Antimattr

One Nation, Under Guard

2009-09-15T05:39:00.000-07:00

Our daughter recently started Kindergarten, and, as all Colorado schools are required to do by law, they recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. However, since our daughter is still learning the Pledge, along with the (incredibly long) school pledge about being caring, respectful, etc., instead of saying "under God", she says "under guard". Pretty cute.

Since she's only 5, we've decided that we won't start talking to her about religion, gods or anything related until she starts asking questions. It's confusing enough for adults, and many of the concepts are just too nebulous and confusing for a 5 year old. I'd rather wait until she's ready to ask questions, then we plan on teaching her about many religions, as well as Greek, Roman and Norse mythology. Information is inoculation, as they say.

Holy people to compete to convert atheists on Turkish TV show

2009-06-28T06:59:00.000-07:00

According to a report on the Hurriyet DailyNews.com Web site, a new Turkish TV show is set to air in September that will challenge holy people to convert atheists to their brand of godliness. The show, which is loosely translated as "Penitents Compete," will feature a "Muslim imam, a Christian priest, a Jewish rabbi... a Buddhist monk" and 10 atheists.

Interesting concept. I'd love to see what their various arguments are, and whether they'll have any actual atheists on the show, or if it'll be like much of the "reality" tv in the US where it's all a setup and scripted by the shows producers. I think the show has the potential to be a dangerous (for religion) as the head of the Religious Affairs Directorate mentions, since the single most dangerous thing to religion is to expose people to different ideas and create "complications" in their minds.

Parenting Beyond Belief on YouTube

2009-06-16T20:10:00.000-07:00

Dale McGowan, author/editor of Parenting Beyond Belief and Raising Freethinkers has a YouTube Channel. Here's the first video:

Stop pussyfooting around

2009-05-23T07:11:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite atheist blogs these days is Heaving Dead Cats, and Neece has a new post up that I really like about calling it like it is.

An excerpt:

Of course you might interpret it all differently. That’s only natural. But I can not and will not sugar coat reality just to make people feel better on this blog. I think that is intellectually dishonest and completely unhealthy.

When you wrap yourself in faith and fairy tales and refuse to listen to reason, or look at science, then yes, you are intellectually lazy and gullible. There’s no nice way to say that. I don’t believe in being politically correct because all it does is make us weaker and more sensitive. Just look at how uptight and sensitive people are about every little supposed slight or utterance. It’s disgusting. I won’t play that stupid game on my blog or in my life.

Papercraft Pope

2009-04-18T06:20:00.000-07:00

Hiliarious!

H/T to Science Punk

Interesting Idea

2009-04-16T05:45:00.001-07:00

I'll have the dog cake

2009-04-12T07:50:00.000-07:00

I was going to just post the Happy Zombie Jesus Day poster and call it good, but I recalled a somewhat amusing story from HZJD a few years back. We always go to my mother-in-laws for Eostre, and she almost always makes a cake in the shape of a lamb, frosted in white frosting and covered in coconut to resemble wool (plus a few other dessert options). When my nephew was about 5 or 6, MIL asked what he wanted for dessert, he said "I would like a piece of the dog cake". Funny thing is, the cake actually does look more like a poodle or Bedlington Terrier.

Not that Eostre means much to me, other than a lovely mean of ham, scalloped potatoes and fixin's, but it's still amusing to me to think of it as a dog cake rather than a lamb.

Happy Zombie Jesus Day

2009-04-12T07:39:00.001-07:00

That sums it up pretty well.

In which I respond to Just Some Guy Thinking About Stuff.

2009-04-05T08:24:00.000-07:00

About a week ago, I came across the blog of a theist where he posted about an essay by Edward Feser, about the new atheists

Since Feser claimed that his 12 year old daughter could "out-philosophize" Dawkins, I commented "You claim that Dawkins arguments are fallacious and his presentation of the theist arguments and positions are wrong, yet you fail to provide any examples or your own counter-arguments. What are your counter arguments?"

He has responded to that comment, and my response is below.

First, a false presentation of theism by Dawkins can be found in this caricature of faith in the context of belief in God:

Faith is belief in something without evidence.

Now the actual position of theism as noted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 36:

"Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason." Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation.

Actually, your response was not about faith, but the position of the Catholic Church on the existence of God. Faith, according to the second definition at dictionary.com, is "belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." By definition, faith and knowledge are mutually exclusive. Once you have knowledge, it's no longer faith. Before having knowledge, the only way you can accept something is to do so without evidence.

You have not refuted Dawkins in any way. Your argument is not only a red herring, it commits the fallacy of appeal to authority. Fallacies alone do not necessarily invalidate an argument, so I'll also respond to your quote from the Church. The church claims that God can be known, but they provide no evidence for such knowledge. I can easily claim the same thing about UFOs, leprechauns or anything else, but in order to validate my claim, I need to provide evidence or a chain of logic which can be examined for validity. The Catholic Church has done no such thing-they've only made a bare assertion, which is a logical fallacy.

Next, we have Dawkins' fallacious summary in The God Delusion of the Cosmological Arguments put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas:

All three of these arguments [the first three of the 'five ways'] rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it . They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God. (The God Delusion, 77)

First I ask, what is worse: the errors or the fatuous insufficiency with which age-old and venerated arguments are temerariously dismissed...by one who reminds us at every other moment of the profound rationality of which he and his ilk are in full possession? (Really Dick, if religion is the Root of All Evil, then, by all means, take it a little more seriously.)

Poisoning the Well doesn't advance your argument here. You still haven't pointed out Dawkins errors, you just keep saying there are errors and then not advancing your own arguments. Dawkins doesn't need to take the Cosmological argument seriously, because theists have never been able to give a valid argument against it.

Here's Dr. Peter Kreeft's summary of the the Cosmological Arguments put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas (my emphasis in bold, my comments in blue):

Since you couldn't be bothered to actually think for yourself and come up with your own arguments, I guess I'll have to respond to Kreeft.

The most famous of all arguments for the existence of God are the "five ways" of Saint Thomas Aquinas... Four are versions of the first-cause argument, which we explore here.

The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. We have to become complex and clever in order to doubt or dispute it. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is. [Ironically, atheists leave off God, saying that there is no sufficient explanation for His existence; and in so doing fail to give sufficient explanation for everything.]

"Common sense" is a very vague term and can mean anything the user wants it to mean. "Common sense" 400 years ago was that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. 150 years ago, "common sense" was opposed to germ theory. Newton's First Law of Dynamics violates "common sense". When we set objects in motion, they stop fairly quickly. The existence of friction is not obvious, and until you understand the science, it doesn't make sense. The instinct of the mind is very often wrong and contrary to reality, and this statement alone nearly invalidates the rest of what Kreeft has to say.

Your comment is not only a completely circular argument, but commits the burden of proof fallacy. You are the one claiming the existence of a god, therefore the burden of proof is upon you to provide sufficient explanation. If your god doesn't exist, why would we need to provide sufficient explanation for it?

I would agree that there is probably a cause for the existence of our universe, but there is no sufficient reason to assume that any deity is the cause. There are several pretty interesting theories about the origin of the universe, including a "big bounce" theory.

Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, "Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn't you?" No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren't looking? If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle. But there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all. Perhaps we will never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence...

Yet Christian theology, and the Cosmological Argument in particular, do assume that something "popped into existence. That's how you explain your God. We atheists, including Dawkins, say that you are being hypocritical when you engage in special pleading for your god.

Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, et cetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes.

So far, so good.

But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause.

Can you say "non sequitur"? Kreeft makes a huge leap from "no first link in the great cosmic chain" to "there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being" without establishing why there must be such a being. If there can be a being that is self-explanatory and eternal, why is it that the universe can not be self-explanatory and eternal? Kreeft makes no argument for that, but simply says it's so.

Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything.

Not necessarily. As I pointed out, if a being can be eternal, then the universe can have that property as well, and it's a complete non sequitur to leap from there being a first cause to that first cause having to necessarily be a being.

If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me." If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, "The buck stops here."

Wow, is that a weak analogy, as well as committing the composition fallacy. Of course, that doesn't automatically invalidate the argument, but we do have to be very cautious when applying the properties of part of something to the whole. Kreeft still doesn't provide a valid argument for why there has to be a being as the first cause.

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

And still, Kreeft hasn't given a valid argument for how the universe requires a first cause and yet his God does not. Special pleading is not a valid argument.

[Dawkins, in effect, says that the engine is just another boxcar which theists arbitrarily conjure up to terminate the regress...and then make the unwarranted assumption that this boxcar (which we merely call an engine) is immune to regress, endowing it with properties normally ascribed to self-powered box-cars. But that is a mere caricature of classical theism, which says, in effect, that if we are to satisfy the Principle of Sufficient Reason and give a proper explanation of how one car has the power to pull another car, there must be a car who, necessarily, posesses its own power.

No, that's not a caricature of classical theism. Dawkins agrees with theists that if they can satisfy the Principle of Sufficient Reason and give a proper explanation for a "self-powered car" that such a car must exist. The problem is that theists have not satisfied the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Some car must possess it's own power to give it to one car...so it can pull another...so it can pull another...and so on and so forth. Dawkins caricature of the Cosmological Argument in effect says, that it is sufficient for the regress to go on infinitely with one car recieving its pulling power from the one before. Theists would say that no one car would have pulling power to pull another car if one of the cars didn't necessarily have its own pulling power to start the whole process. And this all men speak of as an engine.]

Why must some car possess it's own power? You still haven't established why there must be a being, and why the universe can't be eternal and self-explanatory.

Here is one more analogy. Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.

But the universe is not a book and cannot be borrowed or handed down. That analogy is incredibly weak. The properties of a book and the properties of the entire universe are very different. He's also assuming the existence of archangels without establishing that they exist.

If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. [This one sentence refutes Dawkins, no?]

No, that sentence does not refute Dawkins, it merely restates the Cosmological Argument, and throws in a false dichotomy on top of it.

In more abstract philosophical language, the proof goes this way. Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it. Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being.
The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being—if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.

Restating the same non sequitur over and over does not make it true. The "something else must explain it" does not have to be a deity.

Saint Thomas has four versions of this basic argument.

* First, he argues that the chain of movers must have a first mover because nothing can move itself. (Moving here refers to any kind of change, not just change of place.) If the whole chain of moving things had no first mover, it could not now be moving, as it is. If there were an infinite regress of movers with no first mover, no motion could ever begin, and if it never began, it could not go on and exist now. But it does go on, it does exist now. Therefore it began, and therefore there is a first mover. [These two sentences, seem sufficient to refute Dawkins, who merely asserts that the first mover is subject to a mover before him, effectively denying the existence of a first mover and consequently forfeiting an explaination for why anything at all moves, violating the Principle of Sufficient Reason.]

Dawkins does not violate the Principle of Sufficent Reason, he merely points out that the explanation that "God Dit It" does violate the Principle of Sufficient Reason. He doesn't use the phrase "Principle of Sufficient Reason", he points out that claiming god does require a mover is special pleading.

* Second, he expands the proof from proving a cause of motion to proving a cause of existence, or efficient cause. He argues that if there were no first efficient cause, or cause of the universe's coming into being, then there could be no second causes because second causes (i.e., caused causes) are dependent on (i.e., caused by) a first cause (i.e., an uncaused cause). But there are second causes all around us. Therefore there must be a first cause.

