Welcome to Factonista.org

Factonista is an online freethought advocacy organization that relies on its users for content. Through international broad-based collaboration with its users, and other groups and organizations, it strives to provide timely and comprehensive news, views, reviews, and creative multimedia on issues at the forefront of everything under the umbrella of freethought

Not a member? Register | Lost your password?
Hi and welcome to Factonista. Please keep in mind we're still in BETA. We'll be fully functional very very soon. In the mean while feel free to browse around, read our articles, and participate in our discussions. If you note any bugs and feel like helping us out, forward a quick message to us here. Thanks! [close]

Posts Tagged ‘religion’

God and DNA might as well be the same thing

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008

I’m getting a little fed up with the astrology-zen part of religion (and it’s a big one)- those who are spiritual and believe in some “higher being”, but aren’t religious. And here’s why… because the spiritual guys are so vague and indecisive and apologetic with their beliefs as well as the beliefs of others, that they might as well not believe anything at all.

That was a bit harsh. Actually, I want to propose that pantheism be a suitable alternative shown to these dualist-post-buddhist-astrology-chart-let-me-read-your-palm folk.

Pantheism has been accurately described by Richard Dawkins as “sexed up atheism”. This is completely right. Pantheism, realistically, is a kind of atheism. Pantheists just make it a habit of calling nature “god”. I have my own irks with how that’s done but at least no pantheist has ever attempted to read my tarot cards.

Generally speaking, those who are spiritual tend to have beliefs that are a careful mix of pantheism, deism, agnosticism and polytheism. I would say pagans and wiccans fall into the category nicely.

So if you think about it, wouldn’t DNA be a suitable alternative to god? I think so.  Here’s why:

The Spiritual God                                                                         DNA

-Took part in the origin of life/universe                             -Is the reason life exists

-Has a possible, though vague, will for creatures               -Codes for looks and basic behavior

-Is immortal                                                                        -Is immortal through copies

-Is present in everything, specifically nature                       -Is in every living organism

-Can be symbolic of sexuality                                              -Lives on via reproduction, often sexual

-Is compatible with science                                                  -Is compatible with science

-Gets closer to you through meditation                                -Can be understood with study and thought

Your genes, in a sense, control you from the start. They can’t answer prayers, don’t determine destiny, and there’s a very good reason why your DNA doesn’t make you stand up for something against your will. Your brain is a supercomputer and DNA is the program. Technically, you can look at the “meaning” of life as reproduction; you exist “only” to pass on your genes.

Obviously, that’s a very monotonous way of looking at it, but genes also give us the emotions, color, vibrancy, and capacity to live that makes life so worth living. I seriously believe that if most people thought about genes the way they thought about god, the world would be much more secular, and much more enlightened.

Cheers

Help make September 28th “Church-State Separation Day”

Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008

Earlier today, Pharyngula blogger PZ Myers reported on the right-wing Alliance Defense Fund’s proposed “Pulpit Initiative.” As part of this initiative the Alliance Defense Fund, which is an obliquely Christian legal think tank dedicated to abolition the separation of church and state, is calling on preachers and clergymen nationwide to spend this September 28th deliberately violating the terms of their religious tax exemption by publicly endorsing political candidates for high office in the 2008 election.

To counter, the Bates College Secular Student Alliance has already invited the famous church-state separation activist Ellery Schempp to deliver a talk at Bates College on the importance of church-state separation on the day of the Pulpit Initiative. It is this author’s hope that, even on such short notice, CFI and SSA groups nationwide will take the initiative to make September 28th into a national day of free, public events designed to promote the history and value of the principle of the separation of Church and State in the United States.

Political Untouchables

Friday, August 29th, 2008

I’ll admit it. I had caught Obama fever.

