See Raytractors for the rest. It might be ’shopped, but I don’t care, ’cause it’s hilarious.

Fresh from the “Head, Meet Desk” department, I have here an article from the Christian Post taking Obama to task for some comments he made at the Saddleback Forum on Saturday:

Obama, the putative Democratic nominee, had glibly responded that “it’s above my pay grade” to answer specifically when asked the question on life.

“I think he needed to be more specific on that,” said Warren in an interview following the forum with Beliefnet.com. “I happen to disagree with Barack on that.

Read: He needed to be more pro-forced-birth.

The influential megachurch pastor wished Obama would have stated clearly that he did not believe life begins until “X” point or that it is a human being at “X” point.

Read: So he could have given a hysterical, bible-thumping sermon about how whichever “X” point Obama chose is OMG WRONG!

For those of you playing at home, by the way, the correct answer to this question is: “Life began, past tense, just once in the primordial soup (or on the backs of crystals, or whatever…). It has been continuing since then.” Seriously, for all you “life begins at conception” people, do you think sperm and eggs aren’t alive? And even if you’re going to nitpick and say “a new life begins at conception”, each individual sperm and egg has different DNA from the man or woman who created it, and from all the other individual sperm and eggs. So, by your own logic, every time a man ejaculates without getting a woman pregnant, he’s murdering 500,000,000 baybees! Hell, even if he does get a woman pregnant, he’s still murdering 499,999,999 baybees. You might want to think about that the next time you get all upset about a 6-week embryo being aborted.

Other evangelical leaders, such as Janet Folger, president of Faith2Action, also were dissatisfied with Obama’s answer to the abortion question.

She said the question could be interpreted as “when does a baby get human rights?” in which Obama’s voting record would reply “never.”

“He’s the only Senator in the entire Senate in Illinois who actually stood on the floor and spoke against protecting babies that were completely severed from the mother, that had survived the assault of an abortion,” Folger said during a teleconference with other evangelical leaders following the forum. “That answer should have been ‘never.’ He tried to avoid it, and it tells me that he shouldn’t be getting the pay grade of President.”

Yes, voting against a disingenuously-worded bill that completely failed to take the health or life of the mother into account (remember her?) is exactly the same thing as voting to kill baybees. No difference at all! Perhaps Ms. Folger would like to specify when she thinks women get human rights? I suspect I wouldn’t be satisfied with her answer.

So, I think a lot of us in the atheosphere know about Kafir Girl, the ex-Muslim atheist blogger who is reading and deconstructing the Quran chapter by chapter (so we don’t have to!). Yesterday someone pointed out to me that some guy has his panties in such a knot about Kafir Girl that he started his own blog just to complain about her. Deeply amused at this, I left a comment suggesting that Sona has a crush on Kafir Girl and that’s why he’s so obsessed with her blog.

So, of course, he came over here and left a comment on my blog. But it has nothing to do with American politics (the post it was left on), and it’s been so very long since I’ve had a religionist to play with, so I’m going to give it its own post.

Sona writes:

Using your logic * you love me * as you read my blog and left me a comment. Absurd! logic does not measure truth it measures internal consistency and integrity of a statement. I have concluded by showing evidence that if we accept your statement, we end up at an absurd conclusion, thus, your statement is null and void.

Oh and by the way it seems like your very dogmatic in your support of atheism. so you must have faith in atheism. Thus atheism is dogmatic belief in the non existence of a deity or denial of the existence of deities.

You even have a page which says “Why I am an Atheist” this is absurd, thats like me blogging why I am not a Chinese or why I am not a fish. Why blog about something you lack? why don’t you using the same logic and blog about not having a penis? Atheism is a lack of belief in supernaturalism. Why do you have to defend or reinforce a no belief? is that no illogical? why do you have to be dogmatic… Why are you equally not as dogmatic about blogging why you don’t have a penis and then insisting why you don’t have a penis, and then offering links to support groups who also lack a penises, yet insist on defending why they don’t have penis.

Ok let me make it easier for you, why don’t you defend why you are not a murderer? why don’t you insist you are not a murderer?

You little herbs who call yourself atheist have the nerve to call yourself “rationalists” the irony.

I respond:

Using your logic * you love me * as you read my blog and left me a comment. Absurd! logic does not measure truth it measures internal consistency and integrity of a statement. I have concluded by showing evidence that if we accept your statement, we end up at an absurd conclusion, thus, your statement is null and void.

You might be able to say that if I had become so deliriously obsessed with you and how OMG wrong! you are that I had started a whole new blog called “Sona Sucks” on which I waited every day with bated breath for you to make a post so that I could make another post about how OMG horrible! you are. But, no. So far, you’re the only person who’s done something like that.

Sona and Kafir Girl sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G…

Oh and by the way it seems like your very dogmatic in your support of atheism. so you must have faith in atheism. Thus atheism is dogmatic belief in the non existence of a deity or denial of the existence of deities.

(Le sigh…) Do you believe in unicorns? No? Why, then, you must be dogmatic in your support of a-unicornism! You must have faith that there are no unicorns! Thus, a-unicornism is dogmatic belief in the non-existence of unicorns or denial of the existence of magical horned horsies.