I'll let Hume's response answer that for me:

In such a chain too, or succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it, and causes which succeed it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer that the uniting of these parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct counties into one kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind, and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts.

Essentially, Aquinas has not provided a sufficient reason for us not being able to trace an infinite chain of events into the past.

* Third, he argues that if there were no eternal, necessary, and immortal being, if everything had a possibility of not being, of ceasing to be, then eventually this possibility of ceasing to be would be realized for everything. In other words, if everything could die, then, given infinite time, everything would eventually die. But in that case nothing could start up again. We would have universal death, for a being that has ceased to exist cannot cause itself or anything else to begin to exist again. And if there is no God, then there must have been infinite time, the universe must have been here always, with no beginning, no first cause. But this universal death has not happened; things do exist! Therefore there must be a necessary being that cannot not be, cannot possibly cease to be. That is a description of God.

There is a serious fallacy with this argument. First of all, it has not been established that everything won't eventually die. In fact, this directly contradicts what science tells us, that the universe will probably eventually suffer a heat death and turn cold. We don't know if there will be a Big Crunch, a Big Bounce, or some other event that will start the whole universe cycle over again, but to assume that a deity is involved is a non sequitur.

* Fourth, there must also be a first cause of perfection or goodness or value. We rank things as more or less perfect or good or valuable. Unless this ranking is false and meaningless, unless souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs, there must be a real standard of perfection to make such a hierarchy possible, for a thing is ranked higher on the hierarchy of perfection only insofar as it is closer to the standard, the ideal, the most perfect. Unless there is a most-perfect being to be that real standard of perfection, all our value judgments are meaningless and impossible. Such a most-perfect being, or real ideal standard of perfection, is another description of God.

This is a really weak argument by Aquinas. There is no standard definition of "perfection" or "goodness" that we can use as a meaningful yard stick, and Aquinas has not satisfied the Principle of Sufficient Reason for this premise. In addition, just because we can conceive of a perfect being does not mean that such a being exists or is necessary. I can conceive what a leprechaun looks like and what his properties are, but that does not mean that he exists.

There is a single common logical structure to all four proofs. Instead of proving God directly, they prove him indirectly, by refuting atheism. Either there is a first cause or not. The proofs look at "not" and refute it, leaving the only other possibility, that God is.

Wrong. Aquinas has been well-refuted by many philosophers and for a long, long time. His arguments are full of logical fallacies and assumptions. Kreeft's statement above is completely wrong. Even if Aquinas had managed to refute "not", that would not validate the possibility that a god exists, and would certainly not validate the existence of the Christian god or the truth of Christianity. Even if it did validate the existence of a creator or first cause, it does not follow that such a creator would be involved in our daily lives, or would need to still exist.

Each of the four ways makes the same point for four different kinds of cause: first, cause of motion; second, cause of a beginning to existence; third, cause of present existence; and fourth, cause of goodness or value. The common point is that if there were no first cause, there could be no second causes, and there are second causes (moved movers, caused causers, dependent and mortal beings, and less-than-wholly-perfect beings). Therefore there must be a first cause of motion, beginning, existence, and perfection.

Restating the arguments do no make them true.

How can anyone squirm out of this tight logic? Here are four ways in which different philosophers try.

* First, many say the proofs don't prove God but only some vague first cause or other. "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not the God of philosophers and scholars", cries Pascal, who was a passionate Christian but did not believe you could logically prove God's existence. It is true that the proofs do not prove everything the Christian means by God, but they do prove a transcendent, eternal, uncaused, immortal, self-existing, independent, all-perfect being. That certainly sounds more like God than like Superman! It's a pretty thick slice of God, at any rate—much too much for any atheist to digest.

No, they do not prove that such a being exists, and they are easily refuted by the logic of the average 8 year old who would automatically ask "who made god"?

* Second, some philosophers, like Hume, say that the concept of cause is ambiguous and not applicable beyond the physical universe to God. How dare we use the same term for what clouds do to rain, what parents do to children, what authors do to books, and what God does to the universe? The answer is that the concept of cause is analogical—that is, it differs somewhat but not completely from one example to another. Human fatherhood is like divine fatherhood, and physical causality is like divine causality. The way an author conceives a book in his mind is not exactly the same as the way a woman conceives a baby in her body either, but we call both causes. (In fact, we also call both conceptions.) The objection is right to point out that we do not fully understand how God causes the universe, as we understand how parents cause children or clouds cause rain. But the term remains meaningful. A cause is the sine qua non for an effect: if no cause, no effect. If no creator, no creation; if no God, no universe.

Kreeft again makes false analogies such as comparing human fatherhood and divine fatherhood without satisfying your Principle of Sufficient Reason. He even points out how false his analogy is by pointing out that we know how parents create children and clouds create rain, but claims that the analogy is still meaningful without establishing how it's meaningful. While it might be true that every effect requires a cause, Kreeft has still not established that the cause must be a divine being. He just makes circular arguments and jumps to a conclusion that satisfies his belief.

* Third, it is sometimes argued (e.g., by Bertrand Russell) that there is a self-contradiction in the argument, for one of the premises is that everything needs a cause, but the conclusion is that there is something (God) which does not need a cause. The child who asks "Who made God?" is really thinking of this objection. The answer is very simple: the argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause. Everything in motion needs a cause, everything dependent needs a cause, everything imperfect needs a cause. [Only non-powered box cars need a cause for them to move and in-turn pull another box-car. The ultimate cause is an engine. It is its own explanation and doesn't need a cause.]

Presumably, a divine being would have to move to create the universe, therefore the argument is still circular and one of infinite regression. You have not established that your "engine" has to be a god, much less your god.

* Fourth, it is often asked why there can't be infinite regress, with no first being. Infinite regress is perfectly acceptable in mathematics: negative numbers go on to infinity just as positive numbers do. So why can't time be like the number series, with no highest number either negatively (no first in the past) or positively (no last in the future)? The answer is that real beings are not like numbers: they need causes, for the chain of real beings moves in one direction only, from past to future, and the future is caused by the past. Positive numbers are not caused by negative numbers. There is, in fact, a parallel in the number series for a first cause: the number one. If there were no first positive integer, no unit one, there could be no subsequent addition of units. Two is two ones, three is three ones, and so on. If there were no first, there could be no second or third.

Real beings are not the universe-again with the weak analogies. How do you know that the universe is not more like numbers than it is like people? No, positive numbers are not cause by negative numbers, but they do follow negative numbers in a sequence. The position of zero, in regards to time, may be arbitrary. If we place zero at the instant of the Big Bang, we don't currently know, and my never know, what happened before. Perhaps the Big Bang that created our universe was only one in an infinite number of Big Bang/Big Crunch/Big Bounce cycles. We don't know. Using the Cosmological Argument is claiming to have such knowledge without any evidence, and contradicts much of what we know about the universe.

To sum up, your response leave me to believe that you haven't really read Dawkins and tried to understand what he was saying. Rather than think out your own responses, you've merely appealed to authority and presented the most convenient fallacious arguments that support what you want to believe. If you really want to refute Dawkins, or any other atheist, you're going to have to do better than that.

The 114th Carnival of the Godless

2009-04-05T07:35:00.000-07:00

The 114th Carnival of the Godless is up at Deep Thoughts.

Ignorance

2009-04-04T08:53:00.000-07:00

It continues to amaze me how willfully ignorant people can be about atheism and science. This post is an all-too-common opinion of atheism and science, and it's this kind of ignorance that makes me fearful of the future of this country:

ATHEISM
The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned in dinosaurs ……..

Makes perfect sense.

Debaptism Certificates in the UK

2009-04-04T08:27:00.000-07:00

There's been a bit of buzz lately, even in the mainstream media, in the UK about the National Secular Society debaptism certificates.

The certificate says:

I ________ having been subjected to the Rite of Christian Baptism in infancy (before reaching an age of consent), hereby publicly revoke any implications of that Rite and renounce the Church that carried it out. In the name of human reason, I reject all its Creeds and all other such superstition in particular, the perfidious belief that any baby needs to be cleansed by Baptism of alleged ORIGINAL SIN, and the evil power of supposed demons. I wish to be excluded henceforth from enhanced claims of church membership numbers based on past baptismal statistics used, for example, for the purpose of securing legislative privilege.

I'm a bit of two minds about this. First, I kinda like the idea of making the deconversion process "official" and formalized, at least for some people. We humans like ceremony and formality at some level, and this makes a clean break.

On the other hand, it doesn't actually do anything for the deconverted, and it actually lends some sort of credibility to the baptism. Just ignoring the baptism, at least for me, is acknowledging the value and effect of the baptism, which is exactly none. Is it worth the £3? Perhaps, as a novelty item. It seems to mostly be done in fun, and I hope most people take it that way. I hate doing anything that lends legitimacy to religion.

Happy Atheist Day

2009-04-01T07:24:00.000-07:00

Vjack over at Atheist Revolution has a good post about the whole "the fool hath said in his heart "there is no God".

My favorite part is his reminder that the bible also says:

Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. -Matthew 5:22

Is the rise of atheism due to humans getting smarter?

2009-03-29T07:58:00.000-07:00

That's what this article claims. I'm not so sure that's the cause. Maybe we're becoming better informed, and we're certainly becoming more likely to be exposed to differing points of view thanks to the internet, the growing number of news sources, diversity in our neighborhoods (at least for some of us). I think 9/11 opened the eyes of many to the dangers of blind faith and dogmatic belief, and the scandals over the years from evangelicals like Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, etc. combined with the idiocies of Pat Robertson have eroded the appeal and influence of religion.

I also wonder if changes in our society to provide more opportunities for socializing have had an impact. One of the strongest traditional benefits to belonging to a church is the social benefit, and with online social networking, services like meetup.com and others, are people finding that component without the need for churches and their reinforcement of religion?

I think we need to consider another factor, and perhaps the most influential on the "rise of atheism". As more and more people come out, it not only allows others who have been in the other closet to feel more comfortable admitting their atheism publicly, but it starts to raise doubts in some believers minds. By making the issues public, more believers are exposed to our point of view and begin questioning and examining their beliefs. Some, of course, will stay Christian, but many won't be able to convince themselves (to borrow a phrase from vjack) that the grass is actually blue.

Just Accept That You’re An Atheist

2009-03-28T10:04:00.000-07:00

Over at Sisyphus Fragment, there's a good post about just admitting that you're an atheist.

I don’t blame anyone for wanting to not be dragged through the trash just for being a non-believer but I feel like this is sort of a “free rider” situation where we are running around suing and fighting for secularism and these folks get the benefit of it with little to no effort

I agree. Some of the other terms do say more about what we believe rather than what we don't, but I think it's also important to stand up for what you don't believe.

Seattle Atheists come up with some interesting bus ads

2009-03-22T10:25:00.000-07:00

Trina a The Examiner posts an interesting selection of bus ads by the Seattle Atheists.

The ads are not only much more nuanced and thought-provoking than the rest of the recent atheist bus ads we've seen recently, but I think they promote the good side of atheism: using reason and rationality, being moral for the right reasons, etc. I'd like to see more of these kinds of ads from atheist groups.

As a graphic designer, I'm also pleased by the quality of design of these ads. Most atheist billboards and ads I've seen are pretty ugly and unprofessional. It's nice to see good typography and professional design for once.