It started when my girlfriend’s mother gave me a copy of Dreams from my Father, Obama’s bestselling 1996 biography. Reading it got me very excited about Obama’s candidacy, and once it became clear that it was going to be a contest between Obama and McCain I enthusiastically threw my support behind Obama. A McCain presidency promises a fresh social conservative in the Supreme Court following Justice Stevens’ imminent departure, something that, as a freethought activist, I felt I had to oppose. Meanwhile, Obama has been explicit in several speeches about his staunch support of church-state separation. To me, the choice was obvious.

Then my wake-up call came, in the form of Obama promising to promote and enhance faith-based initiatives across the country. I was shaken; was there any candidate who could help us progress as a society, who would not actively promote conformity to mainstream religious modes?

The answer is simply no. This election is noteworthy, among many other things, for the fact that the Evangelical Christian bloc is up for grabs for the first time in recent memory. They carried Bush II to victory in the 2000 and 2004 elections, swinging states like Ohio into the Red and helping him capture the White House. However, the evangelicals are not as excited about McCain as they were Bush II, and both camps know that they have to mobilize to target this very motivated group of voters. The first real appearance of the two candidates together was the recent Saddleback Church forum, hosted by celebrity evangelist pastor Rick Warren. Before they debated on real issues, they instead got on-stage in front of the nation and tried to out-Christian each other, jumping through the Judeo-Christian hoops to prove that they are Christian leaders who will lead a Christian nation with Christian values towards a Christian world.

As an non-believer and a secular freethought activist, this sickens me. Many who decry the role of religion in Middle Eastern politics passionately advocate a Christian stranglehold on our own government, the worst of which we have seen since Bush II came into office. Christianity disproportionately dominates our government, unreflective of the true nature of the American religious demographic: anywhere from 4%-14% of Americans(depending on who you ask) consider themselves to be non-believers, not including many who keep their mouths shut about their disbelief. Despite this fact, one has to ask: where are the non-religious politicians? Well, here’s one, and he’s not the first; California Gov. Culbert Olson, a Democrat who served from 1939 to 1943, declared his atheism as well. But these men “came out” close to or after the end of their political careers, when they had little left to lose by such an admission. It would seem as though the non-believer is among the last of the political outcasts; the Democratic Party has a black man running for president with a Catholic as his running mate, and it came narrowly close to nominating a woman. A Jewish man was a Vice Presidential candidate in the 2000 election. The Democratic party openly supports civil unions for homosexuals. Yet, for all of its talk, the “party of inclusiveness” shuns those whose worldview tends toward the skeptical.

Given the current socio-political landscape, this makes bitter sense. To formally recognize non-believers as a political entity would be instant suicide for any political party. The best that we can hope to do is to vote for someone who would hurt our cause less, and in this case, the choice is clearly Obama. However, it is a regrettable choice, one that hurts more and more with each election cycle as we grow as a subset of the population while facing the same political disenfranchisement year after year. Perhaps someday the non-believers will know the joy of having a real say in politics, like women, minorities and soon homosexuals. Until then, we’ll fight the good fight until the world considers our voice a legitimate one.

Kids in Quebec to be “confused” by religious choices

Wednesday, August 27th, 2008

The province of Quebec (in Canada) has begun requiring all grade 1 through 11 students to take classes that teach various ethical and religious systems.

Some traditional Catholic parents have tried to keep their kids out but the school boards have turned down their requests.

Marc-André Richard said the school board has just started a war with parents like himself.

He said he is worried that if his kids learn about other religions on top of Catholicism, they will become confused by too many choices. [emphasis added]

M. Richard is going to keep his kids home for these classes even if it means they fail.

As much as I want to respect the rights of parents to raise their children how they want, this crosses a line.   To say “I don’t want my son/daughter knowing that some people think differently than us” is utterly absurd! If your religion is logically coherent, or at least ingrained enough in your child’s head, then the child should be able to survive a provincial religious education course.

What purpose?

Monday, August 25th, 2008

Shalini got me thinking on a point that keeps coming up when dealing with liberal, or at least, evolution-accepting Christians. And that is, how do they reconcile a “purposeless” and “heartless” process of evolution (Dr. Kenneth Miller’s words, quoted from Shalini’s article), with a teleological (or purposeful) universe?