You even have a page which says “Why I am an Atheist” this is absurd, thats like me blogging why I am not a Chinese or why I am not a fish. Why blog about something you lack? why don’t you using the same logic and blog about not having a penis? Atheism is a lack of belief in supernaturalism. Why do you have to defend or reinforce a no belief? is that no illogical? why do you have to be dogmatic… Why are you equally not as dogmatic about blogging why you don’t have a penis and then insisting why you don’t have a penis, and then offering links to support groups who also lack a penises, yet insist on defending why they don’t have penis.

I shouldn’t have to defend my non-belief in deities. However, my society is run by people like you who do believe in deities, and insist on making it an issue. So, when religionists stop insisting that all atheists are devoid of morals, not fit to hold public office, and generally undeserving to live in the same society and have all the same rights as everyone else, then I’ll be able to stop talking about my non-religion and start talking about my non-penis. Sounds good? Ball’s in your court.

Ok let me make it easier for you, why don’t you defend why you are not a murderer? why don’t you insist you are not a murderer?

Because the society I live in isn’t run by murderers who think non-murderers are amoral, defective, and generally unhinged.

You little herbs who call yourself atheist have the nerve to call yourself “rationalists” the irony.

…I’m a herb? Does that mean you’ve got a jar of me in your kitchen cabinet and I taste great on pizza? What am I, thyme? Oregano? Rosemary? Inquiring minds want to know.

…or is it only beginning?

Conservapedia said so! And it must be true, right, because Conservapedia is the trustworthy encyclopedia! I’m also deliberately denying the self-evident existence of god, and have a poor relationship with my father. Is it just me, or does that last reason sound a little bit Freudian? All men secretly want to fuck their mother, and all atheists secretly hate their father (because they want to fuck their mother?).

Via No More Mr. Nice Guy!

All the cool kids are doing it, or should be.

My Godless Code: MET->(17)A+ : TR(FSM, SAT, UNI, WIC) : r(B%100) : ex(Fam(.10),Wk(0.0),Fr(1.0)) : SO(A+) : FG(RD,RI+,PJ) : M(Blg) : [gc-0.2]

Via evtujo by way of nullifidian.

Oh, heavens! I’ve been tagged! I… oh… the world is fading… I’m comin’ to join ya, Elizabeth!

Uh… ahem.

I’ve been tagged by the very splendid Splendid Elles for a meme that’s been going around the atheist blogosphere.

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?

I define “atheism” as the condition of not being able to honestly answer “yes” to the question, “do you believe in one or more gods?”

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

I was raised United Methodist. My experience with them is quite a bit more conservative than their advertising (”Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors”) would lead you to believe. There’s still a lot of opposition toward gay people (or there was as of the last time I went to church) and there were people in my congregation who believed in a literal “lake of fire” hell and thought Wiccans were actual “brides of Satan” witches.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?

Moronitude.

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

I’ll have to go with Elles’ answer and say space travel. Star Trek says we’re supposed to meet the Vulcans in my lifetime!

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

This really doesn’t apply so much to the Planet Atheism community, but I wish IIDB and its spin-off boards weren’t full of assholes and bullies.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

“Well, I (hopefully) raised you right, so at least you’ll be One Of The Good Ones.”

Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

I don’t think I really have a favorite theistic argument, but I do have a favorite refutation. Whenever people argue some variant of “Well, there has to be a god because the universe is too complicated to exist without a creator!” I like to counter with, “Okay. Then what created god? If it’s complicated enough to create the universe then it must also have been created, according to your own reasoning. And then whatever created it must also have been created, and then whatever created that entity must have been created, and…”

Apparently I made someone cry by doing this once.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

I dunno. Maybe my insistence that all agnostics (that is, all people who use the word “agnostic” to describe themselves, because practically everyone is technically an agnostic, including theists) are, in fact, atheists because an atheist is someone who can’t answer “yes” to the question “do you believe in one or more gods?”. “I don’t know” is definitely not “yes”. And who really “doesn’t know” whether they believe in a god, anyway?

But I don’t know whether that’s all that controversial.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

I likes me some Dawkins. I want to be Dawkins when I grow up.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

Hmm. How about the Pope?

Now name three other atheist blogs that you’d like to see take up the Atheist Thirteen gauntlet:

*CG aims the Blogger Tagging Gun and fires at…*

1. Silent Dave
2. The Barefoot Bum
3. NYC-Atheists Blog

Eat me, Christians.

Via Bligbi.

Sorry, Obama, just because you’re cool doesn’t mean I’m not going to tell you when you’re wrong.

The comments in this thread on Pharyngula linked to a video of Barack Obama talking about gay marriage, prompting this from me, which I am also sending to him via his website:

I was dismayed to hear about the comments you made on the topic of gay marriage in New Hampshire in January. You mentioned your parents’ interracial marriage and the fact that couples like them had to fight for their marriages to be recognized, but the rest of your comments undermined everything that they fought for in the ’60s and that gay people are fighting for now.

“Separate but equal” is not okay. You may consider marriage a religious phenomenon, but the fact that the government is involved in it means that it *can’t* be defined or restricted on religious grounds. We do not have an established state religion in America, and with good reason. Christianity does not have nor deserve the authority to make these determinations.

Trying to stick the gays in a “civil union” ghetto is *not* okay. They deserve nothing less than entry to the same institution and access to all the same rights and privileges as straight people have.