I don’t watch a lot of television, but whenever I catch the beginning of Law & Order, even if I’m in the other room, I can’t help but finish the episode.

The one I caught today, Episode 406 from Season 18 (”Angelgrove”) reminded me an awful lot of Jesus Camp. In the episode, a young man kills his mother for committing adultery with a Muslim. In fact, he literally stones her to death.

Regardless of whether you feel that Law & Order or Jesus Camp fairly represented the issues, an interesting question is raised.

If a pastor tells someone to follow the literal word of the Bible, and in doing so that someone commits a crime… Did the pastor solicit a crime?

Things are sticky when it comes to judgment in the Bible. That whole bit where Jesus says, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her,” comes to mind. But that doesn’t seem to stop some pastors from advocating hateful, criminal acts.

Should Fred Phelps, Becky Fischer and their ilk be held criminally responsible for the acts of their congregations? When abortion clinics are firebombed, or gay marriages are crashed?

If we think about the white supremecist “leader” in American History X, I don’t think many people would disagree that he holds moral responsibility for the crimes perpetrated by his adherents.

In the case of religious hatemongers, I’d say yes, they are absolutely guilty of the crimes they incite. But I’m willing to listen. Would anyone else care to weigh in?

There’s been some heavy stuff on this blog in the last little while, so here’s a video to make you smile — theist and atheist alike.

Blogger Doug from dougsploitation premiered a video by ska praise-band Sonseed called “Jesus is a Friend of Mine” a few weeks ago. Ever since then, it’s been a source of online controversy. Real? Or a goofy jab at praise music?

The general feeling on the interwebs is that it’s legit. But really, who cares? The song is catchy, and the words are good for a chuckle.

Choice lyrics (1:40):

Once I tried to run,
I tried to run and hide.
But Jesus came and found me,
And he touched me down inside.

He is like a mountie,
He always gets his man,
And he’ll zap you any way he can…
Zap!

Often enough, I get visitors that read a post or two of mine and then leave a comment that they think is going to change my mind about all this atheism business. Sitting in my comments list, I routinely find nicely formatted arguments that invariably end with “Therefore, God must exist.”

Now let’s think about this for a moment. I run a website dedicated (mostly) to atheism and secular humanism. It stands to reason that I’ve done a fair bit of research about the things that I believe. I’m not just some “Sunday Atheist,” passively not believing in God. And I have no reason to cling to my ideas if I change my mind about their validity. In fact, a little over a year ago, I stopped eating meat. Previously an avid omnivore, I chronicled my decision and the reasons for my new-found vegetarianism on this blog. Clearly, I’m capable of admitting when I’m wrong about something when new information presents itself.

But therein lies the catch.

The ubiquitous little three-premise God Proofs that I mentioned earlier aren’t new.

Nearly every argument I’ve heard for the existence of God has been around for a long, long, long time. Ebon Musings has an unparallelled description of every argument ever publicly advanced for the existence of God. I recommend reading it, but please be aware that it’s a doozy of an article.

Faced with this information, there are really only three paths that an Evangelist can take.

1. Refuse to research prior metaphysical arguments, and continue using half-formed Teleological arguments to campaign for God’s existence. This is clearly a bad idea. Surprisingly, however, it’s an extremely popular one.
2. Find holes in the refutations offered. Oddly enough, many theists have tried this in the past without much luck. In fact, they’ve been trying it for centuries. It’s harder than you might think… But if you’re up to the challenge, I applaud your chutzpah.
3. Invent an entirely new argument for the existence of God. This is actually what most theists or Pop Philosophers think they’ve done. The reality is that every argument I’ve heard on my blog, and in general, has been around for quite some time. If someone comes up with a new, irrefutable argument for the existence of God, I should hope they’re doing something more to publicize it than posting on my modest blog. But if he or she chooses to unveil it here, I’ll be happy to host the party.

But wait, I can anticipate your response: If the arguments for the non-existence of God are so old and so strong, why aren’t atheists the majority? Why do most social groups believe in some type of God figure?

Well first off, most people don’t examine their belief structures especially hard. As you’ll see when you research, theology is a complex and sometimes confusing matter. People are also heavily invested in belief. But regardless of all that, popular ideas aren’t necessarily good ideas. I mean, we used to think that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

And besides, you’ve just made an argument that’s been addressed many times before: The argument from popularity.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, I never censor comments, so I don’t anticipate an end to those tidy little “proofs” I keep seeing pop up. And I will continue to address them as best I can. But even though I do make earnest attempts to engage in discussion despite my busy schedule, I can’t be everywhere all the time. Who do you think I am, God?

I simply hope that this blog post inspires some of the online Evangelists that happen upon it to read more and examine their own arguments. If someone comes up with a genuinely new argument, I’m as excited as you are to hear about it.

Discussions and debate have been occurring all over the blog, and while I’m having a blast, I’m going to have to set them aside for a while.

I’m visiting my neighbours to the south for another year of the fabulous Penny Arcade Expo (PAX). Yes, that very same video game convention brought to you by the degenerate, immoral, violence obsessed gamers that bring you the annual Child’s Play Charity.

