Monthly Archive for May, 2007Page 3 of 4

Cristina Odone on Richard Dawkins

Published

on May 15, 2007

In last Sunday's Observer there was a short article in the Comment section by Cristina Odone. Called "Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins", it discusses the conversation she had with Dawkins whilst in the country. He started off by proposing a hypothetical dilemma,

"You are on a deserted beach with a rifle, an elephant and a baby. This is the last elephant on earth and it is charging the baby. Do you shoot the elephant, knowing the species would become extinct?".

She replied that she would shoot the elephant, at which:

"He was outraged by my answer: man, beast, they were all the same to him and the priority must be to protect the endangered species. He berated me for my foolish belief in the specialness of humanity for its soul".

To be honest I disagree with Dawkins here merely for the fact if the elephant is the last of its species then it is extinct anyway, but I feel he was merely trying to make a point about the human centric view many people take.

However later on in the article things take a turn. She admonishes Dawkins, as well as Christopher Hitchens and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for their "secularist extremism". First, what the hell is "secularist extremism", no special treatment; to the extreme? Obviously she is merely trying to use word with obvious religious overtones, a technique which seems endemic among those who criticise the critical. She continues to do this in the article for example: "the tenets of Dawkins dogma", "Dawkins is not the only world-famous apologist of secularist extremism" and "The rabid attacks by Dawkins and his camp-followers".

However I find this particular part extremely telling so I will quote it in full. I apologise for the repeats.

"Dawkins is not the only world-famous apologist of secularist extremism. Christopher Hitchens is similarly critical of religion; so is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch MP who received death threats for her criticism of Islam. But Hitchens and Ali now operate primarily in America, a nation where 95 per cent of citizens believe in God and church attendance is growing, not dwindling. They can jab God and his followers, but theirs is only a faint note of discord, overwhelmed by the church choir." (My emphasis)

Evidently it seems anybody who criticises religion is a secularist extremist! And yet there is no such condemnation of the death threats Ayaan Hirsi Ali received. Does this not seem backwards? Why is criticism of religion seen as such an extreme action, comparable with acts of mass murder (*2)? This is even more irritating as after having recently watched the second episode of 'A rough history of disbelief', which I thoroughly recommend, I learnt that three or four hundreds years ago, I would have been executed for 'Atheism and disbelief'. Is this not insane, that these old portents of horrific intolerance are forgotten so quick, in the rush to brand any person who has a differing opinion on religion as a bigot?

Odone then goes on about how this 'faith-bashing' is extremely damaging in Britain as belief is a minority practice and believers a persecuted lot. Because the religious are so downtrodden that they have to scuttle around in fear of persecution. What rubbish. A case could be made for an increase discrimination against Muslims in Britain, but that is a complex issue I will no doubt address in a later post. No what this really is about is religious people like Odone not getting the respect they crave. Any differing view is just bigotry disguised in logical arguments.

Finally she states that if it wasn't for religious "persecutors" like Dawkins, the religious:

"would see no need for hard-line posturing. They would once again feel like ordinary citizens rather than a hunted species that must bare its fangs to survive."

I have no idea in what way believers are a hunted species. This is hardly Nazi Germany, where believers are made to wear their religious icons sewn into their clothes (though many choose to wear identifiers by choice). Maybe she is confusing the lessening of belief in this country to an actual attempt at extermination of belief. And the idea that without Dawkins suddenly every believer would become a religious moderate is just laughable. Where was the Afghani Dawkins to force the Taliban to "bare its fangs to survive"?

Really, the unwilling nature of religion to actually deal with criticism is beyond belief. If believers want to float their exotic ideas about how life should be run and the wills and powers of god(s), they should be prepared with some well thought out rational arguments to respond. As well as some evidence. Just labelling criticism as intolerance is asking for special treatment, which is one thing this "secularist extremist" is wholeheartedly against, for any idea.