God doesn't believe in atheists

2009-03-09T19:13:00.000-07:00

On the way home from a meeting today and ended up behind a car with this bumper sticker:

At first, I wanted to just roll my eyes at the cliché, but then I realized that it was true. No gods can believe in atheists, because entities that do not exist cannot hold beliefs. Christians just don't seem to realize how inane they can be.

Some of my favorite podcasts

2009-02-28T08:41:00.001-08:00

I've been listening to quite a few podcasts lately and thought I'd post a list of some of my favorites, in no particular order.

Dogma Free America
Because dogma makes you crazy.

Skeptoid

Skeptoid is a weekly science podcast dedicated to furthering knowledge by blasting away the widespread pseudosciences that infect popular culture.

The podcasts are fairly short (around 10 minutes) but the subject matter is always interesting, and Brian Dunning is highly entertaining, as long as you appreciate that sort of dry sarcasm (which I do)

The Atheist Experience

The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. Every week we field live calls from atheists and believers alike, and you never know what you're going to get! Sometimes it can get quite feisty indeed! You don't want to miss it.

Point of Inquiry

Point of Inquiry is the premiere podcast of the Center for Inquiry, drawing on CFI's relationship with the leading minds of the day including Nobel Prize-winning scientists, public intellectuals, social critics and thinkers, and renowned entertainers. Each episode combines incisive interviews, features and commentary focusing on CFI’s issues: religion, human values and the borderlands of science.

Purpose Centered Life
Podcast by Eric Maisel, author of The Atheist's Way: Living Well Without Gods

The Skeptics Guide to the Universe

The Skeptics Guide to the Universe is a weekly Science podcast produced by the New England Skeptical Society (NESS) in association with the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) : discussing the latest news and topics from the world of the paranormal, fringe science, and controversial claims from a scientific point of view.

Skepticality

Our podcast is here to bring you relevant, under reported current events, as well as in-depth discussions from a scientific, critical, skeptical, and humorous point of view.

In our travels we will tackle the beasts of pseudo science; the paranormal, supernatural, ufo / alien encounters, misunderstood history, astronomy, space, and overwrought legends - urban or otherwise. Welcome to Skepticality, truth in podcasting.

Pat Condell's Godless Comedy

Reasonable Doubts

We provide detailed counter-points to the fallacious logic and blatant misinformation used by religious apologists when attempting to discredit skepticism and provide rational arguments for their dogmas. We also defend the sufficiency of reason, science and naturalistic philosophies to provide a satisfactory and morally compelling understanding of the cosmos, human nature, art and culture (so I guess you could say were also engaged in our own "naturalistic apologetic"). We try to do this all with fair-mindedness and humor.

All of these are available on the site linked, or in the iTunes Music store for free. I prefer subscribing through iTunes, since it automatically notifies me when there's a new episode, plus I can take it with my on my iPod if I want to listen in the car, while exercising, or anywhere away from my computer.

Skeptical Parent Crossing #5

2009-02-24T16:53:00.000-08:00

Skeptical Parent Crossing #5 is posted at Mainstream Parenting.

It's an interesting format-the blog posts are associated with well-known works of art.

Incoherent Ramblins on the Denver Examiner site

2009-02-06T12:34:00.000-08:00

The "spiritual living" examiner at the Denver Examiner has this rambling collection of nearly random words.

Excerpt:

How is it possible to deny a higher force when actually experiencing the beauty of the natural world? -not just looking at and analyzing the aspects that compose a nice setting, but feeling at one’s inner core an inherent alignment with harmonious balance.

As one of the posters said:

Just more content-free new age confusion. Not one coherent sentence in the piece. Small wonder it's so easy to start cults and gather followers among today's "seekers."

and part of my response:

Actually, it's quite easy to state with a clean "concience" [sic] that the universe seems to be the result of natural processes. Complexity is not the hallmark of design. In fact, it's just the opposite. Good design is always simple, elegant and purposeful. The universe is full of messy, inelegant and uncontrolled processes.

If You're Not A Christian You're Going To Die

2009-02-03T12:06:00.000-08:00

I hadn't heard about this:

BOULDER, Colo. -- A 24-year-old ski lift operator who fatally shot the general manager of the Eldora ski area was determined to kill co-workers who weren't Christian, according to court records obtained Thursday.

Somehow, it'll eventually be the fault of us atheists

I thought Christians believed that lying was a sin?

2009-01-29T14:28:00.000-08:00

Way back in early October, I posted on an idiotic blog post about Colorado's Amendment 48.

Then, on January 10, a visitor calling herself Jessica (it will soon be apparent why I question whether that's even her real name) commented about the post, pretending to be ignorant of the whole issue.

She commented a second time saying the post was from gingiedmonds.com. I guess I should have paid more attention. Apparently, she wasn't paying attention to my post. I clearly linked to the post I was fisking, and even linked to the site where where Allen J. Troupe, the author of the post I was referring to, referenced the text he was posting, and I noted that I had searched that site (http://survivors.la) but hadn't found the article there.

Today, "Jessica" commented yet again on that post, telling me that she had been lying all along. Below is the full content of her comment, with my responses.

You guys want to hear something really funny?! I'm Gingi's sister! That's right! However, I didn't lie about being new to blogger.com so if it doesn't say my name this time I'm Jessica, the one who posted earlier

I don't find it particularly amusing, but whatever...

Why'd I lie? Couple reasons...

It doesn't matter why. Lying is a sin, according to your religion, right?

I thought it was hilarious that you kept digging on Ging for never siting medical text where doctors agree when human life begins. I found it funny that you were so pissed about her doing that, that you mentioned it about 80 times. Yet not once did you provide "facts" that prove medical science dosen't agree whenlife begins (you couldn't do it because you had no "facts".) I even gave you the opportunity to bring forth your "facts", and guess what? You couldn't do it.

And I thought it was hilarious that you can't spell. I wasn't "pissed" about anything. I was merely refuting the illogical, unfounded claims of an obviously ignorant religious wingnut. Contrary to your exaggeration, I did not dig on "Ging" 80 times for not "siting" [sic] sources, and I did, in fact reference the 1989, amici curiae brief prepared for the Supreme Court case of William Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, where 167 scientists and physicians, including twelve Nobel laureates, argued: There is no scientific consensus that a human life begins at conception, at a given stage of fetal development, or at birth. The question of "when a human life begins" cannot be answered by reference to scientific principles like those with which we predict planetary movement. The answer to that question will depend on each individual's social, religious, philosophical, ethical, and moral beliefs and values. This is an easily verifiable fact. I could easily have come up with more examples of the lack of scientific consensus about when a human life begins, but felt that one example of that caliber should suffice to make my point.

The other reason, and pretty much the main one to why I first wrote to you. You tried to make it look like you made this an open letter to my sis, yet I know as well as you that you never tried to contact Gingi. I even made a joke about feeling silly about not looking up her name in the first place. Because it was so painfully obvious that you never tried to contact her. You would either have to be completly retarded when it comes to computers (which I know you aren't, seeing as you can figure out this site when I can't) and not know how easy it is to run a search. Or, you wanted to make it appear you posted this "brilliant" blog and Gingi was too scared to respond.

First of all, I had no knowledge of your sister, and was responding to Allen J. Troupe, who made no mention of your sister, other than putting her name at the bottom of the letter. When I went to the site he referenced, that letter did not appear anywhere. I, for one, have a pretty busy schedule and tracking down someone to let them know that I had posted on something they wrote which was then posted on another site, which was then posted on some guys blog isn't worth my time. I never once mentioned or even suggested that Gingi was too scared to respond. Having known a fair number of anti-choice crusaders, the last thing I would think is that one of you is too scared to respond-you're all too eager to shove your religion and your view point down the throats of those who don't agree with you.

Secondly, the day after I originally posted that, my wife and I found out that she had had a miscarriage, and we were more than a bit busy with dealing with that. Would I have tracked down Gingi? probably not. However, I know when I originally posted that I had intended on returning to Mr. Troupe's blog and leaving a comment for him linking back to my post. Shit happens.

I gave you an out! I said, "Also, what was Gingi Edmonds responce?". All you had to say was, I never sent it to her or, I've never contacted her. But, no...you had to prove me right again.

I'm not sure what I was proving "right", but like I said, I'm pretty busy these days, and responding to comments from people with remedial reading and spelling skills is generally something I don't have time for.

I'll break it down for you. Medical science HAS ALWAYS AGREED when life begins. Since I know you know your way around a computer do your own research before you post a blog boasting your own willful ignorance. Otherwise you just look foolish.

Someone sure looks foolish. I've done quite a bit of searching, and I can't find a single reputable scientific or medical source that claims to have a definitive consensus on when life begins, and certainly no consensus on when the fetus becomes a person.

And last of all, (this may sound harsh) grow some balls. If you spend all that time "debunking" and "ripping apart an opposing view" have the balls to say it to someones face. Otherwise you'll just look like a coward who is too afraid to engage someone with an opposing view.

You're probably right, I should have taken the time to at least post a comment on Mr. Troupe's blog. As I've explained above, things were a bit crazy back then, and I'm not going to apologize for that.

These views are entirely my own. If you want to talk to my sister I suggest contacting her.

Since Amendment 48 was defeated on November 4 by an incredibly wide margin (73.5% opposing to 26.5% in favor), why on earth would I want to engage in a debate about that amendment?

God bless,
Jessica

Thanks, but keep your god to yourself.

I have no idea why so man Christians are perfectly ok with lying about crap like this. You accuse me of not having any balls, but, really, I was a tad lazy and super busy. You on the other hand, were so cowardly that you had to go out of your way to deceive me, rather than being up front and honest about your motives. You could have told your sister about the post and had her contact me directly, but you'd rather play your little passive-aggressive games and call me names. If you really are a Christian, you should be ashamed of yourself for lying, run to your nearest clergy and confess your sins.

And one more thing. Why is it that so many Christians can barely read and write English? It seems like every email and post I see by a wingnut is so full of spelling and grammar errors that I feel like I'm communicating with a fourth grader.

The Purpose Centered Life

2009-01-28T12:47:00.000-08:00

This has obviously been around for a while, but I just found it: Your Purpose-Centered Life: A Plan for Authentic Living

I haven't delved into the podcasts too far yet, but so far it looks really promising. Sort of a "spirituality" for us atheists. Not in a woo-driven, "higher power" way, but sort of a way to help you determine what your purpose is. Interesting stuff.

Skeptical Parent Crossing #4

2009-01-28T11:09:00.000-08:00

The fourth edition of Skeptical Parent Crossing has been posted at The SkepDad Blog.

Is the conflict between science and religion hardwired into our brains?

2009-01-15T14:03:00.001-08:00

Found on MSNBC:

Experiments headed up by psychologist Jesse Preston of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and her colleague Nicholas Epley of the University of Chicago provide some data to support the argument that the conflict is inherent, or hard-wired. They found that subjects apparently cannot easily give positive evaluations to both God and science as explanations for big questions, such as the origin of life and the universe, at the same time.

They conclude that the conflict is hardwired, but I question their results. Or, rather, I question how the hardwiring occurs. They seem to be saying it's something biological rather than cultural, but since our neural pathways change according to our experiences and knowledge, I'm not sure I can agree completely with what they say. It may be that the conflict is hardwired into individuals, but is that hardwiring the result of our upbringing and the indoctrination we experience nearly from infancy, or is it truly biological?

See-prayer DOES work!

2009-01-13T15:15:00.000-08:00

50% of the time, anyway:

Is Obama making the right choice?

