Tweet Round-up

When someone says "It's against my religion," I hear "It's against my superstition."

The Catholic Church is completely infallible to those who own bibles and not history books.

Most women would never spend money at a business with the hiring policies of the Church, yet they often give when the basket comes around. I don't get it.

When met with an apologetic claim, I ask "why do you think that?" More often than not, it is because they were told to.

The more debates I have with Christians, the more sure I am that they are wrong. I always think that I couldn't be more sure.

"Moral perfection" doesn't equal mass killings in my book, just in the holy book.

Apologists have a lot of certain knowledge about God's nature, power & motivation until a hard question is asked. Then its all mysterious.

I like to think the Arthur Fonzarelli was an aaaaaatheist.

Jesus preaching the Golden Rule is his validation of subjective morality. What I want done to me may not be the same as what you want done to you.

Apologist when posed a yes or no question in which the answer would expose flaws in their argument: "Read this 200 page book for the answer." (Related: What kind of diabolical BS artist can give you the run-around for 200 pages?)

Calling Islam the religion of peace is like calling FOX News fair and balanced.

For more follow @deityshmeity

Would I Play By God's Rules If I Knew He Was Real?

If I could know that the Christian God exists, would I worship him? Let’s explore the angles.

Why I should not worship Jehovah:

Regardless of apologetic talking points, the God of the Bible is imperfect. He makes mistakes and he contradicts himself. Between creating a talking serpent that thwarts his own plan and feeling the need to sacrifice himself (or his son, depending on who you ask) to change his own rules of eternity, God has done little to inspire worship. I would also have to excuse divine choices that I fundamentally disagree with--like allowing anyone to suffer infinitely for finite sins. I imagine some of those suffering I even knew in life. Complying with God’s wishes and humbling myself to him would be like a German with freshly dead Jewish friends admitting allegiance to Hitler.

Why I should worship Jehovah:

While their commitment to extreme punishment for those they consider distasteful is on par, God and Hitler have some major differences. God forgives and shows mercy as long as you follow his strict criteria. I doubt Hitler would consistently allow Jews to live even if they all agreed to become Nazis. Also, unlike Hitler, we wouldn’t be here if not for God. The man upstairs also managed to impart some positive life lessons, so perhaps the Almighty deserves at least as much respect as my parents. More than this, the nummero uno reason why I am compelled to worship Jehovah is because I will go to hell if I don’t. Yes, heaven also factors in, but the stick is more compelling then the carrot in this case.

Weighing the options. I completely understand the anti-theists who call God evil, but I wouldn’t go that far. Yes, he kills humans, but I kill bugs. I eat cows and chicken and delicious, delicious pigs. I don’t consider myself evil so I would be hypocritical to call God evil. We are inferior to him in all respects (unless you include human-centric morality.) I can call God irresponsible, unfair, even cruel--but not evil. When it comes down to it, I would be completely unprincipled and play according to God’s rules, yet I think I would. I’m not proud of it. I am fully aware how that makes me a Nazi, but I’m also aware how it doesn’t. I like to think I would have sacrificed everything to fight Hitler even as a German under the pressure of death and threat to my family. I think I would because I could have rationalized that Hitler could be overthrown and any contribution to that cause is worth anything. I can’t rationalize that the Almighty can be overthrown. It’s right there in the name, all mighty. I would worship an erratic tyrant and try desperately to convince others to follow suit because no cost or benefit in our x number of years on earth compare to the forever after. To keep some scrap of dignity I would tell myself that one day in heaven I’ll be able to talk some sense into God...that won't happen. Mostly because Jehovah doesn’t fucking exist.

Music Shmusic: Jay-Z's Heaven

Usually rap has a lot of "praise the Lord" talk mixed in with lyrics promoting questionable morals. I was pleasantly surprised to hear a song with a more skeptical take from Jay-Z.

Listen to Jay=Z talk a little about the sony in this promo for his new album, which I happen to like a lot.
 