Now they can go to the “God works in mysterious ways” argument, but that doesn’t really ever answer anything (how many people are atheists today because of that answer).

Or there’s “God can intervene (directly) in evolution”, but that violates the whole naturalistic basis of science. For this argument to be true, there would have to be evidence of some evolutionary change that couldn’t have come about naturally. Since that evidence doesn’t exist (although unlikely, it is a possibility), god likely hasn’t intervened (here absence of evidence is evidence for absence).

Another theistic view could be that “God intervenes in the universe, guiding natural events which lead to selection pressures which lead to us” sort of far-fetched view, but once again, there’s a lack of evidence of intervention (mind you we have less overall knowledge beyond our planet), and at most this could be characterized as a god-of-the-gaps argument.

Also, one could argue that “God set the universe in such a state that humans would evolve in their current state”. This is more of the enlightenment deistic god, and certainly not the Catholic God that Dr. Miller is praying to. Nevertheless, it’s still unlikely to physicists like Dr. Victor Stenger who argues that the universe was at maximum entropy at the Big Bang, and therefore could retain no information from before creation.

Perhaps God really just didn’t know what he was doing and just arbitrarily created a universe hoping something like us would show up, and he got lucky (this time). But if this is the case, why even make up a god?

Colorado Springs Gazette Redeems itself

Friday, August 22nd, 2008

Yesterday I linked to an article which demonstrated new lows in an assault on atheism.  Luckily, today there are a couple articulate letters rebutting the article.

The first letter from Jonathan Williams lays out a nice atheist creed:

I do not believe in deities mainly due to the lack of empirical evidence to their existence.

Natural phenomena can and should be explained without resorting to the divine.

One can live a moral life without the promise of a reward or the fear of punishment.

People should be judged by their actions, not by their beliefs.

It is easier to follow and obey than it is to create and to learn.

I value life because it is fragile, fleeting and finite.

Humans knows they exist and thus believe they are too important to cease to exist.

One doesn’t believe who doesn’t live according to his belief.

Truth cannot be determined by majority vote.

The moral is the rational.

The study of ethics pre-dates Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The basis for ethics is empathy.

Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so.

The second article from Julian Peterson identifies the extreme intolerance in the article:

Blinded by his own bigotry, the writer fails to see what is patently obvious to the rest of us: that this article crosses the line of good taste and that it serves to reinforce, through misinformation those negative stereotypes long prescribed for atheists.

Finally, Nicole Gaal also points out the discrimination:

To be placed in the same category as Hitler and a few other tyrants is utterly ridiculous. Even to be called rude and told my belief is odd just because it is different from yours is close-minded

The best thing to note, however, is all three letters came from atheists in Colorado Springs!  No need for a (inter)national letter writing campaign, just make sure you fight ignorance and intolerance at home.

South Park + Free Speech = A Bad Day for Religion Part 1

Thursday, August 21st, 2008

South Park (hereafter referred to as SP) is arguably the funniest show on TV.  To many, it is a source of middle ground social commentary.  To me, it is a beacon of hope in a media gone astray with political correctness.  SP transcends political correctness by making use of its right to free speech, and what better way to promote free speech then to attack that which is held most sacred to many Americans – religion.  In fact, 16 episodes of the 11 seasons so far have dealt primarily with “that which is most sacred”, with certain figures and themes popping up on other occasions.

Not only does the content about religion promote free speech, the controversy of this content perpetuates SP’s intent.  Stemming from my love of the show, I’ve decided to take an in depth look at how religion is represented in South Park, and show you how nothing is taboo when you’re an equal opportunity offender.  This week’s post will be on Scientology.

