150, 000 people will die today.

A while back I saw something totally crazy on a website. It was a counter that said, "Since opening this webpage" and the numbers are quickly escalating. The text says:

150,000 People
Will Die Today
The counter to the side is ticking off the number of people who have died since you opened this webpage. The vast majority of those people are entering Hell. Christ commanded his followers to share the Gospel with those who are perishing... who have you shared with today?

I can't recall the site on which I originally found this, but here is an example of it in use.

Go ahead and get your own counter at the Living Waters site of evangelical resources, seemingly a project of Ray Comfort of Way of the Master fame. If you are not familiar, he goes around with Kirk Cameron (I'm so glad I never thought he was cute!) promoting fundamentalist Christianity. They are most recently known for claiming they could prove God existed without using the Bible. They "debated" two atheists on network TV using the mind blowing, "Crockoduck" argument against evolution. (And they used the Bible.)

Yes, Ray Comfort is also the originator of the ridiculous banana* argument. The banana argument claims that the banana is so perfectly designed for the human mouth and hand that God must have created it. My favorite counter arguments are: domesticated bananas were created by humans. Wild ones are not easy to eat at all; and, what about coconuts? Ever try to open one of those? I guess God doesn't like Thai food.

If this counter is some sort of joke, please tell me. I can't tell the difference between these people and satire anymore.

*To make this video even more entertaining, substitute in your mind "penis" for "banana."

Wood duck

I figured I'd just post a picture I recently took of a wood duck. They are pretty common in Ohio. They live here year round. I love the slide whistle call they make.

When in mate seeking season, the males are incredibly beautiful. They almost make me wish I were a lady wood duck. They pair up in Janurary and have two broods. I read that they nest high up, sometimes almost 300 feet. The mother flies down and then calls to the babies to all jump down!

This is consistent with what I've observed of their parenting style. The wood duck females are "slacker moms" the way I imagine I would be. They pretty much go about their business, with the ducklings hopefully keeping up. They don't really interfere or try to scare away threats until it's really necessary. I've seen teeny tiny wood duck babies puttering around completely alone while the mother casually watches from afar. The babies probably learn to be confident at a pretty early age. I also don't see male wood ducks with babies

This is in great contrast to the Canadian Geese. Anyone who's been near them know they are the prototypical nervous parent. Get anywhere near even adolescent offspring and they start bobbing their heads and then hissing. And they do bite!*

Wood Ducks live all over the United States, so go find a park with some water and see them! Beautiful and fun birds.

*Canadian geese also do communal parenting involving the father as well as the mother. Any time you see a female sitting on eggs, you will see a male watching out nearby. Once the babies are born several couples will get together and watch all the babies of different ages, sometimes adopting if something happens to the parents. My mother once saw a couple with 13 babies, of three different ages!
(Did I mention I am a birder?)

I guess I’m *that* age. :D

I recently went to a wedding. I was trying to pay attention for any signs of a bouquet toss so I could do what I did the last time: run and hide in the bathroom.

The bathroom at this wedding was not the refuge from patriarchal hegemony I thought it could be. As I enjoyed a relaxing urination in my stall, two other women, one in a stall and the other fixing her make-up, started talking.

"The baby should be due in Spring."

"How old is she?"

"30. I told her she better hurry up. Once you're that age, it's not so easy anymore. So many of these women have trouble getting pregnant. Now that's a situation you don't want to be in."

I thought that was hilariously anachronistic. I thought about saying something to make them realize not everyone wants to hear there opinion, such as, "Well I'm 32 and on my 3rd round of in vitro. Thanks for reminding me I'm sterile." (I'm not!!)

Although I am six years past my peak fertility, worrying about finding the right guy so can get knocked up hasn't been a concern to me since about 25 when I started watching Sex and the City. I realized I'd be a lot happier if I just focused on enjoying my life and whatever happens, happens.

I have spent many years seriously thinking about motherhood, fatherhood, children, and if it should be a part of my life. I am not sure what the final outcome will be. But I am sure of one thing. If you say you are not sure you would like children, people with children often say, "Oh you'll change your mind." Next time they say that, I should look at their kid wriggling and whining and then look at them and say, "Oh, maybe you'll change your mind, too."

Atheism doesn’t promote good, therefore God exists.

I have an RSS feed for stories mentioning atheism, and I see the same arguments made over and over again. This one particularly irked me (with my comments in italics):

Atheism's moral philosophy not consistent with Baylor's mission
Oct. 17, 2007

I feel sorry for atheists.
They are so much in the minority in American society and they are bound to feel some marginalization if not persecution.

Christians should be the last people to persecute anyone -- including atheists. But that doesn't mean Christians have to accommodate atheism as they tolerate and love atheists.