Links:

* 1 - Original Article
* 2 - See third paragraph

Hardesty, Oklahoma — Home of the Ugly Christian

Published

Abacquer

on May 14, 2007

In another example of fundie Christian love and acceptance, a 13 year old girl in Hardesty, Oklahoma is now being homeschooled after having been basically run out of school by the local knuckledraggers. Please watch this video.

You're a brave girl Nicole. Sorry for what you went through. You should come live in Massachusetts. We have plenty of religious nuts here too, but the area is pretty liberal, and therefore most of the Christians I know actually behave like Christians.

Carm.org – Cults!

Published

Is There a God?

on May 13, 2007

I made the mistake of going to Carm.org again and looking through their arguments for Christianity. One of the pages there is on cults and presumably intended to help differentiate between Christianity and a cult. The problem is that reading through their explanation of what makes a cult they are almost perfectly defining Christianity.

So let’s take a look.

What is a cult?
A. Generally, it is a group that is unorthodox, esoteric, and has a devotion to a person, object, or a set of new ideas.

Think about any serious Christian you know, not just somebody that goes to church but one that is very serious about their beliefs. Are they devoted to Jesus? Are they devoted to the cross? Are they devoted to the teachings of Christ? To me that is a very unorthodox viewpoint.

i. New Teaching – has a new theology and doctrine

At the time that Jesus, assuming he existed, was walking around the Middle East his teachings were new.

ii. Only True Teaching – often considers traditional religious systems to be apostate and it alone possess the complete truth

No one shall come to the father except through me. Sound familiar? Heck, many Christians refer to Christianity as “the Truth”. Wouldn’t a Christian consider Islam apostate?

iii. Strong Leadership – often an individual or small but powerful leadership group holds control over the group’s teaching and practices.

This one seems to apply more to Catholicism than Protestant Christianity, but even the Protestant groups have deacons, pastors, and other groups within the church that hold power. And they are certainly in leadership positions.

Even for those churches that welcome members to read the Bible on their own and claim that they’d like members to come to their own conclusions the pastor leads sermons with what they want to say.

iv. Asset Acquirement – often requires tithing and / or property transfer to the religious system.

I can’t believe they even listed this one. Have you ever been to a church that didn’t at least pass around a offering plate? I’ve been to some that station a deacon on the door to guilt you into giving on the way out the door.

Building funds, mission funds, they’re all giving your property to the religious system. Sure, they may say your giving back to God based on how He blessed you, but I’m pretty sure that bank account that my checks were getting deposited into didn’t have Yahweh as a signor.

v. Isolationist – to facilitate control over the members physically, intellectually, financially, and emotionally

Church camps for the kids. Sunday school instead of little league. I was told to stay away from friends that aren’t Christian. Sounds pretty isolating to me.

vi. Controlling – exercises control over the members. Sometimes this is through fear, threatening loss of salvation if you leave the group. Sometimes through indoctrination.

Control through fear. Like the fear of death? Like the fear of not seeing your dead loved ones again? Like the fear of Hell?

Loss of salvation. How many times have you heard that if you’re not a Christian now you never were a Christian?

vii. Indoctrination – possesses methods to reinforce the cult’s beliefs and standards where opposing views are ridiculed and often misrepresented.

Ever hear a Christian explain evolution? “Why are there still monkeys” or “banana being perfectly formed for human consumption” both sound terrible misrepresented.

viii. Apocalyptic – to give the members a future focus and philosophical purpose in avoiding the apocalypse or being delivered through it.

Come on! Read the Book of Revelations? The entire point of being Christian is so that when the world ends you’re not left here with the sinners.

ix. Experience – various practices including meditation, repetition of words and / or phrases, and ‘spiritual’ enlightenment with God are used as confirmation of their truth.
a – Deprivation – sleep and foot deprivation which weakens the will of the subject.
b – This is uncommon, though practices by more severe cults.

“Repetition of words and / or phrases”. Like the Lord’s Prayer? I can’t count how many times I had to repeat John 3:16. And the line between silently praying and meditation is so thin it’s almost absent.