Part 1: Scientology

If there’s any religion (if you can even call it one) that SP has ripped apart piece by piece, it’s Scientology – better known as the Church Cult of Scientology (COS).  Two episodes of SP have dealt with debunking and mocking COS.  The first appearance of COS appeared in “Super Best Friends”.  In this episode, the magician David Blaine creates a cult following that is strikingly reminiscent of COS.  Unfortunately, the episode didn’t actually reference COS.  This didn’t happen until season 9 when Parker and Stone figured it was time to deal out the damage that COS deserved in the episode “Trapped in the Closet”.  To anyone who knows anything about COS, the story is completely absurd, a fact which Parker and Stone make vividly clear in this episode as they caption a visual interpretation of Scientology’s creation story with “This is what Scientologists actually believe.”

What’s funny about this is that the story itself is hilarious, so all SP had to do was show it to the viewers.

Many other parts of this episode completely lampooned this religious cult.  The start of the show has Stan looking for something free to do and comes across a Scientology church that is offering free e-meter tests.  Inside the church everything is ethereal and everyone is overly excited about life.  To say that SP doesn’t try to make Scientology look like a cult in this scene would be more patently absurd than Tom Cruise on Oprah’s couch.  After Stan takes the “free” test the tester tells him:

“… you are one messed-up kid… I’m afraid that you are completely miserable and totally depressed…there’s certainly no question that you are a perfect candidate for Scientology.”

Stan, a young and ignorant child, is helpless against these claims.

We all know that COS is in it for the Benjamins. SP makes this known by having Stan tell a crowd that “Scientology is just a big fat global scam” at the end of the episode.  SP goes one step further, by having the president of COS claim “You don’t actually believe this crap, do you?? Dummy! Brainwashed alien souls?? E-meters and thetan levels??.”

As sure as Parker and Stone were this episode would offend Scientologists, Isaac Hayes – the Scientology practicing voice of Chef – quit the show.  And that wasn’t the only negative outcome of the episode.  Viacom, who owns comedy central, had the original airing of the show pulled because of the portrayal of Tom Cruise.  Cruise threatened to back out of Mission Impossible 3 endorsements if Paramount, who is owned by Viacom, didn’t tell comedy central to pull it.  Cruise also threatened to sue SP.  Parker and Stone predicted this would happen and so added this little ditty to the end of the episode:

Stan: Look, everybody, we’re all looking for answer, you know. We all want to understand who we are and where we come from, but… sometimes we want to know the answers so badly that we… believe just about anything.
Man 2: Huh?
Woman: What?
Stan: [takes off his laurel] I’m not the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard. And… Scientology is just a big fat global scam.
Brian: Oh! We are gonna sue you!
Stan: What??
COS President: Yeah, you think you can say our religion is a lie?! We’ll sue you, buddy!
Stan: YOU told me it was a lie!
President: Ho, now you’re puttin’ words in MY mouth! You are sooo sued!
Man 3: You can’t make fun of Scientology, kid! We are gonna sue your ass AND your balls!
Crowd: Yeah, that’s right!
COS President: How dare you mock our faith, you little punk?! You’ll be hearing from our lawyers tomorrow!
Field Reporter: We’ve just had an incredible development here, Mitch. Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and R. Kelly, have all come out of the closet! [The three of them come out the front door and Cruise releases R. Kelly, who moves off and out of view.]
Cruise: [approaches Stan] So you’re NOT the prophet, huh?! You made me look stupid! I’m gonna sue you too!
Stan: Well fine! Go ahead and sue me!
Cruise: I will! I’ll sue you in England!
COS President: You are so sued, kid!
Stan: Well go on, then! Sue me!
COS President: We’re going to!
Stan: Okay, good! Do it! I’m not scared of you! Sue me!

This one episode caused the loss of a beloved character, almost ruined their contract with Comedy Central, and nearly catapulted them into a lawsuit with Tom Cruise, all of which SP predicted would happen, and yet they decided to forge along anyways in the name of free speech.  Kudos South Park, kudos.