2009-01-11T09:44:00.000-08:00

There's a lot of stir around atheosphere about President-Elect Obama's choice of Rick Warren, and for a while, I agreed with most of it that it was truly a horrible choice and a bit of a slap in the face to those who elected him. However, Dale McGowan over at The Meming of Life has a really interesting take on it, and what he says has caused me to reevaluate the situation. Could it truly be a very different kind of politics, beyond just a change from the Bush administration and their neocon puppetmasters?

For all his wrongheadedness on key issues, Rick Warren has shown a willingness to reach across the aisle, to open lines of communication when others have refused, often angering his team in the process. Obama has seized this opening despite their differences. In so doing, he may help moderate evangelical attitudes toward him. By co-opting one of their generals with a gracious gesture of inclusion that goes beyond the usual tokenism, he has quite possibly made it easier to move forward on several fronts. And progress on those fronts matters much more than the opportunity to pack the inaugural moment with partisan purity.

I'm not convinced that allowing such an anti-science, bigoted misogynist, but I really like many of the appointments he's making, particularly in the Department of Justice, and I think it's fair to give him the benefit of the doubt on this.

County Commision Charwoman is an idiot

2009-01-09T12:41:00.000-08:00

In Mesa County, CO, there's apparently some stirrings of trouble around the invocation said at each County Commission meeting. Instead of doing the constitutionally correct thing and actually eliminating the invocation, the Chair of the commission decided that she would just bang her gavel after the prayer, as if that means the commission is not endorsing the prayer at all. The city of Grand Junction had already created a policy for random selection of "spiritual leaders" around the community to give the invocation and to request that they leave the word "Jesus" out of the prayers, and the county could have basically used that same policy to avoid lawsuits, but chose instead to be cheeky about it. Now, apparently, the ACLU is considering a lawsuit.

I have an idea-let's eliminate any prayer, invocation, meditation, goat-burning or any other type of religious ceremony from government meetings. Either that, or atheist and secular humanist groups around the country need to start flooding their local governments with requests to have humanist celebrants, atheist group leaders, etc. give the opening invocation.

Helping out other bloggers

2009-01-03T15:42:00.000-08:00

Vjack at atheistrevolution has posted on the benefits of we atheist bloggers helpng each other out. I agree with him completely. I've been especially busy the past few weeks so haven't been blogging much, but will pick up the pace in 2009. In addition, I'm committing to posting comments on others' blogs.

Happy Birthday to Me

2008-12-31T08:34:00.000-08:00

I turn 43 today. And I'm OK with that. I don't feel like I'm in my 40s though, other than having to pull things away a bit to read them and finding that my body is not as resilient as it used to be. I'm not going to set any New Year's Resolutions, though. I prefer to set goals and develop a process for achieving them. I really only have one goal this year: to become healthier. Healthier physically, emotionally and (gasp) spiritually. Not that I'm getting religion or looking to jump on the woo bandwagon, but I do believe that one can be spiritual without believing in gods or anything supernatural. For me, spirituality is developing an intimate connection between myself and everything around me. My family, friends, work colleagues and the universe in general. I've already gotten back on track with my weight loss program, and I'm creating a schedule for myself to keep on track with recovery work, playing guitar, and managing my life.

All the best to everyone in 2009!

Are you a Hardcore Atheist Meme

2008-12-28T18:21:00.001-08:00

Meme from Friendly Atheist. Yes, I know I'm slow in getting to it. As I mentioned in the last post, I've been very busy. Items in bold apply to me.

1. Participated in the Blasphemy Challenge.
2. Met at least one of the “Four Horsemen” (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) in person.
3. Created an atheist blog.
4. Used the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a religious debate with someone.
5. Gotten offended when someone called you an agnostic.
6. Been unable to watch Growing Pains reruns because of Kirk Cameron.(actually, I wouldn't watch Growing Pains reruns primarily because it sucked. Hard.)
7. Own more Bibles than most Christians you know.
8. Have at least one Bible with your personal annotations regarding contradictions, disturbing parts, etc.
9. Have come out as an atheist to your family. (My family just never talks about religion, but I'm out to my wife's family, oddly enough)
10. Attended a campus or off-campus atheist gathering.
11. Are a member of an organized atheist/Humanist/etc. organization.
12. Had a Humanist wedding ceremony.
13. Donated money to an atheist organization.
14. Have a bookshelf dedicated solely to Richard Dawkins.
15. Lost the friendship of someone you know because of your non-theism.
16. Tried to argue or have a discussion with someone who stopped you on the street to proselytize. (actually, it was someone who knocked on my door)
17. Had to hide your atheist beliefs on a first date because you didn’t want to scare him/her away.
18. Own a stockpile of atheist paraphernalia (bumper stickers, buttons, shirts, etc). (I have a few things, but definitely want more)
19. Attended a protest that involved religion.
20. Attended an atheist conference. (only because there haven't been any that were close enough to where I live)
21. Subscribe to Pat Condell’s YouTube channel.
22. Started an atheist group in your area or school.
23. Successfully “de-converted” someone to atheism.
24. Have already made plans to donate your body to science after you die.
25. Told someone you’re an atheist only because you wanted to see the person’s reaction.
26. Had to think twice before screaming “Oh God!” during sex. Or you said something else in its place.
27. Lost a job because of your atheism.
28. Formed a bond with someone specifically because of your mutual atheism (meeting this person at a local gathering or conference doesn’t count).
29. Have crossed “In God We Trust” off of — or put a pro-church-state-separation stamp on — dollar bills.
30. Refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. (I didn't refuse to say the whole pledge, just the "under God" part)
31. Said “Gesundheit!” (or nothing at all) after someone sneezed because you didn’t want to say “Bless you!”
32. Have ever chosen not to clasp your hands together out of fear someone might think you’re praying.
33. Have turned on Christian TV because you needed something entertaining to watch.
34. Are a 2nd or 3rd (or more) generation atheist.
35. Have “atheism” listed on your Facebook or dating profile — and not a euphemistic variant.
36. Attended an atheist’s funeral (i.e. a non-religious service).
37. Subscribe to an freethought magazine (e.g. Free Inquiry, Skeptic)
38. Have been interviewed by a reporter because of your atheism.
39. Written a letter-to-the-editor about an issue related to your non-belief in God.
40. Gave a friend or acquaintance a New Atheist book as a gift.
41. Wear pro-atheist clothing in public.
42. Have invited Mormons/Jehovah’s Witnesses into your house specifically because you wanted to argue with them.
43. Have been physically threatened (or beaten up) because you didn’t believe in God.
44. Receive Google Alerts on “atheism” (or variants).
45. Received fewer Christmas presents than expected because people assumed you didn’t celebrate it.
46. Visited The Creation Museum or saw Ben Stein’s Expelled just so you could keep tabs on the “enemy.”
47. Refuse to tell anyone what your “sign” is… because it doesn’t matter at all.
48. Are on a mailing list for a Christian organization just so you can see what they’re up to…
49. Have kept your eyes open while you watched others around you pray.
50. Avoid even Unitarian churches because they’re too close to religion for you.

So, a total of 19, which supposedly makes me a "New Athesit", but that seems a bit odd, considering that I've been an atheist for over 20 years.

Super Busy

2008-12-26T12:04:00.000-08:00

This time of year is almost always really busy for me and I haven't had much time to post (or read other blogs, for that matter). Among other things, I've designed and developed a site for Ed Brayton, author of Dispatches from the Culture Wars for his new radio show, Declaring Independence on Public Reality Radio

Atheist sign stolen from state holiday display

2008-12-05T13:41:00.000-08:00

Article here:

OLYMPIA, Wash. - A controversial atheist sign that was placed in the state Capitol near a Nativity scene vanished Friday morning, but then turned up at a Seattle radio station a few hours later.

That seems about right. Why is it that so many Christians like to violate their own rules?

"Grandma, that's a bad word"

2008-12-03T17:54:00.001-08:00

A couple weeks ago, our 4 1/2 year old daughter was staying overnight with her grandparents. They were outside and our daughter noticed one of those "God bless our troops" ribbons on the back of the 'rents van, and asked her Grandma what it said (our daughter is obsessed with learning to read, and asks for help reading almost everything she sees). Grandma obliged, and our daughter told her "Grandma, that's a bad word." When Grandma asked which word was bad and discovered it was "God", she started to cry. A few days later she jumped my wife about it, who then had to explain that, since the only time our daughter hears "God" is in profanity (yes, we swear like truckers, but we're working on that), we've had to tell our daughter that "goddammit" is a bad word, and we prefer that she not say "Oh my God", since some people get twitchy about it.

Of course, that led to Grandma being upset because our daughter isn't being taught about God.

We are planning on educating our daughter about religions, including Christianity, but at 4 1/2, she's too young to grasp many of the concepts. When she's old enough to start asking about religion, we'll buying books on various religions and mythology to read and talk about. At some point, I'd probably even be willing to take her to churches, mosques, synagogues, etc.

Book Review: Parenting Beyond Belief

2008-11-29T06:24:00.000-08:00

From the author's site:

Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion, the first comprehensive title devoted to the unique joys and challenges of raising children outside of religion. Newsweek called Parenting Beyond Belief “a compelling read,” while the Library Journal called it “engaging and down-to-earth…highly recommended.” Contributors include Richard Dawkins, Julia Sweeney, Penn Jillette, Mark Twain, Dr. Jean Mercer, Dr. Donald B. Ardell, Rev. Dr. Kendyl Gibbons, and over twenty-five other doctors, educators, psychologists, and secular parents.

It's not only refreshing to see a book on the "joys and challenges" of raising kids without religion, but I found this book to be enormously helpful. As the father of a 4 1/2 year old, I'm becoming increasingly aware that it's only a matter of time before we have to start dealing with "those" questions, and Parenting Beyond Belief provides some very good insight for all manner of issues around raising children outside of religion. Particularly useful this time of year are the essays on dealing with the holidays, which I found particularly helpful. Especially the essay by Dr. McGowan regarding making use of the Santa myth to teach critical thinking and skepticism.

One of the few disagreements my wife and I have had about parenting was about the Santa myth. I had been struggling with lying to our daughter and teaching her about something that was utterly false, but that essay changed my mind. I do admit that doing the whole Santa thing is pretty fun, and after reading that essay, I'm much more comfortable with it. Our daughter is a born skeptic though, and we probably only have a couple years left of keeping up the illusion. After she figures it out, though, I'm actually hoping that she'll want to keep doing the Santa thing just for the fun of it.

If you're a secular parent, this book is a must have. I'm also looking forward to Raising Freethinkers: A Practical Guide to Parenting Beyoned Belief, Dr. McGowan's next book, due out in February.

Billboards

2008-11-27T07:07:00.000-08:00

There's been quite a bit of talk around the atheist blogosphere about the atheist billboards going up here in Colorado. This column talks about them, with a fairly reasonable tone. The co-dependence of Christianity really stands out to me, with the Christian quoted in the column thinking that the message "Don't believe in God? You are not alone." somehow denigrates Christians. Project much?

Anhyhoo, I'm going to try to get photos of at least one of the billboards and post them here.

Carnival of the Godless #105

2008-11-23T06:22:00.001-08:00

Hello and welcome to the November 23, 2008 edition of carnival of the godless. For this edition, I'd like to issue a challenge to all carnival goers. Errr, maybe not a challenge, but a request. One of the things I've noticed is that there really aren't many comments in some posts on atheist blogs, even carnival posts which (presumably) get far more traffic than an average post or blog. My request is that when you go to a post to read it, leave a comment. Even if it's only "nice post" or "this sucks". Or, take the time to poke around that blog and comment on a different post. As vjack has pointed out, it's important for us to build an atheist community. A step towards that is for us all to take the time to read each other's posts and comment on them to open up conversations and dialogue among us.