Grundy Disagrees #4

My latest disagreement spawned from a Two Catholic Men and a Blog post on the so-called "availability" of God and/or the Holy Spirit. I pointed out that the knowledge of the God's word is not universally available, rather it is asymmetrically available. Some people are born into areas where Catholicism hasn't spread or at least isn't mainstream, some people die before hearing about Jesus, and others are so indoctrinated into competing religions that a near insurmountable boundary is present. Basically, if the Catholic God exists, it is unfair for his word to come so easily to some and not at all to others. Further more, this God is unjust to judge symmetrically given the circumstance he put in place.

Joe, one of the two guys, disagreed.

Here are excerpts of the exchange:

Joe: We must do our part and God will provide the rest. We who are indwelt are called to bring God's love to the whole world. It is OUR fault if some do not hear of God when they are accessible to believers.

You put the fault on God who "makes it so much harder." Again, it is not God who does this. We who imagine and teach the competing worldview are to blame.

God is not a genie in the sky who is expected to wave a hand and fix our troubles. Part of our salvation comes from working to solve just these issues.

Lastly, God judges how God will. He has revealed to believers how he will judge, but God can always save who he will without consulting anyone. Maybe many will be saved in spite of their ignorance. We don't know.

You may say, "perhaps it is better for them to remain ignorant." Maybe. Maybe not. We do know God is just and fair. The question is then, "why bet on ignorance when sure knowledge is available?"

Me: You seem to be trying the justify the lack of availability from the perspective of the believer, but from the perspective of those who don't know about Jesus or have been conditioned to believe otherwise, it's surely not their fault they are in the situation they are in. That's what I'm saying, and it makes God, if he exists, neither just nor fair.

Joe: God does not reveal to us the ultimate fate of non-believer. He only reveals to us our responsibility towards them. Whatever their fate, we as believers are held responsible for our own actions (or non-action) towards them. 

As God is both just AND fair, the fact that someone is the situation they are in when it is not their fault would certainly work in their favor. You are certainly correct in pointing out that circumstances reduce an individual's culpability. 

The Catholic Church has NEVER said that anyone is in Hell. Not even Judas. We hope that Hell is empty. 

Do you see the difference?

Me: I see the difference in regards to hell, but denying some heaven while giving others that reward when asymmetrical circumstances make it so much harder for some to be aware and to believe is the definition of unfair. So, I'll ask you the same question I asked Ben: Do non-Christians go to heaven? Can they?

If the answer is no, God is unfair. If you don't know, then the fairness of God is also unknown and I don't think availability is the best topic to blog about.

Joe: Would you be considered unfair to give a gift to someone but not to another? I would think you would say no.

In the same way, human life is given as gift. If you were in the position of God to create matter from nothing and then bring a non-living being to life, say a clay figure, (see my Clay Man post) you would be perfectly in your rights to do whatever you wish with that Clay figure. You can take away its life without moral impact. It's YOUR stuff. You gave it life and can take it away again.

This is a very hard teaching to accept (as clay men). If you do not accept it, then we have different ideas as to what's "fair" and I'd beware of people who ask you for money since you'd be unfair or unjust not to give money to each and every person who asks.

If God gives life (and eternal life) as gift, it's not mysterious, but it IS up to him. If he wants to explain some of his rationale to us so we can have a chance of obtaining it, even THAT is gift. We are fortunate to listen to it!

Me: I don't accept that teaching and neither do you. Take a child who wouldn't be alive without you. According to this teaching, it is perfectly acceptable for you and your mate to abort the fetus, after all, it's YOUR stuff. I know you don't feel this way because I see you are pro-life. Further, once the kid is born anything from incestual pedophilia to murder one is fine when committed by the parent, right?

Wrong. You and I are both right in not accepting this teaching.

It goes on. Check the comments or weigh in yourself here.

No Interpersonal Revelations

A Decent Idea That'll Never Work

A woman in front of me at the check out counter makes small talk with the cashier. I find her voice beautiful. For someone who is tone deaf in regards to his own singing, I have wildly specific preferences when it comes to sound. Her sound I could listen to everyday. She walks away, never to be heard from again.