Up next week is Part 2: Christianity

How to turn a minor offence into discrimination

Wednesday, August 20th, 2008

The Secular Coalition wasn’t too happy they didn’t get invited to the Democratic National Convention’s Interfaith service.  And rightly so, their letter politely asked the Convention organizers to extend an olive branch, but in return they were called “befuddled” and called it “an angry letter from a secularist group.”

Now, the icing on the minor offense is that the Colorado Springs Gazette has run an opinion article that would border on hate-crimes legislation here in Canada (although since it targets an atheist, its unlikely the human rights tribunals would hear it).

I’ll highlight some of the intolerance, as it’s best left to speak for itself [emphasis added]:

The official reason for the interfaith services is “to honor the diverse faith traditions inside the Democratic Party,” which could easily include atheists. If they aren’t welcome, it’s probably because they’re rude.

Therefore a belief in creation – or an original intelligence, Jesus, Buddha, or the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” – is no more valid in the eyes of the law than the odd belief that nothing could possibly exist beyond what our embryonic state of scientific discovery has seen in our relatively primitive microscopes and telescopes. The humble and intelligent scientist understands that what we have proven about time and space is a microscopically small body of knowledge relative to the endless size and never-ending expansion of all that exists. To rational thinkers, atheism seems a sad and shallow belief.

Yet an amazing number of atheists have taken to confronting and insulting believers of other religions. They pretend that atheist beliefs are proven true, while others are proven false. They refer to other religions as “irrational,” and “superstitious.” Their approach to ministry is overbearing and rude. They engage in confrontation, with disregard for persuasion.

Consider the righteous indignation of Becky Hale, founder of Freethinkers of Colorado Springs: “By reaching out to people of faith, they have shown the back of their hand to those who do not believe,” Hale told The Gazette.

In other words, if I’m not invited to your party then you’re bad. Even the name of Hale’s group is insulting. It implies that people of other faiths are something other than “free thinkers.”

Although it starts off relatively tame, the author quickly picks up the tone and rhetoric.

Hitler imagined a world without Jews. The Freedom From Religion Foundation rented a billboard near the Colorado Convention Center that says: “Imagine No Religion.”

Imagine a world with no religion and one sees a world without the Golden Rule, devoid of most charities, hospitals and great universities. One sees hurricane recovery zones, minus all the chartered planes and buses full of churchgoers giving their time and money to rebuild homes. How many children are fed and clothed by atheist charity organizations? Approximately none.

Imagine no religion and one sees a world ruled by atheist tyrants – Pol Pot, Albania’s Enver Hoxha, Stalin and Mao, to name a few – who have murdered tens of millions in modern efforts to cleanse society of religion.

American Muslims, Baptists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Mormons, Quakers, Amish, etc., don’t erect billboards saying “Imagine No Atheists.” They don’t advocate government force to cleanse atheist expressions and teachings from the public square. They don’t imply that atheists are “irrational,” even though atheists claim absolute knowledge. They don’t advocate theft and desecration of atheist property, even though an atheist hero in Minnesota stole and destroyed the Catholic Eucharist.

Although you probably figured out by now this “journalist” doesn’t really check facts, but here they don’t even bother to realize that Dr. Myers didn’t steal anything – he was given a Eucharist by his readers.

Democrats will nominate a Christian gentleman who respects others. It’s likely they didn’t invite atheists to their faith service because they didn’t want embarrassing guests. Atheists might bring pseudointellectual proselytizers, who are intolerant, self-aggrandizing and rude. Atheists should fund universities and hospitals. They should feed and clothe starving kids. They should act more like Christians and Jews. If they do some of that – if they contribute to a diverse humanity – they might get better party invites.

Now go back through this article and replace the word atheist with any other minority – say African American or Native American – and see how long it is before they ask for your journalistic license (at least, if not your head).

Small Poll Incites Islamophobia

Sunday, August 17th, 2008

Scotland’s Muslim Student Association is shrieking “Islamophobia” over a new study released by the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC).

60% of students in Muslim associations who were questioned believed religious killings were acceptable.  Including those not members of Islamic associations, only 32% claim killing to protect religion is acceptable.