We have to recognize atheists' full freedom to believe God does not exist, but we don't have to embrace atheism as a social good.
I mostly agree. A recent episdode of the Atheist Experience (btw, I am in love with Matt D. :D ) discuss that disagreeing with another's belief system or even speaking out against it is not intolerance.

In fact, I would argue that atheism has no redeeming social value.
Atheism isn't a philosophy for living. It means you do not have a belief in any gods, period.

Atheism undermines values.
It's not a life philosophy that speaks to values. It's a lack of belief.

How? Let's look at care for others. Yes, an individual atheist might care for other people. But when have you heard of an entire atheist organization serving the poor, the sick or the hungry?
At least he admits individual atheists can be good. But atheism isn't a religion with a goal of social good. It's like saying that lack of belief in qualia undermines values because you don't see aqualist groups helping the poor. And millions of them contribute money and time to charitable organizations in addition to just being good people who help their neighbors, family, friends, or even strangers. Sorry we don't wear atheist necklaces around their neck or proselytize when they serve soup to the homeless.

So far, at least, atheists haven't demonstrated their concern for others in any organized way.
How does he know this?

But more importantly, atheism undermines values such as care for others because it cannot explain why anyone should care for others. *Sigh* It's the old, "Why don't you go out and rape and pillage if you don't believ in God?" argument. If you don't think you would care for others if there was no God, then I don't want to be alone in a room with you. It's a natural act, like eating, shitting and having sex. If you can empathize, it's hard not to care for others. Their pain is your pain.

If there is no God or anything at all above nature, then nature is all there is. The law of nature is survival of the fittest. I won't go on about how evolution works, but yes, I agree that the universe is an indifferent place.

Why help the less fit survive unless there is a God who loves them because they are created in his image? Just because the inanimate workings of the universe are indifferent doesn't mean we are, too. We have subjective experiences such as pleasure, pain, and empathy for others.

What argument can atheism marshal against "might makes right"?
None. Atheism doesn't address this question. But who the hell wants to live in a dog eat dog world with zero sanctuary from acts of genocide, slavery and dehuminization of women? (you know, like life in Biblical times, often times condoned or perpetrated by God and his favorite people) . Pick up a book on ethical or political philosophy for secular arguments against might makes right.

Many atheists argue that caring for others can be encouraged based on self-interest.
Atheism does not address the issue of altruism.
Personally, I do believe the idea of altruism is meaningless because there is always some motivation to do good: to avoid guilt, to feel good knowing someone else is happy, to bolster one's self-image as a good person, obligation, to get something in return, to promote social order, out of fear of God, to show love for God, to lure small children into the back of your van, and on and on.

But what answer can an atheist give (that is consistent with atheism) to the question, "What if I figure out a way to be personally happy and fulfilled while oppressing other people?"
Why doesn't this apply to Christians as well? As Emo Phillips said, "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me. "
But actually there are people who are happy oppressing others. They are called sociopaths. Does that prove there is a God?

There is no answer to that without appeal to someone transcendent to whom we are all accountable.
Hello, what about empathy??

And atheism has no answer to social Darwinism -- the idea that society should not help the weak because it's nature's way to weed out the less fit.
Reiteration of the same basic argument. He probably brings up social Darwinism in order to confuse people into thinking it is somehow part of Darwin's theory of evolution, which it is not.

Helping the weak goes against nature and if nature is all there is, well, why should we fight it?
First, it doesn't go against "nature". Helping behavior is ubiquitous in nature. Second,this is just an appeal to nature fallacy .

A person might choose to, but not because of any transcendent, objective obligation (such as that all persons are created in God's image). I think I probably agree with this, but why does this matter?

Not only does atheism undermine values; it also undermines meaning. I'm talking about meaningful reality -- life with meaning and purpose.Atheism doesn't address this. People give their lives there own meaning. How is finding meaning through love for God different from meaning from love for fellow humans, the beauty of the Earth, life, art, music, fighting for a better world, family and friends? If anything, knowing that once you die you will live forever in a place infinitely more happy than one's current life on Earth should make life on Earth much less meaningful. In contrast, I know I only go around once, so I might as well give it as much meaning as possible.

German theologian Hans Küng wrote Does God Exist? An Answer for Today. In it, the maverick Catholic thinker argued that atheism can provide no basis for "basic trust" in the meaningfulness of reality.

The only logical option for the atheist is nihilism -- belief that nothing has any objective meaning or purpose.

Küng admitted that atheism is a rational "basic choice" and it cannot be proven wrong in any kind of absolute way. Some atheists may agree with this. I think I do, too.