Once I get back, I anticipate a lot of work, so I’ll catch up on all the discussions eventually — but not instantly. Carry on, and have a good time with it!

Photo of Wil Wheaton at last year’s PAX. Credit: http://flickr.com/photos/puja/1260405514/ Used with permission (Creative Commons licensed)

There’s a lot of talk among the pious about pride. They all seem to agree that pride is bad, and that bad people have pride. But what about evangelism? Is it a fundamentally proud position?

For a change, this post isn’t about the origins of the universe or the possibility of God.

I’m going to submit that evangelism is a prideful activity, and that if one believes pride is a sin, that person cannot (in good conscience) evangelize.

Evangelism, as popularly practiced, involves spreading the “good news” of God’s word to those that are either not religious, or just the wrong type of religious.

Paired with evangelism is the desire to have certain tenets of faith enacted as laws. Laws which not only affect Evangelists, but also other citizens of a country that don’t necessarily agree with the Evangelist’s beliefs.

In order to subscribe to an Evangelistic worldview, a person would have to believe that he or she has a flawless understanding of God’s word. Uh oh, does anyone else see where this is headed?

The belief that you have an absolute, incontrovertible understanding of God’s word is a proud belief.

I’m going to anticipate a few Evangelistic objections:

1. “I don’t believe I have the correct understanding of God’s word, I have the Bible. The Bible is the living, perfect word of God.”

Obviously, there are some people that refuse to acknowledge the internal and external inconsistencies in the Bible, but they certainly exist. Whether we’re talking about what colour Christ’s robe was during the passion, or even something more important, such as how Judas died, to say the Bible is literally consistent ignores the actual words.

If we allow that the Bible has inconsistencies, thoughtful exegesis might reconcile them, but now we’re in a position of subjectivity. One man’s thoughtful exegesis is another man’s blasphemy.

If the bible has room for interpretation, then it’s no longer the perfect word of God… Making any belief that it is rather proud, wouldn’t you say?

2. “Pride is only bad when it’s hubris, that is, the belief that you are self-made, and therefore not subject to God.”

Also known as “the pride of atheism,” hubris additionally applies to anyone that believes they can transmit the word of God as articulately as God himself. Even if you believe that the Bible is the incontrovertible, living word of God, then the only way to evangelize without pride would be to repeat the words of the Bible — preferably in the original Aramaic.

Any attempt to paraphrase, summarize or even translate constitutes a belief that you are able to express God’s word in a better way than God himself. Certainly if your modern phrasing or logical arguments were better than simply reading the Bible, God would have included them in his book, yes?

3. “Fine. But is there any way to talk about God and not be proud? I mean, we’re just trying to spread the good news here!”

Certainly. I believe that many of the more liberal denominations of Christianity engage in discussions about God that are not proud. Many acknowledge that they are simply interpreting God’s will to the best of their abilities — not that they know his every desire.

And of course, the Talmud, a sacred text in Judaism, is full of rabbinical discussions focusing on how to best interpret the Torah.

This is why I never submitted that belief in God is inherently proud, simply that Evangelism as a worldview is.

Things have been getting hot and heavy on this blog — lots of discussion about the origin of the universe, the purpose of life, and whether or not God exists.

So you know, business as usual.

I’m just taking a brief moment to plug my latest project: BeerFancier.com

It’s a casual beer blog, with a focus on local (Vancouver, BC) microbreweries and specialty craft brews. I don’t know what the numbers are when it comes to people that read atheism blogs and people that have an interest in beer tasting, but if you’re looking for something to read that doesn’t make you want to yell and scream at me, try Beer Fancier.*

But remember, it’s still a new kid on the block, so it might be changing over the coming weeks.

* Beer Fancier may make you want to yell and scream at me if you and I differ strongly on our beer preferences.

One of the most common theist arguments is the Argument from Design (or the Teleological Argument). I’ve discussed it before, but here’s a quick recap:

The world exhibits elements of design, therefore it must be designed, therefore it must have a designer.

The most basic refutation to this is that if there was a designer, he/she/it would also exhibit elements of design and would, by the same logic, be in dire need of a designer.

John Varley’s 1981 book Wizard takes an interesting approach to the issue.

In Wizard, a giant space-faring, planet-sized organism called (rather predictably) Gaea plays host to an entire ecosystem. They, of course, consider Gaea to be a God. She is the world, she exhibits elements of design, but… She is also the designer.

She has the ability to create life, alter the world and produce “miracles.” She basically has the power to do anything that the human conception of God could do. But she also possesses the physical immediacy that hypothesized Gods do not.

Of course, such a story doesn’t upset the basic theist argument — in the book, or the real world. In Wizard, the humans on earth that still believe in monotheism simply assume that God designed Gaea in addition to everything else. Phew, cognitive dissonance avoided.

The book isn’t a philosophical argument. It’s an exercise in classic Sci-Fi world building, an exploration of socio-sexual politics, and (at its core) basic entertainment fiction. However, it’s also an interesting exploration of Godhood and what it means to be a God.