And how about the deprivation of dating, sex, alcohol, dancing, and fun? I feel that I missed out on a lot during my time as a Christian.

x. Persecution – predictions of being persecuted and often combined with claiming any opposing views demonstrated against them as a form of persecution.

You’ve got to be kidding me. If you listen to the average Christian they are the most persecuted people on the earth. Hell, the Bible even says they’ll be persecuted. And I’ve heard that “gay rights” is persecutory against Christians.

B. Many have a non-verifiable belief system
i . For example, they would teach something that cannot be verified.

Like man formed from dirt, woman formed from his rib, a guy living in a fish for 3 days, a pregnant virgin, fitting 2 (or 7 depending on the verse) of each animal on a boat?

a. A space ship behind Hale-Bop comet

Or a executed prisoner coming to life.

b. Or, that God, and alien, or angel appeared to the leader and gave him a revelation

So Joseph Smith is out but apparently if God had given him 10 commandments on 2 stone tablets instead of gold plates then it’s real.

c. The members are seeded angels from another world, etc.

Or that members were created from dirt.

C. The leader of a cult

i. Often charismatic who is considered very special for varying reasons:

a. The leader has received special revelation from God.

Like stone tablets.

b. The leader claims to be the incarnation of a deity, angel, or special messenger.

Like claiming to be the messiah.

The leader claims to be appointed by God for a mission.

Like to die for all of mankind’s sins.

The leader claims to have special abilities.

Like healing lepers and walking on water.

ii. The leader is often above reproach and is not to be denied on contradicted.

So the leader could, for example, molest preteen boys and not be prosecuted for it? Oh wait, that happens already.

D. Cult ethos
i. Usually seek to do good works, otherwise no on would join them.

How dare a non-Christian do something good for the planet. Next thing you know there might be friendly Jews and Muslims giving to charity. Just imagine. The world would end.

ii. They are usually moral and possess a good standard of ethical teaching.

I’ve heard dozens, if not more, Christians claim that without God there are no ethics and morals.

iii. Many times the Bible is used or additional “scriptures” are penned.

a. The Bible, if used, is always distorted with private interpretations.

So if somebody names Strong has an interpretation it is correct but if Joseph Smith’s interpretations are wrong? How am I supposed to know if the pastor in the pulpit’s interpretation is right or wrong?

iv. Many Cults recruit Jesus as one of their own and redefine him accordingly.

Not totally on topic, but I love that they capitalized “Cult” on this one.

Every Christian denomination claims Jesus. Which denominations are right and which are cults?

Ok, I’ve got to stop for now. I’ll come back to this in a couple of days. I really wasn’t expecting that every single line that Carm is trying to apply to a cult would apply to Christianity as well.

Travel, Talk, and Holes in the Dike

Published

David W.

on May 12, 2007

Travel over the last couple of days has been lovely. None of us had ever seen the southwest, and we've been really enjoying ourselves -- despite the thermometer hitting 108 today. We drove from Kansas City, through Oklahoma, through the Texas panhandle, and into New Mexico on the first day. We stayed in a historic Route 66 motel and had a great time (other than my daughter doing a face-plant on the sidewalk, creating an unsightly set of scrapes and bruises on her face -- just in time for her flower-girl wedding photos!). The next day we finished the ride to Phoenix, and got to take a few side trips.

The first place we stopped at was the Petrified Forest national park and painted desert. We've also stopped at the Red Rocks state park in Sedona, AZ. Both places were well worth a little hike. We slung the kids on our backs and just had a great time. I sometimes feel guilty at how little of this fabulous planet I've seen. After this trip, I feel a bit better.

Another exciting advanced I've made on this trip is regarding religious discussion with my wife. The events I discussed in my last post were like the holes in the proverbial dike. I'm not letting the little Dutch boy stop it back up, though! I'm looking forward to seeing where this will lead.