After attending Easter service with my religious family, I overhear a teen leaving the church who asks his parents why there is evil in the world if God is good. The kid’s dad offers a “mysterious ways” response and moves on.

What do these two scenarios have in common? In both I wanted to engage someone who it was socially awkward to engage.

In the case of the woman, my interrupting her exit with the simple compliment “you have a beautiful voice,” could make me a creep if she’s immediately uninterested in me, a potential mate if she is interested, and so far out of the ordinary that it’s bound to be weird regardless. To be clear, while I obviously don’t want to be a creep, neither do I want to be her mate. I’m happily married which makes compliments to strange women in any situation somewhat inappropriate. When I said “her sound I could listen to everyday,” I meant only as a friend...or if nothing else, the voice of my GPS.

In the case of the child at church, I’d be leaving my family to answer a question posed to someone else. Offering my take on the problem of evil could be seen as anything from blasphemy on church grounds or telling the kid’s folks how to parent. These possible charges are more than enough in my cost/benefit analysis to persuade me not to engage publicly.

These are small problems. Nevertheless, we have a woman who likely would have enjoyed a compliment under proper conditions, a kid who missed out on an answer to an honest question and me who wanted to share something positive with each. It got me thinking, how could this have gone better?

I thought about how texting is the preferred way to deliver information without the need of pleasantries or the pressure to fill in a conversation. I thought about a location-based service in which a tweet-like message could be sent to geographic neighbors. I thought about how maintaining Internet-like anonymity would make this less creepy in that no real personal information is shared and no motives outside of “just letting you know” could be assumed.

Then I thought about how this service would never reach the user base needed to make the service useful because it would already need to be useful to encourage the growth of the user base: a Catch-22. Then I thought what makes me think an anonymous service that allows for real-time criticism of any social interaction would have a net positive affect on society? It would likely result in an echo chamber of “fail” notices. I’d be no closer to sharing information and affirmations and yet acutely aware of when I’m pwed. I guess I’ll go back to wishing I had telepathy.

Doubting Solo

This week’s meme got my thinking about Han Solo one-liners.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. 

Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen *anything* to make me believe that there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. 'Cause no mystical energy field controls *my* destiny. It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense. 

I've got a bad feeling about this.

His quotes apply wonderfully to our world but I can’t quite embrace him as a skeptical role model because, in the Star Wars universe, his is dead wrong. The “hokey religion” in question, the Force, is true. Han had the right idea to doubt the Force because Jedi were inactive during his formative years making the extraordinary claims of the Force a matter of faith. He, rightly, came around when he witnessed his new friends levitating shit.

Theists seem to think atheists are close minded and in denial. We aren’t, we just need that demonstration. It is within God’s power (supposedly) to levitate objects and bend natural law, theists should pray to get him to do it. If I saw someone using the Force I’d immediately drop my career in favor of Jedi training. Likewise, you better believe I’d become a Christian.

Want to convert me? Use the Jesus, theists. If he can’t do it, you might want to rethink his power, influence and existence.

Hokey Religions & Ancient Weapons

God's Professed Power

Here’s a question for theists: Is God’s power fundamentally beyond understanding?

Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clark wrote “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” To a cave man, an iPad would appear magical. To us, an alien hologram would appear magical. Neither are magic, but both are so beyond the understanding of the viewer that any realistic explanation is out of reach. According to many theists God’s miracles are also not magic, but not because they are within our understanding. Rather it’s because they define magic as either illusions or fiction. I can’t disagree. Magic is either illusions or fiction, so I will continue to call God’s work magic until I have good reason to believe otherwise.

For the sake of this inquiry, lets say there is a God and that he can and occasionally does perform acts beyond our understanding. The key word here is our understanding. We know enough to land crap on Mars and clone donkeys, which is awesome, but we don’t yet have a “Theory of Everything.” Could some future, smarter version of humanity understand how God parted seas and raised the dead? If so, shouldn’t you, as a Christian who believes this stuff, be trying to figure it out? Not only would success validate your beliefs, it would likely make you rich and famous. Yes, it’s a long-shot that you would indeed succeed, but it is certainly a more worthwhile venture to “know the mind of God” as Einstein put it than to tell God what He already knows via prayer.