The study was done by polling 600 Muslim students and 800 non-Muslim students.  That’s not a very good sample size to make a decisive conclusion.  However, even that fact that 60% of Muslim students in associations and 35% of Muslim students not in associations in such a small sample thought religious killings could be justified is disgusting.  50% would be disgusting, as would 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%, 1%…  anyone who thinks killing in the name of religion can be justified has a skewed concept of reality and civil rights.

Ontario doctors may have to violate their consciences

Friday, August 15th, 2008

Ontario doctors may no longer have the choice to not perform surgeries or offer treatments that violate their religion or conscience.

Ontario physicians could be stripped of their right to exercise religious or moral conscience if a new set of guidelines is accepted by their regulating body next month, critics say.

I’m undecided how I feel about this. On the one hand, I like the idea of doctors having to listen to their patients, and not being denied treatments because they happen to have aa wack-job doctor. However, I don’t know if it’s right to force someone to do something they are morally opposed to.

I suppose I would feel better if this decision would allow religious hospitals to do whatever they want (within the law), and doctors there could deny treatment, but also have public hospitals where doctors actually do their jobs.

Which brings me to another point I’ll bring up – if you’re morally opposed to burying people underground (you consider cremation to be the only way to eternal salvation), then you likely wouldn’t be a coffin salesperson, likewise, if you don’t want to give out birth control or perform abortions there may be some career paths that aren’t for you.

In reality this may just be something critics are blowing out of proportion, but it does lead to some interesting questions.

The Olympics are more secular than ever

Friday, August 15th, 2008

There’s a somewhat misleading article in the Salt Lake Tribune entitled “Religion continues to be part of Olympics,” when really, it’s not.

They quickly run through the origins of the Olympics in ancient Greece, and how athletes would attempt greatness to please Zeus, and all the warring city-states would hold a truce over the Olympians.  And that when the Olympics were re-instated in 1894 by two frenchman they retained the original Greek ceremonies.

They also talk about how Hitler tried to convince the world his Aryan athletes were of the Greek ideal, and how the Salt Lake City Olympics featured a temple in the background and the current Beijing Olympics feature a Buddhist temple.

This isn’t religion though.

When the athletes go to perform, they may thank God, Allah or Buddha, but they are not required to.  The 100m dash doesn’t end with a prayer, and the floor competition doesn’t end facing Mecca.  The Olympics are an almost ideal demonstration of secularism today.

What I mean when I say this is that athletes of any faith or lack thereof can compete, there are no religious references during the ceremonies (i.e. no mass prayer before the race), and the Greek religious symbols are mere relics.  Although these symbols (the torch, the march in, etc.) were religious to the Greeks, they are more an homage from us to them for starting such a noble competition.

So although religions still exists around the Olympics and for many Olympians, it does not have any support from the IOC.

Canadians don’t want religion in politics

Wednesday, August 13th, 2008

In the US it seems the person who prays the most will get the most votes, however, in Canada, two-thirds of voters do not want their politicians talking religion.

These are the results of a new Angus-Reid poll which also found that 82% of Canadians do not want religious leaders endorsing various candidates.

Africans told to be more Christian

Wednesday, August 13th, 2008

Clearly the solution to starvation, poverty and AIDS in Africa is more prayer. Or at least that’s what Matthew Kyei, National President of the Rosicrucian Fellowship of Ghana says.

He expressed worry that even though Christianity was introduced into Ghana many years back, crime and sin continues to plague the society.

He said despite the existence of Christianity in Africa, the continent lagged behind in development and attributed this to selfishness, fear, animism, brutalities and moral degradation instead of worshipping God in faith and in deed.

I’m pretty sure a good ol’ dose of sceptical rationality is what they need, not further intellectual road blocks.

Religious Ecstasy (Greatest Jesus Dance Video)

Tuesday, August 12th, 2008

This reminds me of an article in Free Inquiry by Richard Dawkins entitled “Gerin Oil”.