My wife -- who nearly had enough world religion classes to have received a religion minor in college -- has a very spiritual approach to life. She's reading two books right now -- a [moderately] skeptical book on the existence of the afterlife and reincarnation (yay!), and a Sylvia Brown book (boo! -- but I would never discourage her from enjoying whatever she wants to, of course). And she is absolutely one of the most benign theists you can imagine. But she worries about my soul. She doesn't believe in hell, but she's concerned that when I die [and assuming there was a heaven] that I wouldn't accept it even in death.

This was a simple concern to alleviate, because my non-belief is based on lack of evidence, not rebellion or anger. I wondered how many rebellious or angry atheists she has known, to unknowingly consider me in that group? I think perhaps it is my use of the term 'atheist' instead of 'agnostic.' I think it is a good choice because, although I would accept incontrovertible evidence of god if I was given it, I find the odds of there being a supernatural deity so highly unlikely I feel that I am only an agnostic by slight technicality. On Dawkin's 7-point system, I am a strong 6.

Given this discussion, though, maybe the term 'atheist' is more misleading than I understood? Is it being read not as a belief, but as a position? From my perspective, this is something that I feel should be solved by educating those, like my wife, who do not understand that atheism is based on the principle of reason not denial. But how much weight should we give to our perspective in this matter? Shouldn't we be concerned about the perspective of the larger population? This is another time when I think a new term, like Bright, will do us all a lot of good. The biggest problem we face is misunderstanding. It doesn't have to be a fundamental misunderstanding like thinking that atheists worship the devil. It can sometimes be simply being unaware of where atheist stops and agnostic begins -- and where they overlap.

We also "talked shop" a bit, and discussed some more mundane topics. We discovered we both have a preference for the NSRV bible. I was able to recommend the ESV, and she was able to recommend the NIV. She helped clear up a few of the distinctions between different denominations that I'm still fuzzy on. It was a very productive talk, and although I felt fairly tense when we started I was considerably more comfortable by the end. I'm not sure how she felt about this -- but I am taking the fact that she initiated the most recent discussion (in a very conversation manner!) as a good sign.

Sometimes I feel a little silly for feeling like there is such a wall between us that talking about religion can be such a problem. But I've decided that it's mostly a matter of respect. We both respect each other's beliefs to the point that we are afraid of unintentionally hurting the other's feelings. I'm starting to learn more of her boundaries, and where I've inadvertently crossed them in the past. And I think she's starting to understand where I am on the atheism/agnosticism line. Progress all around.

In the beginning…

Published

Xander

on May 9, 2007

Well if this is truly to be a blog about religion, and lack thereof especially, it seems prudent to explain how I fell from religion.

Within a few months of my birth I was christened into the Church of England. I still have the bible given to commemorate it. Of course I had no choice in the matter, and I still somewhat feel that my acceptance of such affairs was taken as a given. I think the main reason though, may have been to assure my grandmother I wasn't headed for Hell or Purgatory, if I happened to die too young. Being Catholic I'm sure that was a fear. Growing up until about the age of four I can't remember any overt religious presence, but then I was very young and may just have taken it as make believe.

Anyway fast forward to Primary school and I enter into a Church of England school. It was the local school, so I don't believe this was an attempt at early indoctrination, but it certainly worked that way. There were bible stories in the Year 2 reading section, all Samson and David and Goliath, but I don't think I ever read them. There were hymns sung at assemblies and visits to the local church on special occasions. But all in all I would say there was little proselytising.

However by Year 4, we began R.E. Religious Education. I thought at first this was great fun, and it was in many ways. We learnt all about Islam, Hinduism and Judaism. Its only now when I look back that I realise there was questioning of God. No mention of doubt. It was all certain.

Thus I went through the first years of my life blissfully unaware of the possibility of 'God's' non-existence. Yet all it took was the nonchalant question of whether I still believed in 'God', by my (slightly older) next door neighbour. This opened a flood gate. Suddenly there was a world without 'God', that before I had no idea could exist. What's more, I could think of to good reason to why I believed.

