2004?
I've had enough. I'm putting my money where my principles are - away from the Wall Street Journal. I encourage others to follow suit.
Perhaps the WSJ will hear the message if it hits them in the wallet.

The synergy between the GOP and Al Qaeda

In the years post 9/11, one can look back at the actions of the Republican party in this country and realize just how dependent the GOP is on Al Qaeda.
Without Al Qaeda, the GOP would be a bunch of Jesus freaks and corporate welfare dads. With Al Qaeda, the GOP is transformed into a carrier runway strutting, bring-it-on bravado wielding, global defender of freedom.
The GOP needs Al Qaeda like a baby needs breastmilk. Al Qaeda has served as a wellspring of political nourishment and strength for the GOP in America.
When George W. Bush allowed a bunch of punk Al Qaeda terrorists to successfully commit the 9/11 attacks, he rode a wave of political will influenced by fear and revenge against a relatively unsophisticated enemy.
In fact, under Bush's leadership, Al Qaeda has been offered a new base of operations, in Iraq, and has never been defeated in Afghanistan. Why would the GOP ever want Al Qaeda defeated? As long as there is Al Qaeda, there is fear of another 9/11, there are trembling sheep willing to vote GOP, and there is hence political power.
It is time for America to move beyond the rhetoric of fear. We could have prevented 9/11 with nothing more than information of Al Qaeda's actions. We did not need a single F16, Stealth bomber, or battalion of soldiers. We could have stopped 9/11 with a few well-informed security guards in the Boston and Newark airports.
We can stop Al Qaeda through intelligence, not senseless warfare. The military industrial complex has forced us to open our checkbooks and children's futures in the post 9/11 world. It is time we say enough. We know our enemy. Our enemy is not scary. They are stoppable. We can thwart Al Qaeda's actions through proper intelligence.
It is time to reject the rhetoric of fear, spewed from the GOP. It is time to stop coddling Al Qaeda and other like minded terrorists. It is time to wean this country and the GOP from the milk of political will that Al Qaeda has offered. It is time for real political, economic, and anti-terrorism leadership in this country.

Gadfly Bitch Slaps Cheney and NeoCon Traitors

Here it goes again, the rhetoric of Dick Cheney and the Neo-Con traitors. It's amazing that anyone even bothers to pay attention to our Vice President anymore, given his complete dissociation from reality. So many pronouncements from Cheney's mouth have proven so utterly wrong that he seems to serve as a great contrarian sage. Remember the "last throes" comment, for example?
Now, Cheney seems to take the helm at attacking the Democratic leadership in Congress, arguing that plans to scale back or even pull out of Iraq would "validate the al-Qaeda strategy".
Now, does it not strike anyone how amazing it is for Republicans to become spokespersons for Al-Qaeda? Really, it does not surprise me one bit. In fact, if Al-Qaeda could hand out metals for aiding and abetting their cause, Bush and Cheney would be nearly front and center in line for such an award. Bush's incompetence in fighting a relatively unsophisticated opponent has turned Iraq into a turkey shoot for Al-Qaeda and various insurgents against our military.
It is time for America to stop listening to the rhetoric of fear. Fear has been the best friend of the Republicans for the last 5 years since 9/11. It is time that America realizes that our terrorist enemies are not particularly difficult to defeat or thwart, and that the greatest weapon against terrorism is quality intelligence. If we know what our enemy is about to do, we can act against it.
Unfortunately, Bush and Cheney do not care what our enemy is about to do, as evidenced by Bush's colossal indifference to a memo titled "bin Laden determined to attack within the US", months before the 9/11 attacks.
The rhetoric of fear that Republicans hold onto, the rhetoric that the US must somehow remain indefinitely mired in Iraq, sacrificing our men and women in uniform for a worthless cause against punk insurgents who pose no threat to any man, woman, or child on US soil
- this rhetoric must be fought head-on. It is time to squelch the rhetoric of fear, and offer words of wisdom and sanity in this affair. It is time to stop opening our checkbooks and futures to the war mongers. It is time to get out of the quagmire of Iraq, before the insurgents turkey shoot any more of our soldiers. It is time to stand up for real leadership against terrorism.

The Gadfly is Back!

After months of absence from the blogosphere, I have returned. No, the rumors of the Gadfly suddenly embracing the mainstream, becoming a church-going, conservative were grossly overblown.

In commemoration of my return, I would like to comment briefly on the radical views and anti-atheist efforts of religious stalwarts.

As one interested in the practical aspects of truth, I would ask any devout Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew - how can you reconcile the blatant falsehoods in your religious texts? Forget about any snippets of "truth" in these texts, what about the falsehoods? How could any God/Allah/Adonai/Krishna embrace a blatant falsehood in his holy texts?
For example, in this modern day and age, it is flat out laughable for anyone to honestly believe our earth and universe are only a few thousand years old. Yet, if you believe the Bible, that is how old the universe and earth are dated. It is unequivocal - the Bible gives fairly exact time lines from Adam to Jesus, and we can of course calculate the time from Jesus' birth to today. The real evidence from observations point to an earth and universe that are billions of years old. The scientific evidence along these lines are many fold - radiometric dating, and helioseismic verification in particular. Yet, these data are rejected by many over "holy texts" full of falsehoods and half truths.

In attacking those who reject the idea of a mystical creator, religious advocates argue that the "order" inherent in biologic life must reflect a creator's hand. I, as an atheist, agree - but I feel that our "creator" is not an invisible, supernatural being, but rather the forces of nature and millions of years of evolution at work. When a diamond is formed in by the geologic forces in our earth, do we have to invoke the supernatural? These days, we can even re-create the forces of nature and make diamonds in the laboratory. It is likely a matter of time before humans can manipulate the forces of nature and create life from scratch as well.
The emergence of human and other biologic life on this planet is not the equivalent of a 747 forming from the debris of a tornado. Anyone who studies biologic processes knows that while there may be a degree of organization in a cell, there is a lot of redundancy, messiness, and chance for problems as well. Further, the organization that leads to a cell's formation can be re-created in a laboratory, without prayer or any invisible hand of a supernatural creator involved. Who are we deluding here?

The arguments against the supernatural, and tearing apart the counterarguments of the supernatural supporters is a more lengthy exercise than can be expounded here. Stay tuned for further battles agains the mystics in these pages.