But most atheists demonstrate their basic trust in the meaningfulness of reality by being outraged at evil and injustice, thereby demonstrating that atheism cannot be lived out consistently. Many people believe in determinism. They don't all kill themselves or suddenly feel like robots. But that doesn't make them wrong. Likewise, many people deeply believe that God is watching them at every moment, but that doesn't stop them from having premarital sex, molesting children, or stealing. Again, that doesn't mean their belief is wrong.

What makes something evil or unjust if nothing like God exists -- if nature is all there is? Only subjective choice either by an individual or a society. But that can change and it often does. Without God, the social prophet has no way out of relativism.
Agreed. For example, the way people's interpretation of the moral message of the Bible has changed over the millenia.

Baylor and universities like it exist to promote objective values and meaningful existence.

For them atheism is not benign, but the enemy -- even if atheists themselves are not.

Finally, let me repeat that I have nothing against atheists as persons and neither does Baylor University.
No problem here.

But in my opinion, they are people of character and virtue in spite of their philosophy of life -- not because of it.
Well actually, I found an article via the Atheist Experience blog by Richard Dawkins asserting just the opposite at the end of which he repeats the quote of Steven Weinberg, "With or without [religion] you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion." (I would replace religion with dogma. I think a dogmatic ideology is just as dangerous.

Dr. Roger Olson is a professor of theology in George W. Truett Theological Seminary.

But what it all boils down to is this. Whether or not atheists or theists commit good acts has not bearing on whether or not there is sufficient evidence to believe in any gods. This entire essay is an appeal to consequences.

The many articles I read are an example of the many misunderstandings about why people are atheists, what it means, and what it says about us. Although all the recent attention atheists are currently receiving seems mostly negative, I think many observers of this new exchange of ideas (however heated) will learn a bit more about atheism, become more accepting of it, or hell, even become atheist themselves.

(As an example, there were thoughtful responses to this essay from the Baylor community.)

Men with cats are hot.

menandcats.com

Devoted to men who love cats.

And there is something very sexy about the picture in this post.

This cat-loving man is certainly no pussycat. (Do I sound like a local news anchor?)

I've long heard the myth that men who love cats are wimpy and I've known a lot more men who hate cats (my mother says they are just scared of them) than women. This article, however, says a, "survey showed that 85 percent of men, and 94 percent of women, don't think it's wimpy or needy for a man to love his cat."

Like Catnip You will be eaten by 18 Cats!

You are full of delicious cat nibbles! It is likely that your many cats will finish most of you off before anyone notices you're missing. Don't worry though, in your case it's probably an expression of the love your cats have for you.

The How Many Cats Will Eat You Test

Thinking with a rational heart

When I think of some of my biggest decisions, some were made after long periods (often years), of careful (and often paralyzing) rumination. For example, when I became a vegetarian, I tried to argue with myself from both points of view. My view of our treatment of animals was a veil that was slowly lifting, but I still was unconvinced on a rational level that I should stop eating meat. The introduction to Peter Singer's Animal Liberation gives a fantastic logical argument for the idea of speciesism. Although an incredibly airtight argument to me, I could still not make the leap. In contrast, when I chose what college I wanted to go to I made charts and graphs illustrating the pros and cons of various schools. In the end, as soon as I read the description of my alma mater, I instantly knew that was where I wanted to go. It was one of the best decisions I ever made.

As for the vegetarianism, was I setting the bar too high for a rational justification, or was there something else preventing me from accepting what I think I already knew? By actively avoiding looking at the emotional reasons to accept becoming vegetarian, I was also ignoring the emotional reasons to reject it (there are many!). I intellectually convinced myself, but I still needed to make the connection on the emotional level. Then one day sitting among my various books, my cat walked by. That sealed the deal.

What about love? We see people all the time making incredibly stupid decisions in the throws of infatuation, or justify staying with someone because they cannot bare to leave. I personally have a carefully penned list of what I am looking for in a mate, and take a lot of time before I let myself become attached. But when reasons to leave start becoming obvious, I analyze them to death, always erring on the side of staying. It's just too hard to leave, and I have too much optimism and loyalty for those I love.

There are people who affect one so strongly from the start (usually in a sexual way), that you cannot stay away. Every red flag is right there in front of you and you know it. But like chocolate cake, a little taste won't hurt, right? :) I am glad I have indulged myself a few times!

In order to make important decisions in a rational way, is it necessary to acknowledge the importance of emotion as well? I have read (sorry no citations) that increasingly the role of intuition is being explored as a possible component of smart decision making. This is especially true when it comes to experts relying on intuition to make snap decisions. It's not unreasonable to think that there is a part of us that is self-aware that we can never be conscious of. This is a question I will, ironically, have to think about for a while.