One of the leading voices of atheism.

I like to visit Onegoodmove to keep up with the latest Daily Show and Colbert highlights. There is also an insane amount of Bush bashing there to boot. It is also a haven for highlights occuring in the atheistic world as well. Today they have highlighted an excerpt from atheist Sam Harris's book A Letter to a Christian Nation. I posted a respone over at Onegoodmove but it is waiting moderation. But here is the passage. It blows my mind that athiests look to this as a viable reason as to there not being a God.

The Goodness of God

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl's parents believe—as you believe—that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?
No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs. An atheist is simply a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87 percent of the population) claiming to "never doubt the existence of God" should be obliged to present evidence for his existence—and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. An atheist is a person who believes that the murder of a single little girl—even once in a million years— casts doubt upon the idea of a benevolent God.

It is so easy and simple minded to say that bad things happen therefore God doesn't exist. Or dare I say "evil" (though most atheists will dismiss that word from being accurate). Yes there are bad(evil) things happening to innocent people as I type, as you read. Are these not the acts of men and not God? Atheists link that to whether or not God exists? Where's the connection? How come nobody ever asks the converse? Why are we allowed to experience pleasure? And some exteme pleasure at that. Most of which doesn't cost us a dime. If we are going to equate bad with "no God." Then wouldn't it be fair to equate good with "there is a God?" For us to be able to distiguish bewteen good and bad (evil) pleasure and pain means that there is a standard by which these things can be determined. Who or from where does the standard come? I believe from God. An atheist will probably say " it comes from within ourselves." Fine, but I feel you now have a monumental struggle to find an anchor for your objective moral basis. Everything then would be anchored to some sort of construct of man. Since everything is just material then there really is no meaning. Wouldn't that lead to a moraly reletivistic world? Void of meaning or purpose. Void of any ability to clearly deliniate between right and wrong. But then maybe atheists have come to terms with the idea that this is all meaningless. If thats the case then we should at least be clear about it. I would love to hear an atheist just be truthful with themselves and say something like "after review of my life, consciousness and existence I am certain it is all meningless and I am fine with that." Fine, then stop living as if you have purpose and meaning.

In closing, I would like to put a twist on Mr. Harris's last sentence:

An atheist is a person who believes that the murder of a single little girl—even once in a million years— casts doubt upon the idea of a benevolent God.

A Christian is a person who believes that the smallest amount of joy—even once in a million years— casts hope upon the idea of a benevolent God.

What ever happened to these guys?

I found this clip on the Al Gore spawned "internets." These guys can't write a song to save their lives. They can't play and the singer can't sing. I hope they have good day jobs.

NBC may not air Madonna crucifixion stunt....

Here's an article about how NBC has asked to cut a crucifixion scene from Madonnas current stage act. I wonder if there is any thing in Kabbalah that she finds sacred. And would she be offended if someone did a similar thing to her religion? Who knows....who really cares. I'm glad that the folks at NBC are actually considering not airing this. But lets be real here NBC won't approve the stunt until they're absolutely sure it won't offend any Muslims.

Somebody grab me a tissue...

It seems as though liberal, or progressive, radio talk network Air America is heading for bankruptcy. While I can't say that I am sad to hear this, I am disappointed. Because, now, when a liberal will argue that "you conservatives have control over the airwaves" I will have to admit that they are telling the truth. But in all honesty liberal talk will not gain mass appeal until a few things change. Less hate. More actual discussion. Even representation of both sides. Lets start with the first point.

Less hate. The majority of the content on Air America is anti-Bush. With which I don't have a problem. But it is mostly tasteless and vulgar. Once again, fine, but you start to lose your credibility when you want to make a serious point.

More actual discussion. It seems that most of the shows are nothing but long monologues with no real intellectual thought or interchange. I know that sounds harsh but if the hosts are going to claim to be "progressive" and hang out with this nations "great thinkers" I would hope that they would put a little more effort into it than re-hashing their comedy routines. Why is it that the progressives best hosts are ex-comedians? (Franken, Garofalo, Mahr) That's a completely different post. I find more thought coming from some of my wife's high school sociology students.

Even representation of both sides. It seems as though there is no real attempt by the liberals to engage conservatives. Rarely will a phone call in opposition be taken. Crass generalizations are often used when referring to "red staters" or "evangelicals." I have called and gotten past the call screener to the Randi Rhodes show four times. Four times mind you. Only once did I get a busy signal. Each time I waited, a minimum of 20 minutes, and my call was never taken. Once I waited close to 40 minutes. I bring this up to point out that , one, I could get in easily and, two, they don't want to hear from us.

I am not talking about Rush and Hannity. I can't stand them. They are kind of like Conservative version of Air America to me. But I am talking about shows like Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewwitt, Michael Medved. These guys are not afraid to hear opposition and everyday ask for the opposition to call in. They frequently point listeners to liberal publications for discussion. I can honestly say that every time (that I have heard) on Air America, when they site an article that opposes their viewpoint, it is always without fail disregarded as drivel or made fun of in some way. It is interesting to me how much time I spend listening to people with other viewpoints. I desire to stay balanced. I want to know the lefts arguments even if I don't agree. I even subscribe to an atheist podcast just to hear agruments to my beliefs. I feel that there are more conservatives out there like me than liberals who desire to be challenged. Why is that? Well I think it stems from the fact that liberal viewpoints, for the most part, are based mostly on "feelings" and not much substance. Don't get me wrong, the intentions of liberalism are great, but, I have a feeling that when really pressed on the serious issues facing us today a liberal will do one of two things. Dismiss any opposing point because it may stem from values or fail to be completely morally and intellectually honest with themselves. And not only is that sad it is ironic that they are touted as progressive.

Anyway, until progressive media figures out that it has to present both sides, it will never be a success. If these are the best hosts they can muster it is doomed. It will at best be a fringe, freak circus act taking up radio bandwidth.