Conversely, if it is impossible for us to ever understand the process of miracles no matter how intelligent we become, why is that so? What property is it that category of knowledge possesses that no other information has? I know it’s a strange question, but it’s a valid one that applies to anything claimed to be supernatural.

I have a theory.* Since religion relies on faith, doctrine was invented to provide a learning barrier about the primary topic of the religion itself--God. This effectively squelches the pursuit of intellectual curiosity. If knowledge of God was discovered, then faith in God is extinguished; faith in God is needed for heaven, so knowledge of God removes the possibility of religion’s promised reward. Ignorance is bliss, and, as implied by most religions, necessary. The intended function of doctrine that makes understanding God and His power either impossible or damning is to discourage followers from trying to understand it. Truth seekers become science deniers while churches maintain their flock and bank accounts.

*The above is a theory in the colloquial sense and not by the scientific definition. It’s actually appropriate to say this is “just a theory,” but if you do so, please provide one of your own.

The 8th Sin Paradox

An Invented Religion

=

The Conversion Catalyst

I’ve interviewed a many notable atheists with great conversion stories. Ex-Baptist minister, Bruce Gerencser, one-time Catholic priest, Thom Burkett, and past Presbyterian pastor, David Hayward, to name a few. I’m aware of atheists who are now proud Christians, mostly because evangelists reshare such stories until my timeline is a flood of textual reruns. They must know that the narrative of someone discarding one life for another can be very compelling, but should it ever be compelling enough to convince you to change? Is there anyone whose conversion would be a catalyst for your own?

Not long ago I had a close college friend pass along his testimony of religious revelation. Unlike a door-to-door religious testimony, my friend’s meant something because I knew that he wasn’t mentally unstable. He wasn’t justifying the means of a lie to the end of saving my soul. Coming from a person who with I’ve spent the best and worst of over four years it meant what he was saying was very likely honest, but probably untrue. My trust in my friends doesn’t supersede my trust in the arrow of time or the laws of physics. I know that makes me the cynic who will eventually be proven wrong in the feel-good movie of the year, but I also know that my life isn’t a fantasy flick.

Still, my friend’s conversion was as an influencer on a personal level, but not on an intellectual level. We never spoke of theology or justified our beliefs. I merely knew he was an atheist. Inquiring further would have required a firmer interest, which I didn’t have at the time. Alcohol and video games seemed more interesting. Fast forward to present day and I wonder what if an atheist converted who based more of their life on their non-belief, like the aforementioned ex-pastors? What if, say, Dawkins accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior? I’d be very interested in that conversion story. The conversion itself would have less affect on me than my friend, but intellectually I’d be fascinated in what facilitated the change. A near-death experience, a personal revelation or some other one-off subjective event would hamper my interest. However, if the change was due to new evidence that Dawkins believes undermines the entirety of evolution in some way? I would probably research it until I was either a Christian or a biologist.

The appeal to authority or celebrity should never be enough to change your mind, but conversion stories can be a marker for information with real value. I’d be willing to bet that the Pope will convert before Dawkins will, but if that happens, I imagine the Church will retroactively revoke his infallible status quicker than you can say "transubstantiation."

Blogs to Check Out

I've become a regular reader of a few blogs that I don't think I've mentioned before. I thought I'd share.

Young Blogs

Big Bang God
I found this guy on Google+. His blog is only a month old at the time of this post, but I think he'll keep it up for a while. He obviously likes writing and notes that his posts shouldn't be taken too seriously, which I generally like about anyone--atheist or not.

Married An Atheist
Weighing in at only seven posts so far, this is another newbie. It's also the only non-atheist blog on the list. The author is a Christian who is chronicling her relationship and outlining her philosophy as the wife of an atheist. She might not think like us, but she is obviously friendly towards us (as long as you are friendly towards her.)