Mark throws it back at those theists who feel the need to convert us in How Dare You!!! posted at Proud Atheists.

Archvillain brings up some good points on Prop 8 in Tangled webs, etc. posted at A Dark and Sinister Force for Good, saying, "Religious whackjobs are trying to legislate morality. Again."

CyberLizard stands up against theists in Where I Stand posted at CyberLizard's Collection, saying, "Clarifying my position, giving fair warning to those who want to impose their religion through legislation."

Andrew Bernardin points out a recent scientific discovery about immaculate conception in Immaculate Conception for Hammerheads posted at The Evolving Mind.

Greta Christina reminds us how scary it can be to leave theism and gives us some ideas for making atheism/secular humanism a safer option for those wanting to convert to rationality in A Safe Place to Land: Making Atheism Friendly for The Deconverting posted at Greta Christina's Blog, saying, "We spend a lot of time in the atheist community putting cracks in the foundation of religious belief. What can we do for the newly deconverted, and those who are questioning their faith, to help them feel that atheism is a safe place to land?"

Ubiquitous Che reminds us that atheism is not the hopeless dead end that theists paint it out to be in The emotional impact of my atheism posted at rhetoric sans pareil. If you don't read any other carnival post, I recommend reading at least this one.

A.C. Chase points out the arrogance and general ass-hattery of Mormons in What the Mormons Do posted at Alexander the Atheist.

Wenchypoo reminds us that the holidays aren't all they're cracked up to be in Annual Rerun for 2008: Why We Skip the Holidays All Together posted at Wisdom From Wenchypoo's Mental Wastebasket.

Jack Carlson points out the hate in Prop 8 Let’s turn “No on 8″ into “No on Hate” and talks about the gay marriage vs. religion issue in Marriage means One Man & One Woman, race no longer an obsticle posted at Heathen Queer, saying, "A denouncement of hatred and a plea for gays to peacefully oppose the loss of our civil rights in post-prop. 8 California."

Paul Sunstone presents Authoritarian Evangelicals, Mormons Heroically Defend America Against Gay Aggression posted at Café Philos: an internet café.

Martin posts about the link between politics, corruption and witchcraft in Nigeria in "My Witchdoctor Stole My Election Donations": Witchcraft, Religion and Nigerian Oil posted at The Lay Scientist. Very interesting piece.

Ben shows us what all the bigoted houselholds need this year in I'm Dreaming of A White Christmas posted at Grown Ass People, saying, "What's the best Christmas decoration for the devout Christian? Why the 5.5 foot tall "burning cross" courtesy of the American Family Association."

Postman has postcards from Gawd in Dear Discovery Institute... posted at "Gone Fishin': Postcards From God" and Dear Little Children of the World… « “Gone Fishin’: Postcards From God”.

Ron Britton entertains himself (and us) with Amazon tags in Jackasses with Word Processors posted at Bay of Fundie.

Steve Snyder/SocraticGadfly points out that even atheists can be ridiculous in Stuart Kauffman erects anti-reductionistic straw man posted at SocraticGadfly, saying, "Kauffman, the former long-term scholar at the Santa Fe Institute, says we need spirituality to exorcise the demons of reductionism from science."

Akusai presents The Divine Assumption posted at Action Skeptics, saying, "This is a post I wrote explaining my view that theologians and apologists have to assume God exists in order to talk about him at all, and thus all of their "proofs" of his existence are entirely useless. I hope you enjoy it!"

vjack reminds us that it's important to stand up for atheist equality, and the lessons that can be learned from prop 8 in Proposition 8 Protests Offer Lesson For Atheists posted at Atheist Revolution.

Adam H shows us just how crazy those Westboro baptists are in fred phelps does it again posted at ...And That's How You Live With A Curse.

And my own contribution about my daughter's imaginary friend Jerry posted at Antimattr, and how he is very much like a god. Imaginary.

That concludes this edition. There's some really good stuff here. As I mentioned above, please take the time to comment somewhere on each blog. Submit your blog article to the next edition ofcarnival of the godless using our carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our
blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags:

carnival of the godless, blog carnival.

Jerry

2008-11-20T22:24:00.000-08:00

I've often heard atheists and secular humanists refer to gods as imaginary friends for grown ups, but lately I've really come to understand just how true that is. My daughter (4 1/2 years old) has had imaginary friends pretty much since she started talking. At first, we had Cheeky Munks, a monkey small enough to sit in your hand and ride in your pocket. Then we added Boom Finch, a zebra, also small enough to sit in your hand and ride in your pocket. These were fairly unsophisticated imaginary friends, as you might expect from a child around 2. Eventually, they sort of disappeared and were replaced by "Jerry". Since we don't actually know anyone named Jerry, it's a bit of a mystery as to where the name comes from.

The interesting thing about Jerry, at least to me, is that his attributes change according to the needs of our daughter. Sometimes he's a green frog, sometimes he's a cat, sometimes he's child of 2 (when DD needs someone to boss around), sometimes he's 16 and can drive. Jerry provides comfort and company for her, she can talk to him when she's lonely or doesn't want adult company at home, he either does what she wants or does what she can't do (like drive) according to her emotional needs at the moment. It really strikes me that religion seems to be an extension of the human desire to control the universe through our imaginations, but sometimes that gets carried a bit too far and becomes more real to some people than the actual life they lead. It's understandable-who doesn't want to control their environment? Who doesn't want a friend who's guaranteed to always be there and always be safe?

That's living in denial, though, and seems to me to devalue the human relationships in our lives. I've heard a great many theists, especially Christians, place their "relationship" with God above their family and friends. That seems horrible to me. How can you live in such denial about reality that you would make a deity more important than your spouse or child? Regardless of whether you believe in a deity or not, we humans are all confined to the same ball of dirt, and even if we atheists are wrong and there is an afterlife, all religions seem to have the common belief that what you do on earth determines what sort of afterlife you lead. Doesn't it make more sense to treat all people kindly, to place other humans above petty differences in religion? I understand that to some, those difference are not petty, but it saddens me to see dogma take precedence over caring and compassion. Especially dogmatic belief in imaginary friends.

It's not that I object to imaginary friends. After all, they spring from the imagination, possibly the most powerful, most important human attribute, and something that we try to foster in our daughter as much as we can. However, when we play along and get too serious, our daughter reminds us "Jerry is imaginary, he's not real!".

I love Jerry. I'll miss him when he's gone. God, on the other hand, I don't think I'd miss at all.

Encyclopedia of Life

2008-11-19T06:48:00.000-08:00

Secular humanist scientist E.O. Wilson, author of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, and On Human Nature, has a new project.

The Encyclopedia of Life is an attempt to create an encyvlopedia with a "site" for each of the 1.8 million known species. The site is not only a wealth of information (and growing all the time), but it's well-designed and has some pretty cool features.

The emotional impact of my atheism

2008-11-13T21:04:00.000-08:00

on rhetoric sans pareil.

This is one of the absolute best posts on atheism I've ever read. This exactly what I mean when I talk about "spirituality" in the context of atheism.

An excerpt:

And that’s the emotional impact of my atheism. I can feel in my bones how silly and human the myth of God really is. It’s so… limiting. It makes our brief, special, vibrant lives into nothing more than an entrance examination for an eternity that will never come, and wouldn’t matter even if it did. What matters is here and now. Tomorrow will only matter when it becomes the new here and now - it is the hereness and the nowness that gives a moment its meaning, not its place within eternity. It is kairos that grants meaning, not chronos. And even once we are gone, there will still be meaning and light and life in those we leave behind. Funerals are rites for the living, not the dead.

Carnival of the Godless #104 is up

2008-11-08T16:34:00.000-08:00

at Homosecular Gaytheist (and friends).

Posted by Chimbley, there are some terrific entries.

I'll be hosting Carnival of the Godless #105 on November, so be sure to get your entries submitted by midnight, November 21, 2008. I'll be giving preference to secular parenting posts, but any godless posting will be eligible.

God returns from 2,000 year vacation

2008-11-08T10:28:00.000-08:00

So says The Onion Radio News.

I can relate

2008-11-08T07:39:00.001-08:00

American Humanists bus ad campaign

2008-11-08T06:14:00.000-08:00

The American Humanist Association has announced that they'll be paying for a campaign similar to the British bus ad campaign:

The British Humanist Association campaign features the slogan, "There's Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life." But the American Humanist Association's bold new ad will more directly challenge the viewer and clearly connect the message to the holidays.

Letting them learn for themselves

2008-11-08T05:51:00.000-08:00

One thing that I struggle with as a parent is overcoming the parenting models of my childhood. The urge to lecture, to tell my daughter "because I said so" is often very strong, or to act like a drill sergeant are things I find myself battling on a regular basis. One of the core principles of Love and Logic is to set the boundaries and consequences for your child's actions and then let them learn the lesson for themselves. For example, if your child acts up, you sing the "uh oh song", give them "bedroom time", then when it's over, you go in, give them a hug, tell them you love them and leave it at that. The purpose of leaving the lecture out about what they did wrong or what they should have done is to allow them to learn for themselves. The benefit of that is that as they grow older, they learn to figure out consequences themselves, and rather than just following a hard set of rules, they'll understand that their actions have consequences and behave accordingly. I have a strong urge to lecture to make sure my daughter "gets it", but I can tell by the look on her face on those occasions that I've lecture her that what she's hearing is like the adults talking in the Peanuts tv specials. Waa waaaa wa waaaaa wa wah.

Beyond that, I think that approach can be used in other aspects of parenting, not just discipline. Allowing your child to make mistakes and even giving them the opportunity can be difficult. We often do things for our children rather than let them do it for themselves because they might make a mess or it's faster if we do it, but doesn't that teach the child that someone else will always do the difficult things? That making a mess is ok if you also clean it up? It's easy to become busy with your non-parenting life, but I think it's really important to encourage exploration and foster curiosity in children by letting them learn things for themselves. That doesn't mean that we avoid parental responsibility, but rather that we take on the role of a coach and consultant instead of a dictator and drill sergeant.

This also gives you the opportunity to see that "lightbulb moment" when your child learns something for themselves, and I, for one, cherish those. Nothing makes me prouder as a parent than seeing that happen.

In the secular context, letting your children learn for themselves helps foster critical thinking and problem solving and gives them the opportunity to make up their own minds. I see religious parents trying to force their point of view on their children and I never want to do that to my child.

Joy and Sorrow

2008-11-05T08:12:00.000-08:00

I'm very happy that Obama won, as did Mark Udall here in Colorado. Even though I don't live in that district, I'm thrilled that Markey kicked the crap out of Marylin Musgrave. She was one of the most toxic people I've ever heard of. I'm also VERY pleased that the heinous Amendment 48 failed miserably here. However, I'm very disappointed that 58 didn't pass. The oil & gas companies apparently spent their millions on lying about it quite effectively.

I'm also quite disappointed in the state of California for passing Prop 8. I suppose that it's good that opposition to same sex marriage in CA is dwindling to some degree, but my condolences go out to those couples who now will be treated as second class citizens again. I hope you don't give up the fight and that you are successful next time.

