My thought for the day:

When a child talks to an invisible friend, we consider it cute, and encourage the child's creativity.

When that child grows up and continues to talk to an invisible friend, we are concerned about schizophrenia, and medicate the man the child became.

When a lot of people talk to the same invisible friend, society calls it religion, and yells at atheists for pointing out that there's really no difference between this example and the prior one.

Saddle up for the (not ass-)friendly skies!

Finally - a non-religious blog!

Italian firm Aviointeriors has introduced a new saddle-style airline seat. The seat is meant to allow airlines to reduce leg space (read: comfort) of passengers from an overly-generous 30 inches to the much more economical 23 inches - all while placing the passenger on a smaller, saddle-shaped seat that fits comfortably up the ass.

I'm already uncomfortable enough in coach on most airlines. If I had my choice of either flying on a plane equipped with these butt plugs, or being forced to watch a Jersey Shore marathon while a glandularly-overactive skunk sat on my face, I'd choose the latter.

I think my favorite part of the article is this:

"For flights anywhere from one to possibly even up to three hours ... this would be comfortable seating," Dominique Menoud, Aviointeriors director general, told USAToday. "The seat ... is like a saddle. Cowboys ride eight hours on their horses during the day and still feel comfortable in the saddle."

No, Mister Menoud. Cowboys are not comfortable in the saddle eight hours a day. They simply lose all feeling in their lower extremities. Most riding schools intentionally keep a student's first several lessons down to thirty minutes, because otherwise, the pain from more extended rides would cause the student to quit.

Of course, this is all in the sake of money. While we're at it, why not cut out those pesky bathrooms on the plane? Simply catheterize the passengers before they board; 'honey bags' stowed beneath the seat would take up a lot less space. Or, even better - just induce hypothermia and coma in the passenger! That way you can just stack 'em up like logs.

Thankfully, the article notes that this is not approved by the FAA - yet. But give it time.

Is atheism a religion? Is bald a hair color?

So, many times I come across theists (specifically Christians) who refer to atheism as a 'religion'. I don't know why they do this, personally; perhaps it's a drastic attempt to reassure themselves that a human cannot possibly lead a fulfilling, moral life without a religion to follow, but regardless of the reason, the topic comes up regularly.

The short, sarcastic answer to this question is, "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." I've also seen, "Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color."

Barbed wit aside, let's actually take a look at a detailed definition of 'religion' (from Wikipedia):

"A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

All right, that seems pretty clear to me. I can sit down and show how Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and so forth fulfill that definition.

Now let's look at atheism, and see how it stacks up.

"...a set of beliefs concering the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe..."

Atheism is a single belief (or, arguably, a lack of belief) in a single concept - that of the existence of gods. If a religion is a "set of beliefs" (and I've yet to come across a single religion that had only one tenet), then atheism is disqualified, as it only specifies one philosophy. Additionally, that concept does not speak toward the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe, so that's strike two.

"...especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies..."

Supernatural agency = gods. Since atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of such beings, that's strike three. If this were baseball, the "atheism is a religion" team would already have struck out, but let's continue.

"...usually involving devotional and ritual observances..."

While blogging, answering questions on Yahoo! answers, and hanging out at Starbucks might be common amongst atheists, I would not term them either devotional or ritualistic - nor are they universal.

"...and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs..."

When atheism itself is a simple statement of lack of belief, how could it be considered to offer any sort of moral code? Atheists propose no unified moral code. It offers no guidance in itself. It's really a simple statement - along the lines of saying, "Without evidence of gods, why believe in them?"

So is atheism a religion? Sure doesn't look like it to me. In this ballgame, that concept has struck out.