Godless In Dixie
This blog wins the most professional newb award. The posts are longer-form, well spoken and in some cases even researched. I'm hardly the first to mention this rising atheist voice, I found it via Atheist Revolution.

Secular Sunshine
We need more women voices in the atheist community, which is one of the reasons I have high hopes that this blog grows strong. Generally new blogs cover ground that has already been covered by everyone else, but this author has already found outside-the-box topics.

Established Blogs

A Particular Blog By A Particular Atheist
This is a great blog if you are interested in religion-related current events from an atheist perspective. Judging from the news cycle, I doubt he'll run out of stuff to say anytime soon. Good editorial work as well.

God Is A Myth
An ex-Pentecostal evangelist still has a lot to say 3+ years into blogging. I get the impression he's trying to make "ex"s of other religious types.

I Am An Atheist And This Is Why
If you like my blog, you'll probably like this one. We are bothered by and therefore cover a lot of the same topics and in no particular order. The author's name is Christian, which makes it worth reading just for the irony.

Atheism And The City
This is a great read if you are tired of apologetics...or if you want to become tired of it. The author covers all kinds of atheist topics, but often comes back to philosophy, logic and refuting theistic arguments.

My Secret Atheist Blog
This is one of the best atheist news and opinion blogs out there, but you might need a Canadian connection to get the most out of it.

Check these sites out and if you like what you see, let them know. Comment on their posts, write them an email, click through an ad, share to your social network, something. Especially for the younger blogs, it's hard to find motivation to keep writing if they don't know any one's out there. Same goes for all the great bloggers I've interviewed in the past. Hell, same goes for me. :-)

Apologetics, You're Doing It Wrong

The Top Ten Ways to Tell That You’re Winning a Debate with an Apologist

10. The apologist projects qualities that apply to them onto you in hopes that it will equate all parties involved. They figure that they can’t lose the argument they are in fact losing because every one is relying on, say, faith. This ultimately ends the argument in a tie...if it were true, which it’s not.

9. Questions are worded as double or triple negatives in hopes that you agree to something that could easily be misread to mean the opposite. If you discover that you’ve made an error and correct it, the apologist labels you an inconsistent flip-flopper for the rest of your debate and/or life.

8. The apologist ignores common meanings of words and applies definitions that only other apologists accept as valid. They do this without telling you what their unorthodox definitions are until pressured. This method allows them to think atheists don’t know what we are talking about because, well, we don’t know what we are talking about. It's a breach of common vernacular in favor of coded, theological jargon.

7. The Gish Gallop tactic is used in which the apologist throws out as many different lines of argument or crack-pot studies as possible. This is an admission that they are unable to rationally discuss any one topic. It’s especially apparent after you ask them to contain the conversation to a particular set of ideas and they refuse.

6. The apologist, fully aware that you don’t believe in their holy book, quotes passages from their holy book.

5. When arguing in a public forum, the apologist responds to other people’s points but ignores yours. Chances are, this is because your points are the most difficult to address and therefore those with the least flaws to exploit.

4. The apologist plays dumb about the topic of debate when you explain how it might help your argument then suddenly becomes an expert when the same topic can possibly help their argument.

3. Instead of hashing out their own ideas and beliefs, they send links in the hopes that freshly Googled internet content can do the debating for them. (Protip: if an apologist hits you with a particularly well-worded argument, search a couple sentences in Google using quotation marks. I’ve found theists copy and pasting other people’s barely relevant arguments as their own. Talk about debating by syndication.)

2. The apologist gets defensive, flustered or angry. When ad hominems start flying from someone who normally preaches “turn the other cheek” you know that you’ve struck upon something unsettling to the apologist. Cognitive dissonance can be very frustrating.

1. You’re debating from a position founded on reality against someone who relies on assumptions of magic, the supernatural, and the divine.