Praying for victory

2008-11-02T07:57:00.000-08:00

I just don't understand how people can muster the cognitive dissonance to believe in a god, much less that such a being would get involved with sporting events, the price of gas, or elections. Apparently, the religious (on both sides of the aisle) are getting together to pray for their candidate of choice.

"We have just days to pray that someone who upholds the sanctity of life and marriage between one man and one woman will win," said Pam Olsen, co-pastor with her husband of the International House of Prayer in Tallahassee, Fla.

Olsen, who personally supports Republican John McCain, is organizing a marathon of prayer, fasting and Bible reading at the Capitol starting Saturday until the state's polls close.

"The outcome is up to God," she said.

First, of all, the name International House of Prayer is just hilarious. I wonder how good the pancakes are?

Secondly, I just can't understand how people can actually believe that a deity would get involved. If they are convinced that McCain is the right candidate and he loses, will their faith be changed? Did their god let them down? Or were they wrong in the first place that McCain was the right candidate? Does that mean that since God chose Obama, they'll change their minds and support his presidency? Somehow I doubt it.

Teaching Morality-absolutism or relativism?

2008-11-01T14:26:00.000-07:00

One of the main criticism of atheists and secular humanists is that we have no moral compass. Their claim often revolves around the fact that we are often moral relativists and that morality, at least for them, has to be absolute. While I do feel that there are some moral principles that would be considered "absolute", in many respects, all morality HAS to be relative. Wikipedia defines moral relativism as: the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

Can morality be both absolute AND relative? I think it can. Certain things like murder seem to considered universally wrong, but there are other things that have changed in "wrongness" according to social, cultural, historical and personal circumstances. In fact, I'd say that murder is even subject to that. For example, under Sharia law a woman can be murdered for many transgressions. However, I think that for the most part, there are things that violate human values and for all practical purposes are universal. On the other hand, there are things such as homosexuality that are considered by many, especially the religious, to be morally wrong, but by others, such as most secular humanists, to be perfectly acceptable.

How, then, do we teach morality to our children? I think the answer is teaching moral reasoning. Dale McGowan, in his blog The Meming of Life, has an excellent post on teaching moral reasoning to children.

I think that teaching rules to children certainly has a benefit, but if a child only learns the rules, how do they make moral/ethical decisions in situations where they haven't been taught a rule that covers it? Teaching moral reasoning, on the other hand, gives them the tools they need to figure things out for themselves, and that is far more valuable than teaching them a limited set of rules.

We've been working with the Love and Logic system, which I think has enormous potential for teaching moral reasoning. At the core of the system is setting boundaries and consequences in such a way that you give your children the opportunity to learn behavioral lessons not based on rules, but based on consequences. Doing it this way teaches them, in a loving and empathetic way, how to figure out correct behavior for themselves. We've only taken a few classes, but the tools we've learned have been very helpful, and I can see a ton of potential for not only handling parenting issues. but for teaching moral reasoning.

Happy Zombie Jesus Day to one and all

2008-10-31T09:19:00.000-07:00

In honor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'll be dressing up as a pirate and saying "Arrrr" a lot.

I voted

2008-10-28T12:10:00.001-07:00

Fireworks company drops parade support due to bigotry

2008-10-24T04:17:00.000-07:00

A New York fireworks company is dropping its support for a parade of decorated yachts this year because the parade organizers wanted to be more inclusive and drop the "Christmas" from the parade's name.

Fireworks by Grucci won't lend its sparkle to Patchogue's Nov. 23 parade — decorated yachts on the Patchogue River — because the organizers have renamed it the Patchogue Holiday Boat Parade. It was the Patchogue Christmas Boat Parade last year, when the Grucci company donated $5,000 worth of fireworks.

I agree with the town mayor that fireworks aren't really a Christmas thing. I also think it's ironic that the very act of adding fireworks to a "Christmas" parade secularizes the event even more, so the firworks company's own actions support the position of the parade organizers that "Christmas" time is holiday time for many different belief systems as well as us unbelievers.

How to Become an Atheist

2008-10-23T06:17:00.000-07:00

From wikihow: How to become an atheist

Step # 5:

Consider your ethics and try to understand where they come from. You don't need a god/gods to be moral. Atheists are not unethical. Like many theists, many atheists donate to charity and live lives that are morally similar to those of theists. Atheists just might have different motivations for doing so.

It's interesting that someone put the thought and consideration into this. I like the well reasoned approach, and it does describe the process I went through starting about 20 years ago.

Skeptical Parent Crossing Carnival is up

2008-10-21T12:37:00.000-07:00

The first edition of the Skeptical Parent Crossing, hosted by domestic dad, is up. Excellent content-I'm really impressed by the quality of posts here. There's some very interesting reading on critically thinking about spanking, teaching philosophy, green diapers, and more.

Welcome to the first edition of Skeptical Parent Crossing, the blog carnival about skepticism, critical thinking, and parenting. There are many aspects to being a skeptical parent, and as your Crossing Guard this month, I’m pleased to present 12 articles covering a few of them.

Humanist Sunday School

2008-10-19T06:53:00.000-07:00

I've found it quite frustrating that the secular humanist community here in Denver seems to not be interested in bringing in families. The monthly meeting is on Sunday evenings, with no childcare provided, so those of us with small children are stuck with either finding (and paying for) a babysitter, or skipping the meeting altogether. I think that there are probably quite a few people here in Denver with small children who would love to have the opportunity to meet other atheists/secular humanists, and especially those with children. It seems like a lost opportunity to not only grow the secular humanist group, but to grow it in a way that ensures a strong, healthy group in the decades to come.

One solution I've heard of before (and would love to have here) is a secular humanist "Sunday School"

In May, the American Humanist Association began a campaign to educate children of agnostics, atheists and freethinkers by creating specialized curricula. Apparently, parents who want to teach their kids to question God must be intentional about it.

I don't agree that a Secular Humanist Sunday School would be about "teaching their kids to question God", but rather to instill Secular Humanist values of critical thinking, community service, and the "Eight Commitments to Ethical Culture".

The model described in the Washington Times sounds promising. I like this:

"We focus on discussion-based moral education for kids that is not based on a belief and a god," she says. "We do teach about various world religions in a way that will let kids come to their own conclusions."

Perhaps it's time to "be the change you want to see" and see if I can organize something similar.

Why Roseanne Cash Would be a Better VP than Sarah Palin

2008-10-17T13:28:00.000-07:00

I had no idea that Roseanne Cash was still around, much less that she was a pretty talented writer. At The Nation, she tells us why she'd be a better Veep than Sarah Palin.

An excerpt:

I know Governor Palin has one distinct advantage in living so close to Russia, in that she can keep a close eye on nefarious activity across the Bering Strait, but I, too, live very close to a foreign country. Canada is less than 400 miles from my home in New York City, and you never know when it might become necessary to invade a sovereign nation that has not attacked us, as we learned the hard way. Not only that, I have a girlfriend in Austin, Texas, whom I'm going to ask to keep an eye on Mexico.

iTunes Podcast find

2008-10-14T16:16:00.000-07:00

Just found this today-published just around the corner from me in Aurora, CO.

Peanut Butter-the Atheist's Nightmare!

2008-10-14T11:38:00.000-07:00

Well, I guess I'll have to start believing in God now, since the clear and concise logic of this video clearly destroys the arguments of atheism.

102nd Carnival of the Godless is up

2008-10-12T10:48:00.000-07:00

The newest edition of the Carnival of the Godless is up at Division by Zero.

This post on Antimattr has been included!

John Cleese on Hanity

2008-10-09T09:27:00.000-07:00

Ode to Sean Hannity
by John Cleese

Aping urbanity
Oozing with vanity
Plump as a manatee
Faking humanity
Journalistic calamity
Intellectual inanity
Fox Noise insanity
You’re a profanity
Hannity

As read by Keith Olberman last night on Countdown.

Pro Lifer calls opponents to Colorado Amendment 48 illogical, and my irony meter explodes

2008-10-09T06:25:00.000-07:00

Found in this post, which is taken from this site, although I couldn't find that article there.

The state of Colorado will soon be voting on Amendment 48, The Personhood Amendment. From the Colorado for Equal Rights website:
"The Personhood Amendment will see that the Colorado state constitution is amended to include pre-born from the moment of fertilization as having their 'personhood' clearly established, so that they may enjoy inalienable rights, equality of justice and equal protection under the law."

so far, so good. can't really dispute that.

Now, it's important to clarify that the Personhood Amendment does not change the constitution in any way.

By definition, an amendment does change the constitution. It also makes it much more difficult to change than passing a law in the state legislature, which is, I'm sure, the main reason the anti-choice crowd is pushing for it to be an amendment.

It merely clarifies the definition of a 'person' as beginning at fertilization. Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception. This means that the moment an egg is fertilized by a sperm, it brings into existence a zygote, which is a genetically distinct human being. This isn't biased information. These are basic, indisputable biological facts that have been affirmed by medical professionals worldwide for decades.

(emphasis mine). First of all, "merely" is bullshit. That would be a fundamental change in the way our legal system works regarding women, pregnancy, and medical care. Secondly, they provide no sources for their "indisputable biological facts". In reality, there is no consensus among doctors, scientists, are anyone else. In 1989, an amici curiae brief prepared for the Supreme Court case of William Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 167 scientists and physicians, including twelve Nobel laureates, argued:

There is no scientific consensus that a human life begins at conception, at a given stage of fetal development, or at birth. The question of "when a human life begins" cannot be answered by reference to scientific principles like those with which we predict planetary movement. The answer to tha question will depend on each individual's social, religious, philosophical, ethical, and moral beliefs and values.

so, where are these "indisputable facts"?

With the tantrums being thrown by pro-aborts, it's amazing to think that this 'attack on women's health', as they deem it, is merely an attempt to keep our laws updated with modern science. Establishing medical facts pertaining to the development of the preborn is no more an attack on women's health than challenging the flat earth theory is an attack on nautical travel.

Using the word "tantrum" is an ad hominem attack with no bearing on the issue. However, I agree with keeping our laws updated with modern science. It's just that science and medical facts do not agree with the anti-choice crowd. For the record, no one is "pro abortion". I contend that people who call themselves "pro life" are anything but pro life. They care about a collection of cells more than the life of the mother, the life of the doctor, or anything else.

We would do well to remind our pro-abort friends who love to paint themselves as the picture of modern progression, that to ignore the advance of medical science is archaic, antediluvian, and (dare we say it?) intolerant.
For a group of people who love to discredit their opposition by claiming to be above uninformed, religious opinion, it's amazing to watch their persistent ignorance to the basic biological and medical facts of prenatal development. Who would have thought that in the 21st century, fairly intelligent individuals would persist in rejecting science, in the face of strong evidence, so that they can sit back comfortably in their subjective, faith-based worldview that killing a child is the equivalent of pulling a tooth?

Again, they make claims about these "medical facts", yet fail to cite a single example of any. Claiming that evidence exists without showing it is demonstrating a "lack of logic" on their part.

Seriously, just think about what voting No on Amendment 48 entails. What you are being asked to do is to ignore the advancements of medical and biological science to placate the subjective political opinions and faith based claims of a group of individuals. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the definition of "Faith" is, "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Since the statement, "a fetus isn't a child" is not based on any tangible data, and in fact goes contrary to all established evidence - it is quite literally a faith statement. It is an opinion. It is not grounded in reality.