These people are trippin balls on Gerin Oil, and while normally this would anger me, this is just too beautifully hilarious.

Suit Jacket guy busting out at the 1:00 mark = classic

Spore attacked by ‘militant’ atheists

Monday, August 11th, 2008

Will Wright, creator of the Sim games, is releasing a new game entitled Spore later this year, in which gamers will be able to play god for a world, developing life from single-celled organisms, to space-faring civilizations.

Religion can even develop in the game, which according to Wright, has only been criticized by ‘militant atheists.’  Wright describes himself as an atheist.

No reactions have hit the blogosphere yet regarding religion in Spore, but I personally don’t see how ‘militant’ atheists could have an issue with religion in a game.

In earlier news, Wright declard that Spore was performing at 38% the capacity of God, since it acheived 1,589,000 species in 18 days, which took God 7 (according to Wright, several commenters correctly pointed out God created all the animals in two days).

Religion not required for morality

Saturday, August 9th, 2008

Evolutionary psychology has made further advances at demonstrating that morality requires no supernatural agent. Writes one Christian journalist:

Recent research suggests that we have been wrong, that morality can emerge and persist without religion. Evidence now points to the conclusion that early humans and prehumans were, long before religion started, predisposed to practice empathy, fairness and loyalty. In fact, these qualities are commonly found in bands of chimpanzees, and the normal behavior of very young children also reflects these attributes.

Evolutionary psychologists propose that natural selection resulted in brains that instinctually encouraged Australopithecines and other early hominids to be concerned about the welfare of others in their group, to share resources and information with them and to be loyal members of that band.

True Religion earns big bucks

Friday, August 8th, 2008

The company “True Religion” has released “miraculous” earnings numbers for its last quarter.

True Religion (Nasdaq: TRLG) has miraculously pulled off just such a feat in its latest quarter.

True Religion’s second-quarter net income increased 86% to $9.3 million, or $0.39 per share. Sales surged 78.9% to $64.2 million. And so far this year, the company was able to improve gross margin to 57.3% of sales, from 56.8%. Talk about partying like the consumer slowdown never happened.

Luckily, this is in reference to True Religion brand jeans, not any one “religion.”

Militant Atheism

Friday, August 8th, 2008

An excellent video examining the phrase “militant atheism”:

The Crazy Stories Behind Four Gods Incarnate

Monday, June 2nd, 2008

#1. Sathya Sai Baba

Orange Microphone

Despite looking like an orange microphone, Sai Baba was one persuasive SOB. Many followers actually cried in his presence. Stirring these kinds of emotions, it’s no wonder they referred to him as Godman. Not exactly the most imprecise nickname ever.

Why he thought, or others thought, he was an incarnation:

Sai Baba wasn’t so much a cult leader as he was a highly regarded guru. According to Sathya Sai Organization there are an estimated 1,200 Sathya Sai Baba Centers in 114 countries worldwide. He didn’t do much to entice crowds. He would sit for long periods of time in front of an eager crowd without saying a word and then perform a miracle magic trick. The crowd would go wild, people would cry, and Sai Baba would get whatever he wanted. And since humans have something called a “sex drive” it’s no wonder someone who could get whatever he wanted would…

Rape:

Yes, and he was a pedophile too. During his reign of popularity he allegedly raped dozens of people, but most were too afraid to come forward about it. He was in his 70s and still allegedly raping the shit out of people.  Rape is bad enough, but a grandpa with moth balls? (Don’t pardon the pun.)  Just watch around the 5:40 mark of this video.

Reporter: “Why would God want to put his penis in your mouth?”
Rapee: “Got me.”

Oh, he got you, all right. Poor guy.