Reasonable Doubt

*America doesn't make witnesses do this in court anymore, but we used to. This meme is now horribly out of date. That said, I believe "so help me God" is still used and Presidents almost always swear in using the bible.

What Aren't There In Foxholes

I’ve been thinking (again) about what truth the phrase “there are no atheists in foxholes” might hold. I know what it’s like to believe in God and I know what it was like to gradually dismiss this belief. There were points in my life where a version of this phrase could have been applied to my experience, but those versions didn’t include the word “atheist”--they applied to a pre-atheist label.

Maybe it's There are no lapsed Christians in foxholes.

For a long while I identified as Christian without any intention of attending church. I believed Jesus was a good example to live by and still entertained the idea of the resurrection. In retrospect, it’s an odd state to be in to only kind of believe Biblical miracles. They are so outside the realm of our experience that I’d think belief in them should be all or nothing; either have complete faith in your indoctrination or soberly dismiss magic in a nonmagical world.

During this time I met the periodic hardships of life and, occasionally, prayed. It was a half admission of helplessness from someone who was too stubborn to be helpless. My “foxholes” came in the form of untreatable pain whether it be personal injuries that medicine couldn’t treat fast enough or, more often, my Christian Scientist mother hurting and unwilling to use medication in the first place. I was further disillusioned by the lack of results from my prayer. I could see this stage in my life lasting longer or even re-upping my Christianity if my prayers were coincidentally answered or I was less aware of probability. Luckily, I knew what confirmation bias was before I knew what it was called. Instead, I dropped the Christian label and moved on to a non-committal religious opinion.

Or how about There are no agnostics in foxholes.

It can be argued that we are all agnostics in that none of us know whether or not a god exists, but it’s clear that some of us think we know. Commonly, agnostics admit that they don’t know and are even unsure of their own belief one way or the other. In that way, I can see the agnostics trying prayer during “foxhole” moments. At this point in my life I really had no expectation that prayer would work, and I don’t recall ever praying as an agnostic, but I also had a “why not” and a “it couldn’t hurt” attitude toward other people praying. If Pascal’s Wager ever had an application, it would be for an agnostic in a dire situation, but to cover his or her bases, he or she should pray to every possible God.

Which brings us back to atheism. What truth does the phrase “there are no atheists in foxholes” hold? Not much. The gut reaction for the uninitiated to agree with the line is a misunderstanding of terms. The dismissal of gods in a society that largely believes in them isn’t an emotional decision, it’s an intellectual one. Likewise it will take an intellectual enterprise to alter that decision, the emotional fear of the unknown need not apply.

Disclaimer: Of course, I can’t speak for all atheists. I can imagine, for instance, that self-proclaimed atheists with little reason behind their atheism outside of a rebellion against their theistic parents may be moved to alter their beliefs by emotional stress. To theists I can only say that you are considerably less qualified to speak for atheists than I and to claim “there are no atheists in foxholes” is to universally do just that.

Morality? What Morality?

Atheists usually argue that morality is subjective because, well, theists argue that morality is objective. Some atheists also argue this because they accept the reality that people define their morality in different ways. This is undebatably the way it is, but doesn’t have to be. If everyone defined morality identically, it could be objective sans deity. Apologists claim that God is needed for a moral standard. The way I see it, a moral standard is needed and this standard not only needn't be God, but it can’t be God.

I define right conduct as simply that which benefits others more than it harms. Wrong conduct is obviously that which harms others more than it benefits. This is a moral standard. From here we can take any action and determine it’s morality objectively. Going on a shooting spree causes direct harm to everyone hit and therefore is morally wrong. Stopping the shooter benefits all those who would have been hit and is therefore morally right. Even if one must kill the shooter to save the rest, it is a morally right action because a greater benefit comes from the one instance of harm. Few would say that this isn't a more nuanced and correct application of morality then strictly following the commandment "thou shalt not kill."

Christian’s define morality in terms of God then use that definition of morality as evidence for God--hold on, y'know I don’t want to generalize.