This is just one more example of the religious right lying and accusing their opponents of what they are the ones doing. Science has consistently said that there's no consensus on the beginning of personhood, and you can't find many anti-choicers who are not motivated purely by religion.

When you listen to pro-aborts sputtering out nonsense about "a fetus is just a formless blob", "it's the woman's body", etc.. you are listening to faith statements that directly oppose the most fundamental precepts of medical knowledge. You must willingly adopt ignorance and become intellectually handicapped to believe the faith statements dehumanizing the fetus. And they call us the extremists?

yes, you are extremists because you try to force your religious views on the rest of us. Opposed to abortion? Don't have one. Perhaps instead of indulging in lying, distorting the facts and forcing your religion on everyone else, you should invest your time in properly educating young people in sex education and teaching them about contraception. (I realize that it's not just teens and the younger crowd who have abortions, but they are the easiest for the religious right to intimidate).

What kind of sad society is it where the self-appointed intellectual elite are in essence saying, "The Personhood Amendment, where accepting the facts of elementary school science make you an extremist!"

Again, show me the science.

The question of when life begins isn't relative. It is clearly definable in terms of science.

Correct. Life began about 4.5 billion years ago.

To keep a belief grounded in the elusive playground of 'what's right for me' is not progressive. It does not a benefit womens health. The only way anyone can justify voting no on 48, is to deny the medical facts, or to admit that abortion is the act of ending a human life. Not too many individuals seem to be overly fond of openly admitting support for mass child murder, so anti-life groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL are ready to spew out lies and deceptions to prevent Colorado from catching up with fifth grade biology.

This is utterly false. Again, they mention medical facts without citing them. They also accuse Planned Parenthood and NARAL of lies in deception in the same sentence that they spew nothing but lies and deception. Typical right wing behavior.

This really is an intellectual war. Not counting Colorado pro-lifers, you have to realize that your state is essentially made up of two groups of people. Those who are uninformed or misinformed when it comes to the medical facts of personhood, and those who remain willfully ignorant of the medical facts of personhood. One group is being deceived by the other.

This is correct, but I strongly disagree which group is willfully ignorant.

Your job as an activist taking a stand for life is to clear the fog. Tell it like it is. This is literally a case of faith vs. science.

Yes, it is a case of science vs. faith. Your faith vs. the science that says no consensus exists about the beginning of personhood.

And since our opposition pride themselves on being scientifically savvy and morally progressive, let's ask them: If you are so progressive and science-minded, then why are you opposed to catching our laws up to date with medical science?

The laws already are caught up with medical science. You're trying to roll the legal system back to medieval times.

Be blunt. Be bold. Write letters to the editor. Challenge advertisements and opinion columns that are openly stating falsehoods and anti-life fabrications. Get the word out. Here's the nitty-gritty: Like toddler and adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development. And stage of development does not alter human worth. The pre-born are undeniably human and as such deserve equal rights. It really is that simple!

No, it isn't that simple. One of the main problems I have with religion is that it turns every issue into a black-and-white, "simple" problem with only one clear answer. The problem is, religious people can't agree with what those simple answers should be. Life is never simple, and issues like abortion are particularly complex. To pretend otherwise is dumbing down the issue.

As pro-life activists, it is irritating lacking the funds to get the truth out, especially when we're up against a behemoth of lies. However, unlike our opposition, we don't have to exhaust our limited resources in fixing up lies into believable little pills for the public to swallow. All we have to do is tell it like it is. Let's remove politics and religion from the equation and look at this for what it is.. the acknowledgment of established biological fact.
I know I've repeated this to the point of redundancy, but this is the only way we'll get through to the masses: We play by their rules. You want to protect women? You despise primitive faith-based rhetoric? Good! The hypocrisy stops here. Let's close our Bibles and open our biology textbooks. Modern science is very clear and concise on when human life begins. Once the fog is cleared, I think the masses will agree.. in light of medical science I personally don't have enough faith to pretend that a preborn child is the equivalent of a pulled tooth.
- Gingi Edmonds

Again, show me this modern science of which you speak. If it were so cut and dried, scientists and doctors all over the world would be jumping on the anti-choice bandwagon. Nonsense such as Gingi Edonds is spewing makes me want to beat my head against the wall. Willful ignorance like this needs to fought tooth and nail to preserve our constitutional rights.

Hilarious

2008-10-08T10:48:00.000-07:00

I've seen a bunch of these, but being the geek that I am, couldn't resist posting the Star Wars version.

I'm a Mavrik How About You?

2008-10-08T07:55:00.000-07:00

original image here.

Stupidity really should be painful.

h/t to Stupid Evil Bastard

Oh, the Inanity

2008-10-08T05:46:00.000-07:00

The "War on Christmas" strawman appears earlier and earlier each year. The absurdity of that claim always amuses me, but I also find it utterly bewildering how Christians can have such a persecution complex when they comprise over 75% of the population of the US, control all but one seat in Congress, dominate the military, and have managed to get prayer instituted into schools under the guise of the Pledge of Allegiance. (Yes, I realize that landoverbaptist.org is satire, but I invoke Poe's Law and state that it sounds an awful lot like some of the rhetoric spewed by the religious right).

In this post about a "Christmas Controbersy" [sic] claims:

I am providing evidence of the Secular Progressive (or Secular Liberal Atheist) actions against the traditional celebration of Christmas.

Yet there is no proof (or even evidence) in that post that "SPs" or "SLAs" are out to ruin his/her precious Christmas. This idea that if you can't make everyone agree with you, you're being persecuted is growing tiresome. Instead of making a decent case for the argument, the author just reposts an article from a couple years back and expects us to believe that the EAC is out to eliminate every aspect of religion in America.

I'm not sure how to get across to these people that we're not out to destroy their faith or force atheism on anyone, but we want respect, tolerance and inclusion. Much of the so-called "War on Christmas" seems to be the decision of many corporations and governments to acknowledge that Christmas is not the only holiday celebrated at the end of the year. We live in a very diverse country with many cultural and religious traditions, almost all of which have some sort of end-of-year celebration, and it just makes good economic sense for businesses to use the phrase "Happy Holidays" rather than ignoring those other traditions, or else spending more money to create signs and advertising for Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Christmas, Winter Solstice, Festivus (for the rest of us), Saturnalia, Chrismahanukwanzakah, Boxing Day, Yule, Bodhi Day, or any of the other myriad winter festivals celebrated here.

Whining when they don't receive special privilege in the public sphere and claiming that it's discrimination or suppression just makes them look foolish. The author of that post also says:

We do not hear outcries from Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists within this country to reduce the amount of Santa Clauses roaming around, it is mostly being protested by angry atheists who just really do not like conservatives and religious people, so everything gets screwed for the moderates that just want to enjoy the season.

Personally, I don't know any atheists who are any angrier than people of any other worldview. In fact, it's always the Christians who are declaring that they're at "war" about something, then claiming that we atheists are "militant".

For the record, I personally don't care what you call it, or how you celebrate it, or if you celebrate it. Many atheists, myself included, do celebrate "Christmas", it's just not about the alleged birth of Jesus. For me, it's about looking back over the past year, coming together as a family and celebrating the love we have for each other. We put up a tree, decorate with lights, exchange gifts, have a nice meal and generally do the same things as a Christian would, except our decorations are all winter/snowflake themed, our tree is decorated with ornaments that we find nostalgic or meaningful (our favorites include ornaments from the classic Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer TV show) and our gifts are wrapped in non-religious wrapping paper.

Interesting comic

2008-10-04T07:46:00.001-07:00

This is a great analogy of religion, from my point of view

Another example of the absurdity of religion

2008-10-04T06:50:00.000-07:00

A group of parents in Massena, NY want yoga removed from the school their children attend, because yoga is linked to Hinduism, and they feel that rather than helping the children relax, teaching yoga is causing the children "stress and confusion". I seriously doubt that there's any religion involved in the yoga instruction at those schools, and to make that claim is utterly absurd. How about if we prevent schools from ever serving crackers, since Catholics do that as part of their religious ceremonies? Most Christian churches sing and play music-should we remove music from schools now, too?

This is just an absurd claim and I'm surprised that someone hasn't called them on it. I practice yoga occasionally, and have found nothing religious about it. I'm sure there are some teachers who do incorporate religion into it, but it sounds like that school district has provided yoga instruction only involving movement and breathing. Last time I checked, those were not religious activities.

What makes me sad is that more than likely, those parents will be successful in getting a beneficial activity removed from that school because of their narrow-minded interpretation and desire for special privileges for Christianity.

They might as well not even bother...

2008-10-02T14:51:00.000-07:00

Now that a psychic has called the debate:

Psychics: Stars not aligned for Palin

Well-known psychic Elizabeth Joyce has doubts there will be an election this November. Her instincts tell her that, come next week, there might be “rioting in the streets and martial law” and that President Bush will henceforth carry out his term indefinitely.

But that’s next week. Tonight, there’s a vice presidential debate. And Joyce’s predicted outcome runs closer to conventional wisdom on the much-anticipated matchup between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. She believes that the debate will ultimately go a long way in determining the next president, and that Biden will take the day so long as he doesn’t push her too much.

First John McCain predicts his win before the first debate, and now this. It's proving to be quite the psychic election.

Atheist folk musician

2008-10-01T05:17:00.000-07:00

Paul Martin is an atheist and musician with some interesting work.

http://web.mac.com/pj_martin/Aspiring_Atheist/Happy_Heathen_CD.html

A sample of lyrics:

I learned to question everything, so from your grace I fell
I once was lost but then I found, there is no road to hell
This road is paved with logic, reason, science and good sense
No more superstition, no more brainwashed dissidence

Barack Obama's Ghastly Ghetto of Demoncratic Terror!

2008-09-30T04:26:00.000-07:00

I love landoverbaptist.org

Room 1 - A Lilly-White Family Gets Taxed to Death– A normal Christian (white) husband comes home from work to sit down to dinner with his family. Obama is speaking on the television set in the living room.

Poe's Law certainly holds true here. When I first found the site years ago, I couldn't tell that it was satire.

Excellent article in the Arizona Daily Wildcat

2008-09-27T07:22:00.000-07:00

Arizona Daily Wildcat

Dear atheists: I know you pride yourselves on being the most rationally-minded people. You reject major religions and gods on the basis of a lack of evidence. But many of the beliefs you hold are disappointingly irrational, superstitious - even religious. Some of you almost make me ashamed to call myself an atheist. Almost.

Excellent article by a student. Some of the comments are a bit harsh, but I actually agree with him and approve of his tone. Personally, I've met a few atheists (such as my wife) who are not entirely skeptical when it comes to some things like psychic phenomena and reincarnation, and while I certainly respect anyone's right to believe whatever they want, I just can't wrap my head around believing in something that either has no evidence supporting it or directly contradicts the available evidence.

One of the commenters there made an excellent point: atheism and rationalsim are not the same thing. I suppose it has a lot to do with how one comes to be an atheist. If you've made the journey by investigating, discussing, reading, etc. and come to the conclusion from a logical, evidentiary process, are you more likely to be skeptical of the paranormal and/or supernatural?

I do think it's important to look inward as well as outward and be as skeptical of our fellow atheists as were are of theists. Irrational beliefs are, well, irrational and should be called as such.

Smarmy Colson well refuted in comments

2008-09-26T10:15:00.000-07:00

In this post at morganton.com, an "advertisement" touting The Faith by Charles Colson (one of the Watergate Seven), it says:

In his recent release, "The Faith," Charles Colson tells of an interesting encounter while attending a dinner the night before a governor's prayer breakfast.