However this was not enough to end my faith. It took a personal tragedy to do that. Not too long after that fateful conversation, my Godmother died. It was really hard for me to understand. How could it have happened? She left behind two of her own children, and I felt such sadness for them, and just the sheer thought of losing a loved one. I shouted and cried and prayed to 'God' to bring her back. If he was there 'He' had the power, 'He' could do it. But 'He' did not. From then on I saw no good in this 'just' god. If he could let such suffering happen, then he was inhuman and I had no time for him.

Yet I still had a belief in him. But instead of the great purveyor of love, justice and peace which many Christians see in God, I saw only a crippled old man; too weak or evil to help mankind. This belief eventually faded and agnosticism took over. I neither knew nor cared, but I still had a strong dislike for Christianity, due to past experiences. But I was still searching for answers that would fit with my rational understanding of the world, and thought I had found them in Taoism. However that proved short lived, due to the endless backwards and forwards of Taoist belief.

I later stumbled upon my own form of Pantheism, though I didn't know it as that. My belief was of a god that was the universe, detached and uncaring about humanity, not sentient at all. This belief survived in one form or another up until my reading of 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. This book opened my eyes to what I had really believed in all along. My early attempts at trying to find some kind of answer in spirituality, was due to the importance and sanctity our culture gives to such ideas. He's book changed my views about how we as a society view and treat religion, and I urge you to read it. It may not convince you outright, but it may just open you to the possibility of a world without gods or superstition of any kind. And that is a view I would thoroughly recommend.

Traveling, Coke Cans, and Sam Harris

Published

David W.

on May 8, 2007

I will be posting when I can over the next two weeks, but it will be very irregular. We'll be travelling all over the country -- a wedding in Phoenix, and then moving to Virginia. I'm really very excited about seeing the west, this will be my first time out that far.

Unfortunately, all of this travelling means that I will most likely be missing the PBS airing of A Brief History of Disbelief. The series will be shown in Virginia before we get there, and in Kansas City after we leave! I hear it's on YouTube also, so that looks like how I will watch it. I will also be missing the televisation of the Comfort/Cameron vs. the Rational Response Squad debate! Augh! I have no doubt that will find it's way on YouTube quickly, too. Here's a preview already:

(there is some language in the 'intro' to the piece, so be warned if you're playing this without headphones in a work environment!)

In the meantime, I've found two write-ups so far of the debate, one from a theist perspective and one from an atheist perspective. They both pretty much agreed that while the Rational Response Squad didn't prove things one way or the other, the Way of the Master team was almost too embarrasing to watch. This from Becky Garrison's article:

Even though the atheists failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God could not have been the spark that set all of creation, they seem to have nailed this debate when Cameron pulled out the get-out-of-hell card. Simply put, this was “what you believe about God will determine where you spend eternity.” At this point, if I wasn’t covering this event, I would have crawled out of the church in shame.

And this from OsakaGuy on the RichardDawkins.net board, who says Comfort sadly did not come onstage with a banana. Instead, he used a coke can to 'prove' that any design must have had a designer. Wait, that's the "scientific proof" he's been proclaiming? That just goes to show that Comfort has just as fuzzy a notion of what science really is as the Kansas board of education.

Who won the debate? I was under the impression that Ray and Kirk were not going to rely on their bible to prove their god exists scientifically. By that standard they both broke the rules by referring to the bible multiple times, and proved nothing with their argument from design, so they failed. If there were any rational fence sitters out there I would assume they must agree. As for the respective choirs on each side, I'm sure they both thought their side won completely.

I was worried when I first heard about this debate. I knew that Comfort and Cameron weren't smart enough to actually come up with something interesting, but I was worried about the way they would treat the Rational Response Squad. I remembered how Ellen Johnson couldn't get a word in edgewise here CNN appearance, and I was worried that a couple of smooth talking presenters would appear to have an upper hand in this format. I am completely unfamiliar with the RRS. Fortunately, it sounds like this worry was completely unfounded. Not only did the RRS hold up very well, but it sounds like it was moderated well, too.