The book isn’t perfect, mind you. It has a few 1980s leftovers, like smug send-ups of second-wave feminism, and an uncanny ability to maintain heteronormative relations among the humans even in the midst of the pan-sexual denizens of Gaea.

But if it’s read with a critical eye, it can serve as an excellent springboard for all sorts of socially poignant discussions.

I’m not the kind of guy who falls for those super-obvious identity theft scams. I live online, I work in IT and I don’t really like sports. I’m pretty careful when it comes plugging my credit card into the internet.

But last month, when I was stuck for rail tickets in Europe, I thought I’d slipped up. Turns out, it was just a “security feature.”

Here’s the story: Last month, my girlfriend and I had some trouble with our train tickets. Crouching on a hostel bunkbed, hands cramping on the tiny Eee PC keybaord, I was already in a bad mood about having to shell out another ₤180 for new train tickets.

But I was at the official Eurostar website, so at least I wasn’t worried about getting scammed.

Begrudgingly, I entered my name, address, credit card, CVC number, etc. I clicked “Proceed” and was redirected to a third party site, with my bank’s logo on it. And great, it’s asking me for my financial information again!

This screams “phishing scam” to anyone that ever bothers to look at the address bar in their browser.

So after few panicked phone calls to the Visa Fraud line, the Eurostar people and my bank, I find out that not only is my identity safe and sound, SecureSuite.net and their “Verified by Visa” program is legitimate.

Visa really dropped the ball here. This is a terrible security strategy, and here’s why:

People, especially people that aren’t very tech savvy, are trained to not enter any financial information online when the website in the address bar looks fishy. A good example of “looking fishy” would be when a website in the address bar has absolutely nothing to do with the website you think you’re visiting. In this example, SecureSuite.net has nothing to do with any of the organizations I’m dealing with: Eurostar, Visa, or my bank.

Here are three steps Visa could take to fix this process:

1. Ditch SecureSuite.net. This is not a familiar name. I have a Visa card, and an RBC account — I don’t have any association with some company called “SecureSuite.” Everything needs to go through domains owned by one of the companies I’m familiar with, and that I trust.
2. Publicize this. Send emails to customers, make phone calls, hand out pamphlets. Your new security features should never look like a scam — and part of the reason this looked so much like a scam is that I’d never heard of Verified by Visa.
3. If you absolutely must have vendors, like Eurostar, redirect customers to a domain that they aren’t going to recognize, make sure they give a warning. Even something simple, like “You will now be redirected to our security partners, SecureSuite.net. This is intended, and is not a browser hijack.”

UPDATE: Now available in the iGoogle Theme Directory.

I created an iGoogle theme based on the the Mac OS X colour scheme. This was just a quick project so that my own iGoogle page would look more like the rest of my computer, but I thought others might want it as well.

It’s been submitted to the iGoogle Theme directory, but they don’t add everything, and of course, there’s a review process. If it ends up in the directory, I’ll update this post.

But in the meantime… Here’s what I’m doing.

You can manually set the theme for iGoogle by adding this to the end of the URL:

?skin=<THEME URL>

So to use my iGoogle theme, simply change your bookmark to:

http://www.google.com/ig?skin=http://www.derekhoug.com-a.googlepages.com/iGoogle-osx.xml

Enjoy!

On most demographic surveys that deal with religion, you’ll see many of the major faiths represented, and then a catch-all category for “Atheist or Agnostic.” This contributes to the popular confusion surrounding these identities.

Atheism, as defined by most of its proponents, is the positive assertion that there is no supernatural God.

Agnosticism is the assertion that the existence of God is either currently unknown or cannot ever be known.

Easy enough, right? But of course, whenever someone asks a rhetorical question like “Easy enough, right?” you already know the answer… Wrong.

The funny thing about identities is that there’s always a bit of wiggle-room when it comes to their exact qualifications. There’s no International Body of Atheism, no Atheist Pope to lay out the rules.

When I say I’m an Atheist, I’m not saying that I have a flow chart that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that no version of God could possibly exist. I’m saying that based on the evidence I have, the books I’ve read, the arguments I’ve heard and my own critical thinking, the existence of God seems extremely unlikely.

This is where I usually get called an agnostic.

But I’m not talking about your regular, run-of-the-mill unlikely. I’m talking about really, really, really unlikely. Like, waking up to find that you’ve metamorphosed into a giant cockroach unlikely.

I can offer you several very good reasons that I would not spontaneously turn into an enormous bug, but if you come at me and ask me to provide irrefutable evidence that I will wake up as myself tomorrow, I would be at a loss. And the same goes for the God hypothesis.

It’s what I like to think of as practical atheism.  Based on the evidence I have, I’d say that it’s a fair assumption that I won’t wake up like poor Gregor Samsa tomorrow morning.  Likewise, based on the evidence I have, I’d say that it’s a fair assumption that God doesn’t, in fact, exist.

Image by Allan Jones, see other work at http://www.jonseymonkey.co.uk/otherwork.htm