“I Was Born This Way” is a Terrible Argument (via SomeMusician)

If you perpetuate ideas of ignorance, you are not exempt from criticism. I don’t care if you’re atheist, hindu, Christian, Muslim, Jew or Zoroastrian.

And this post (link below) from fellow atheist blogger Oscar Rivera (Some Musician) is far from exempt. Clearly, Oscar didn’t think through his post. He claims that “born this way” — as a homosexual slogan — is not the way to promote a positive view of homosexuality.

Clearly, Oscar is not anti-homosexual. No clear minded person is. I would never accuse him of being against homosexuals.

But criticizing the innate attribute of sexual attraction toward same sex is clearly false.

Oscar’s post was a pathetically small-minded retort to the concept that “born this way” is an erroneous view.

If you say that being gay is not inherent, innate, genetic, or encoded in DNA, than you’re a part of the problem. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and you should be marginalized.

Out of embarrassment and poorly considered writing, I would imagine that Oscar owes the homosexual community a sort of apology.

If nothing else, I feel like I should apologize to the homosexual community for letting an atheist represent the rest of us with such uninformed and ridiculous views.

"I Was Born This Way" is a Terrible Argument Lady Gaga's Born This Way is an alright track. As far as the quality that is being vomited out in today's music industry, this song is a bit above average than the usual catchy chorus and shitty verse tunes that one all too often hears but can't help but to keep listening because they are just so damn catchy. While I may be a fan of Lady Gaga, I still can't let this go. "Born This Way" is, essentially, a song advocated the rights of homosexuals w … Read More

via SomeMusician

What’s wrong with atheism?


I googled “What’s wrong with atheism?” earlier this week, and the first hit is this site from the Yale Standard. It’s not a bad looking site, and it even has “Yale” in the URL so you know it’s intelligent.

I had great expectations.

So I read it. And you should read it.

This is, after all, a response to me, and people who think like me. This is an appeal to my better judgement to consider atheism’s only alternative … Hinduism … just kidding. We all know it’s atheism or Islamism.

I searched “what’s wrong with atheism,” because my parents are coming to visit next week. And I was going to ask my dad what is wrong with being atheist? What’s your response to atheism? Give me a reason why I shouldn’t call myself atheist.

I expected the site that came up to offer one answer to my questions. For this is what we face as atheists. This is among the best of the best, and you should be almost honored to click on the link above.

Imagine me, earlier today, reading that page to Tina.

“The atheist confines his debate to a limited arena, creating a whole world, as it were, in a sandbox.”

Sure sure. I’ll go with that. From your perspective, we are limited (because we aren’t open to what we can’t see), and we’re in a box. Is it a “sandbox”? From an outsider perspective, let’s say, “Sure. Go with it.”

Great. Not bad.

Score one for believer guy.

Go on, Yale Standard,

“As a precondition for believing in God, the atheist demands a comprehensive explanation for a God-created world.”

Again, not a bad statement. I can certainly agree with that. The “comprehensive explanation” available is one described in the bible … and if that’s what we have to work with, we are surprised anyone would worship God.

What else do you have?

“Confident within this world of his own making, the atheist scoffs at God and those who trust in Him.”

Sure sure. We know this already. We scoff at what we can’t see … because … NO ONE CAN SEE GOD!

You can’t.

I can’t.

No one can.

So what do you have that makes me realize the errors of my ways?

What do you have to write that will make me change my direction, my path and open my eyes to the one and only way to eternal bliss and positive, masterful thinking in this life?

Here’s what the Yale Standard wrote:

Sooner or later, a gust of wind from that outside world will sweep in and crumble his arguments, like so many sand castles. In its wake will be the soft voice of God, whispering these words:


Those are some mighty fine promises you have there.

The soft, soothing voice of God is going to whisper to me.

Little ol’ me?


And what is that sweet voice going to whisper (all quiet and breathy like a creepy lover)?

Are you ready for the sweet, loving voice of God? Keep in mind, this is supposed to be a convincing argument and … a whisper … shhhhhhhhhhh … The holy spirit of god literally means breath, so this is going to be good … quietly read the next sentence (for effect).

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature— have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1)

(Emphasis mine)

THE WRATH OF GOD is a whisper? “Wrath” is usually indicative of a temper tantrum. “Wrath” more often indicates a forceful tone. Regardless, the wrath of God is what’s going to convince me that I’m wrong?

This is one major complaint of atheists, as admitted by the Christian writing this essay and by Paul writing to the Romans. And you’re going to use this method anyway?

What is it about this message that’s convincing? An invisible being is going to hurt me? It’s going to whisper its wrath at me? And that’s why I should fall down and worship it/her/him?


And what “invisible qualities” have ever been “clearly seen”?

You can’t see flatulence, but it’s there. There’s more and more evidence of dark matter. But it’s not seen. How about the wind? Can’t see it, but you can see what it does. God’s breath … can’t see it. Can’t see what it does. Can’t see what it doesn’t do. It’s simply undetectable.

God cured my grandma. Nope, that was science.

God created the universe. I see the universe, but still no god. One does not indicate the other.

Go fish.

And Romans is in the NEW (loving, compassionate, merciful, graceful, all-powerful, all flowers) Testament.

Invisible qualities. I have invisible qualities that I tell Tina about, and you know what? She doesn’t believe me either.

Why should I believe you?

Sam Harris: Self-promotion gone wrong

About this video:

Sam Harris, author of the New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, and The Moral Landscape, answers questions submitted by users on Reddit.com.
Hear Sam talk about everything from meditation to religion, and see if one of your questions got answered!

I started listening to this video yesterday, and I couldn’t help but be critical of it.

Sure, sure. Produce videos and put them out there. Let the young atheists listen and learn. It will be marketing for you.

But, here’s what sucks about the video. It’s boring and there’s something weird about the production.

Harris rambles. A lot. And I am a fan, so I’m probably a little forgiving. But I don’t agree that Harris spent enough time discovering answers the questions. Perhaps more time should have been taken to prepare for this production instead of fly by the seat and throw it up on the net!

Secondly, Harris’ appearance is off. I can’t figure out if he’s wearing makeup or not. The production company who produced it is “Mahalo” which is Hawaiian for thank you. Maybe they are shooting in Hawaii. Maybe Harris sunned a lot, and the appearance of tan is throwing me off. But it’s weird, and he doesn’t look right.

I know, petty right? I agree. I’m a fan of preparation and professionalism.

So tell me how I’m wrong!