If only we could get some more moderation on the web. A Load of Bright has stumbled on an out-of-context quote being attributed to Sam Harris:

In a another passage [Sam] Harris goes even further, and reaches a disturbing conclusion that “some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them”. This sounds like exactly the kind of argument put forward by those who ran the Inquisition.

Well, that's a horrible quote all right. Horribly out of context! Check out ALoB article for the full context!

"This Is Australia" or "Now For Something Completely Different."

Published

beepbeepitsme

on May 8, 2007

“This Is Australia”

I was wandering through some of the photographs stored on my PC the other day and decided that I would make a video snap shot of some of the places in Australia that I have visited. It also made me think about how our environments effect and reflect our cultural beliefs. I have been fortunate to have had ancestors who decided that they would make Australia their home. I also acknowledge at this stage that their decision and the decision of many other settlers to move here has not been so fortunate for the indigenous people who lived here first.

This video is just a snap shot of some of the places along the east coast of Australia, yet there is a focus upon one particular little farming community which was also my home town for many years. The music which accompanies the video was specifically written by an Australian group about that little cane farming community. The photographs were taken in a ten year period and also reflect the technology I used at the time, which was an old Canon SLR, so don’t expect high quality digital resolution. In fact, I still mostly use the old SLR even though it weighs a ton and the quality of the image certainly isn’t as crisp as a modern digital camera. Using the SLR is, however, much more fun.

Anyway, sit back and have a peek at the east coast of Australia through the lens of one who lives here.

australia this is australia and now for something completely different east coast patio cane fields cane field humidity

PS: – I am heading off for a few days rest and recreation. Hopefully, I will take a few snaps of my holiday and if I get any which are fit for publication, I will make a short video and post it when I get back.

(The ones of me where I discuss with Beelzebub how to genetically mutate cute little puppies into ravenous hounds from hell will not be published at this time.)

So, to the readers of this blog, I hope to see you soon. Have fun and may Darwin confer upon you and your descendants many beneficial mutations. Toodle oooo.

Confrontation. What is my focus?

Published

David W.

on May 7, 2007

My wife just unexpectedly breached our do-not-talk-of-religion taboo. Even though her phrasing was not conducive to dialog -- she was more interested in making a point -- I am very glad to see some discussion maybe starting to happen. It's certainly better than none.

I had just read an article on Afarensis disputing one anti-evolutionist's claim that:

All the hominid fossils we have wouldn't fill a single coffin.

Afarensis handily deals with this misconception, summarizing with:

The Catalogue of Fossil Hominids put out by the British Natural History Museum in 1976 listed over 3900 fossils. I've heard recent estimates in the 10,000 range. In short, DaveScot doesn't know what he is talking about.

I found this amusing and related the story and the summary to my wife. She took it in, and sighed over the original claim. And then she stopped, leaned a bit against the piano behind her, and said, "You know...." That's when it happened. The breach! It wasn't complimentary -- in fact, it was a complaint. But that's really beside the point. It was dialog. Just a bit. But there it was.

She told me that she didn't like how I was always complaining. That all I ever did while "learning to become an atheist" was focus on how stupid intelligent design people were. She admitted that yes, they were in fact stupid (she's a biology major and understands even more of evolution than I do), but she didn't like me talking about it all of the time. She equated it to her constantly talking about how stupid Muslims were, or Jews were for, say, not beliving in Jesus' divinity. "You wouldn't like it if I did that all the time, would you?"

I decided to ignore the "learning to become an atheist" phrasing, even though I found it very insulting on a visceral level that I might explore later. It was probably just a slip of the tongue, probably in lieu of "learning about being an atheist." I was more interested in her use of the word "focus." I started wondering what, exactly, my focus is. Did atheists as a group have a focus, or was there only the focus of each individual atheist? How could I even begin to explain myself if I hadn't determined this distinction yet?

I'm not sure how she took my silence as I contemplated this, but she gave me a few seconds, told me "Think about that," and walked off.

It was not the best dialog I could have hoped for, but as I said it was a breach in our religion taboo and any breach is welcome. Best of all, she left me with something to contemplate.