"The gentleman seated next to me greeted me with a blunt warning that he was an atheist. I looked at him for a moment — graying temples, a wise expression, handsomely attired — the very image of a community leader. I told him I was glad to sit next to him because 'I've never really met an atheist.'

As his eyebrows arched, I explained, 'An atheist believes the existence of God can be disproved. So please, tell me how you've done that.'

A poster named pagoo posted a very well written reply (see the article itself and scroll down to the post by pagoo to read the whole post):

Seven months was not enough time for Mr. Colson to have spent in a cell. As Nixon's hatchet man he used to tell lies for a living. Not much has changed since he went religious. His story above, as so many of the stories he likes to tell, is so palpably untrue it is a wonder anyone treats him with any respect at all.

I've seen this type of story many times on atheist message boards and forums. Some theist claims to have met some mysterious atheist who "self identifies" as an atheist, and is then promptly put in their philosophical place by one allegedly sound theist argument.

It does get tiresome. I have yet to hear of an atheist who actually exists spontaneously telling everyone that they're an atheist. Generally, even those atheists who are "out" to everyone in their lives don't go around advertising about it. For one thing, it seems just plain weird. You don't generally see theists introducing themselves "Hi, I'm Bob and I'm a Baptist". If you do, they're generally more than a little nutty and looking for a good argument. The second thing is, any atheist willing to "self identify" like that would be more than prepared to argue their position, and I seriously doubt that an atheist would ever say that they hadn't really thought about their philosophical position.

Christians oppose their children being forced to pray to Allah

2008-09-25T06:04:00.000-07:00

Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.

Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.

They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights.

Granted, that happened in England, but can you imagine the uproar if it happened here? And yet, Christians have no problem trying to force children to ~~pray~~ say the pledge every morning at school.

Fungible commodities and flagging, you know, the molecules,

2008-09-24T12:52:00.000-07:00

I missed this statement by the illustrious GOP VP candiate:

Oil and coal? Of course, it's a fungible commodity and they don't flag, you know, the molecules, where it's going and where it's not.

Can you say "incoherent"? I knew you could. Yet again, she demonstrates that she's pretty ignorant on most national issues, especially energy, in spite of McCain saying that Sarah "knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America." Although, given how easily he lies these days, it's no surprise that he'd lie through his teeth about that. The problem is that he's just not very good at lying-he keeps lying about easily checked facts and getting caught. Unfortunately, it seems most of the voting public is a little slow catching on, or perhaps they just don't care. I know that some distortion of the truth is inevitable whenever there's a political race, but, as has been noted by just about everyone now, when Karl Rove says you're stretching the truth too far, you might want to reexamine your messaging.

Anyhoo, back to intrepid "energy expert". Want to bet that she had never heard the word "fungible" before last week? Just exactly how could you "flag molecules", anyway?

Sam Harris on Sarah Palin or, When Atheists Attack

2008-09-21T09:44:00.000-07:00

Sam Harris has a really good article on the dangers of Sarah Palin as the GOP's VP nomination: When Atheists Attack.

I disagree with him that her convention speech was "most effective political communication I have ever witnessed", but I think the rest of the article is quite good.

One of my biggest concerns about her has been her utter ignorance on anything other than field dressing a moose, and Sam points this out:

Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth.

She scares me, not because, as the right has tried to convince us, that she's a new kind of feminist and we are afraid of strong women, but because she is not only ignorant about most, if not all, matters of political importance in our country, but seems to revel in that ignorance, as do her supporters.

I'm completely flummoxed by the stance that anyone would not want the most intelligent, educated and prepared candidate possible in the White House, whether it's in the West Wing or the East Wing. Her "you can't blink" stance terrifies me. The first and second most powerful people in the work have a responsibility to "blink" and make considered, informed decisions. The McCain/Palin ticket has amply demonstrated that they prefer to make last minute decisions based on what they already "know" to be true. This kind of thinking, it seems to me, comes from a religious background. Not that we atheists are immune to our own biases, but the shutting down of intellectual curiousity, the tendency to reject evidence that disagrees with your personal beliefs, and the sense that differing points of view are always wrong seems to be linked strongly to conservative religious belief.

Rampant hypocrisy in the conservative camp seems to me to also be linked to conservative religious beliefs:

Many writers have noted the many shades of conservative hypocrisy on view here: when Jamie Lynn Spears gets pregnant, it is considered a symptom of liberal decadence and the breakdown of family values; in the case of one of Palin's daughters, however, teen pregnancy gets reinterpreted as a sign of immaculate, small-town fecundity.

I don't believe that cognitive dissonance is limited to the religious right, but it does seem to be much more pravalent, and is in fact a core part of bringing up children in a conservative religion. It just amazes me that they don't see the hypocrisy, but I guess at this point, it shouldn't.

Of all the things Sam says about her, this frightens me the most:

Her supporters know that while she cannot afford to "talk the talk" between now and Nov. 4, if elected, she can be trusted to "walk the walk" until the Day of Judgment.

With McCain and Palin already demonstrating how easy lying comes to them, I suspect that we won't hear much about Palin's extreme religious views until it's too late (if they win).

I just hope our nation starts seeing past the lies and cover-ups soon.

Atheist Blogroll

2008-09-20T14:54:00.000-07:00

Antimattr has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

Colorado Amendment 48

2008-09-20T07:49:00.000-07:00

The Coalition for Secular Government has published a paper on Colorado Amendment 48

The Summary of the measure states:

Amendment 48 proposes a change to the state constitution that defines the term person to include any human being from the moment of fertilization. This definition is applied to the sections of the Colorado Constitution that protect the natural and essential rights of persons, allow open access to courts for every person, and ensure that no person has his or her life, liberty, or property taken away without the due process of law.

This is an absurd measure pushed by the religious right without thought of the ultimate consequences. As the Coalition for Secular Government puts it:

Amendment 48 seeks to define a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights in Colorado’s constitution. If fully implemented, it would profoundly and adversely impact the lives of sexually-active couples, couples seeking children, pregnant women, doctors, and medical researchers, subjecting them to severe legal restrictions, police controls, protracted court battles, and criminal punishments.

Amendment 48 would outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, terminally deformed fetuses, and danger to the woman’s health. The measure might or might not allow abortions in cases of extreme risk to the woman’s life; either way, it would endanger the lives and health of many women. In conjunction with existing statutes, Amendment 48 would subject women and their doctors to first-degree murder charges for willfully terminating a pregnancy, with the required punishment of life in prison or the death penalty.

The impact of Amendment 48 would extend far beyond abortion into the personal corners of every couple’s reproductive life. It would outlaw many forms of birth control, likely including the pill. It would require criminal investigation of any miscarriages deemed suspicious. The measure also would ban potentially life-saving stem-cell research and many popular fertility treatments.

Amendment 48 rests on the absurdity that a fertilized egg is a full human person with an absolute right to biological life-support from a woman—regardless of her choices and whatever the cost to her. The biological facts support a different view, namely that personhood and rights begin at birth. Colorado law should reflect those objective biological facts, not the Bible verses so often quoted by advocates of Amendment 48.

I agree completely with them. This amendment, while not specifically outlawing things such as birth control, opens the door to some pretty scary possibilities for the religious right to push through state legislation that could dramatically impact the lives of women. I think it's vitally important to fight this anti-choice agenda.

Also, since more than 25% of conceptions end in spontaneous abortion (also called miscarriages), shouldn't the religious right consider their god a horrible murderer? The lack of logic in their positions just astounds me. Not only that, but I suspect that most of the backers of Amendment 48 are also pro death penalty, and all for cutting social programs that benefit children. They care about you until you're born, but after that you're on your own.

Arrr!

2008-09-19T05:14:00.001-07:00

Avast matey! It be International Talk like a Pirate Day! Hoist a pint o' grog te yer mates and give 'em a good Arrr! If ye lubbers cannae speechify like a true pirate, ye'll be walkin' the plank! Arrr!

Idiot blames liberals for everything

2008-09-19T05:14:00.000-07:00

I have a google alert for Colorado atheism, and because this idiot blames liberals and atheists for everything, it came up in my alert.

an excerpt:

Before closing I should want to mention that liberals are even more guilty of inciting violence than liberals. Take a trip to certain liberal forums and you will find them advocating violence everywhere. At Democratic Underground for example, there were posts advocating the assassination of Bush, as well as the murder of columnist Michelle Malkin. They even posted her address and a satellite photo of her residence. Go to liberal rallies and see the violence for yourself. They advocate killing anyone who disagrees with them. (Also view my past article stories of left wing tolerance in Maine) A friend of mine went to a peace rally in Portsmouth NH that advocated violence against those who were pro American and pro Israel. One of the participants was a skin head he had gone to school with who stated that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Mossad and that Jews flew the planes in the WTC.

In addition Liberals advocate abortion, the murder of unborn children, they advocate environmental laws that restrict economic growth and cause famines and poverty in the developing world, they advocate restricting the sale of firearms to defenseless victims making them even more defenseless. Criminals regardless get guns anyway. Liberals support Our enemies and support our surrendering the war. Clearly liberals are a true threat.

He, like so many of the far right, seems to enjoy making sweeping generalizations and blaming anyone who doesn't agree with his political or religious point of view instead of taking responsibility for his own actions. Yes, there are crazy people who have liberal points of view, and yes, occasionally someone with a supposedly atheistic worldview does something heinous. However, the number of people committing atrocities in the name of their invisible sky daddy far, far exceeds those of atheists. How many children have died because their parents refused medical care, trying to pray their illness away? How many children have been killed in recent years because of attempts at "exorcism"? The simplistic views expressed here are typical of conservatives-blame liberals for everything, when they've been in charge of the country almost all of the past eight years, and we've see our national debt skyrocket due to conservative political practices, they've started an unnecessary war, and they insist on calling anyone who doesn't agree with them an "enemy".

Top 10 Conservative Idiots no. 351

2008-09-18T10:39:00.001-07:00

This is Hilarious!!!!

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 351

from democraticunderground.com

The Politics of Misinformation

2008-09-16T12:21:00.000-07:00

Here's a very interesting article about the cognitive dissonance surrounding politics. I've been convinced of this for a while, but it's very interesting to see hard science on it. People choose their beliefs and then cherry-pick facts and information to support those beliefs. The more your self-concept is wrapped up in those beliefs, the more likely it is that not only will you not change your beliefs, but contradictory evidence actually makes your belief stronger:

But a series of new experiments show that misinformation can exercise a ghostly influence on people's minds after it has been debunked -- even among people who recognize it as misinformation. In some cases, correcting misinformation serves to increase the power of bad information.

h/t to The Frontal Cortex

Atheist accused of threat may face more charges

2008-09-16T12:08:00.000-07:00

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo Colorado Springs authorities are considering more charges against an atheist accused of threatening to behead two women with a knife because they are Christians.

This seems like a pretty bigoted statement to me. Yes, it appears that the man was an atheist, but really, the issue is that he seems to be mentally disturbed and happens to be an atheist. If he had been a Christian and attacked Muslims for their beliefs, the article would undoubtedly be more about his psychological issues, rather than his belief (or lack thereof).

Day One

2008-09-13T18:31:00.000-07:00

This my first post here. I'll be blogging about atheism, politics, and anything else that catches my attention.