If there is a Christian within the sight of my text who both believes our morality is evidence for God yet doesn’t use a specific definition of morality in terms of God, please comment or e-mail me. Any definitions referring to the nature of God or an obligation to God are obviously invalid.

Okay, if and when I hear back from someone I’ll update, until then I’ll continue.

Christian’s define morality in terms of God then use that definition of morality as evidence for God. This is textbook circular reasoning which is completely invalid. The Christian doesn’t believe morality exists as I define it and I don’t believe morality exists as they define it. When whether or not this or that version of morality exists is put into question, it makes debate over its objectivity mute. All we can do is bring into focus their fallacious thinking--which is almost always met with defensivness. It’s best to be gentle when pointing out to someone their mental record is skipping.*

*Wow, timely reference. Maybe I should have gone with “their mental streaming video is buffering.” That’s awful wordy. I feel old.

Trust Less That Which You Agree

I was listening to the Geologic Podcast’s Religious Morons of the Week segment in which host George Hrab highlights the most ridiculous or hypocritical stories involving people of faith. There was a reported moron a couple weeks ago who convinced followers that his semen was holy and a divine benefit would come from swallowing it. If you have listened to the segment as long as I have, you’d know that this moron isn’t completely unbelievable. There have been many folks who have leveaged their religious authority to trick their followers into sex, especially those from fring cults. This moron was less subtle in it’s connection to specifically blowjobs, enough so that I should have questioned it more than I did. This particular moron didn't exist.

The following week, George admitted that he misreported the story. In fact, it was made up by an Onion-like satirical website. Generally, listeners email Hrab stories to read and he reads them. He bought the lie just as I did because it fell in line with our biases. George, like myself, prides himself as a skeptic, so this is a slap in the face to both of us.

But, hey, good lesson to learn. If a theist said something unusual about atheists that reinforced his view of us, my skepicism would’ve probably been working just fine. If an atheist says something unusual about the religious that reinforces my view that some of them are mainipulative with their beliefs, I have to try to be even more skeptical than I normally would to adjust for my bias.

Holy blowjobs, yeah.

Putting the "c" Back in Schmeity

Link to related content they tell me. Research SEO they tell me. Post daily and engage readers they tell me. Bah! I have ideas of my own, successful blog people! Here’s one: I’ll scale back on content creation while simultaneously starting a new blog!

And this is why they don’t invite me to Blogging Conferences.

Let me back-up. I started Deity Shmeity with the intention of posting my thoughts on various religious topics for reference when arguing with apologists. It was to be a debating database, if you will, but over time that changed. Interview projects, cross-post throwdowns and my personal struggle with Attention Deficient Disorder all contributed to the evolution of this site’s purpose. That is, if you believe in evolution.

Turns out I had a lot to say on Deity Shmeity. I posted everyday for some time. Then I posted every weekday. Then thrice weekly. Now twice. I still have stuff to say, don’t get me wrong, but clearly not as much. There are only so many ways to say that God isn't real. In an effort to avoid filling these digital pages with unoriginal ideas and C-material, I’m scaling back to a commitment of one post a week with a likelihood of two. I’m thinking a Monday and/or Wednesday schedule. I figure this is better than burning myself out grasping for every atheist thought in my head until I finally stop writing altogether. (Looking at you, Johnny Reason.) Actually, a bunch of atheist blogs suffer creative heat death on the web. Who am I kidding? Most blogs in general suffer the same fate. What’s cool about the atheist blogosphere is that for every blog that goes under, two more take it’s place. I do routine searches for atheist blogs and find new ones launching every week. That’s the momentum of god-skeptics in our culture and why I feel, as my tagline clearly states, that one day we’ll all be atheists.

That said, only a maniac would start a new blog while admitting his post tank is running dry, right? Color me maniacal. I’ve recently set up a Wordpress site to serve as a more polished outlet for my stuff. I even spelled it how most people think this site should be spelled--Deity Schmeity. Where Deity Shmeity will continue to have new, amaturely written, short-form posts; Deity Schmeity will have old, professionally edited, long-form articles. Confusing, yes? Perfect!