#2. Glen Taylor Helzner

So you want to take over the Mormon Church and usher in an age of peace and joy. Cool, go for it. But training Brazilian orphans to assassinate the leaders of the Mormon Church and then blaming it on the government behind the government? You would think this could only happen in a 1970s “B” horror movie by a 9/11 truther, but of course, you’d be wrong. This was Glen Taylor Helzner’s diabolical plan. Fortunately for those of us who don’t believe in the fine art of Brazilian orphan assassination, Helzner was arrested before he could follow through with it. What was his charge? He settled for the measly slaughter of five innocent people. His wife and his brother – both of whom he completely mind-fracked – actually committed the murders on his planning. Kind of like sacrifice…if you still consider the sacrificed not wanting to be sacrificed sacrifice.

Why he thought, or others thought, he was an incarnation:

Helzner was a Mormon, and if you know anything about Mormons you’d know that they fancy far-fetched stories about Jesus. Following this proud Mormon tradition, Helzner thought he was the second coming of Christ. Why? No one is entirely sure. The psychologist that analyzed him came to the conclusion that he was charismatic enough to convince his brother and his wife…and even himself that he was the reincarnated Christ. All three of their delusions fed off of each other’s until they reached a point of complete disconnect from reality. Or in other words: completely frackin’ nutters.

Rape:

No rape, unless you consider calling telling a girl that you’re God to get her to sleep with you rape. Telling followers you’re God gets them on their knees faster than Jenna Jameson on Jupiter (Jupiter has 245% the gravity of Earth).

#3. Adi Da Samraj

Adi Da literally means “the radiant avatar, primordial giver, universal ruler.” In other words, his name is basically God. Because, as we all know, referring to yourself as God just isn’t awesome enough. Did you just sneeze? If so then “Adi Da bless you.” A simple “God bless you” won’t suffice among the ranks of the crazed Adi-Damites. So what is his claim to fame? A unique and complete offering of the total way and wisdom of the pre-cosmic Divine Light. He claims to be the most spiritualized being to ever exist. You’d think the most spiritualized being in history would have the ability to create a coherent and intelligent form of spirituality:

The ego, which in various traditions is understood to be an entity, is identified as the activity of separativeness, which is enacted in every moment. Ultimately, there is only one divine consciousness, which is the state to be realized. This can be done by turning one’s attention to the realizer of the divine in every moment, thereby receiving the grace of spiritual blessing and transmission.

Nope. In 2007 the Encyclopedia of Cults referred to this as complete BS. Don’t believe me? Ok, don’t, it was a lie. But you could imagine that if such an encyclopedia did exist it’d say something along those lines.

Why he thought, or others thought, he was an incarnation:

On September 10, 1970 Adi Da says he had a reawakening in which he awoke as a divine incarnation. He told people he was God, they followed, and that’s about it. We can imagine it went something like this:

Adi: Yo.
Random: Oh, hey stranger.
Adi: I’m God.
Random: Totally. Here’s my money.

Rape:

Again there was no actual rape, but on the rape scale – yes, such a thing does exist – I’d place the sexual abuse he allegedly committed at around a 7 out of a maximum rapiness of 10. You can be the judge. Here are his allegations:

  • lining female members up, making them strip, and then cutting their pubic hair
  • lining girls up, making them strip, then taking his pick of the one he wanted to sleep with that night
  • sexing up a 10-year-old at a naked party
  • forcing a girl to act in a porno flick and subsequently giving her herpes

#4. Charles Manson

From jamming with the Beach Boys to killing Roman Polanksi’s pregnant wife, a Natural Born Killers-esque movie about Manson’s insanity practically writes itself. Need I say more?

Why he thought, or others thought, he was an incarnation:

During the age of free love, flower power, and the start of insanely reductionist postmodern thought, Charles Manson rose to fame as a guru in San Fran’s Haight-Ashbury district. He gathered a following, which was mostly made up of young girls in search of meaning in their lives – kinda like Girls Gone Wild, except they flashed their souls.  His charisma led his followers to think of him as the incarnation of Christ. The hair probably helped too. On top of that he called himself “The God of Fuck.” Which leads into:

Rape:

Before starting a cult Manson spent six years in prison on charges of theft and, you guessed it, rape.