It wasn't what she had really intended me to contemplate, of course. Her seeming interpretation of my atheism as a series of complaints against anti-evolutionists is simply because evolution is our common ground, so those are the stories and statistics that I relate to her. Specifically, it has been things like the public acceptance of evolution statistics, or gripes about Ken Ham's creation museum. Her analogy is poor because she is comparing the dispute over the scientifically supported concept of evolution with a dispute over an untestable traditional belief. In essense, comparing a dispute over fact with a dispute over opinion.

This is like a math student complaining to an english major that is spreading incorrect answers to math problems. When the math student calls him on the issue, the english major defends himself by saying, "You wouldn't like it if I spent all my time saying how stupid it is to like math, would you?" The correctness of math problems, which can be right or wrong, should not be compared with a preference or interest. Using this kind of correlation in an argument would be a logical fallacy known as a non sequitur. (which translates to "it doesn't follow")

Another aspect to her complaint is that the stories I relate and the complaints I make are usually over individuals, and very rarely regarding entire social/cultural groups. The only time I make comments on groups is when referring to statistical findings -- also very different from disputing traditions. When referring to individuals, I only need to say the words "Fred Phelps" to show that I am not the only one between the two of us that makes complaints of a religious action or belief!

But as I said, it was the term "focus" that really got me thinking. Do atheists, as a group, have a focus? Can we? In contrast, I would assume that a theists' focus could be something like, "follow the wisdom or Jesus," or "save as many souls as possible," or "wipe out the infidels," or "spread Christian love," or even just "live a good life and get to heaven," etc. But since the only real definition of atheism is the lack of any god belief I find that there is a corresponding lack of any atheistically-defined focus. We have no doctrine, therefore we can never have a doctrine-defined-focus. Instead, rather like discovering your own unique meaning of life, individual atheists must determine their own focus. Some examples are Dawkins, who has clearly stated that he hopes The God Delusion will change some minds and reduce the evils stemming from religion. Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor put much of their effort into defending the separation of church and state. The list goes on. But what is my focus?

I would have to say that my primary focus, lately, has been to become as educated an atheist as I can become. This includes becoming versed in god/atheism and evolution/ID arguments, spotting logical fallacies, learning more about the bible, learning more about world religions, and so on. My goal for this is to be able to hold my own in any discussions or debates that may come up, so that my position will never look like a weak one. A secondary focus is to be part of the larger atheist community in order to fill a social gap in my life, to start and contribute to discussions and reflections in order to learn more about myself and other atheists, and to find friends.

What my wife has interpreted as my only focus is actually a side-effect of a distant, third focus. As an atheist and a Bright, I am also acutely interested in truth. The scientist inside of me cringes every time I hear of such ridiculous misconceptions as the 'hominid coffin' statement above. I feel the need to try and counter the spread of such misconceptions and lies with an attempt to spread the truth. If I spend any time complaining about them, it is only my inner scientist trying to bury the lies. It is a reflex -- a gag reflex -- to spit out any garbage that has infected my day.

What is my focus? Knowledge, friendship, and truth. What is yours?

Coming soon… A change of direction

Published

Xander

on May 6, 2007

As you can see its been over two months since I last posted, well anything, here on The Bad News Bible. Originally this blog was started as my comedic take on world affairs. Sadly it wasn't very funny. And I lost interest. But now I'm back (hopefully), with a new ax (or several) to grind. It is now religion. I have certain views about religion, which having moaned about ad nauseum to my family and friends, I have decided to spare their collective minds, and moan out loud to the internet. Well its not like anyone will read it anyway. Plus the title of my blog is almost prophetic.

So anyway, as soon as I find time in my busy schedule I will begin my full on rants. Fun. Hopefully there will still be my 'comedic' takes on all things current, but that remains to be seen.

Taking one for the team

Published

David W.

on May 5, 2007

One of the biggest problems we face is misunderstanding. I can't even remember how many times in high school I had to clear up the fact that being an atheist does not mean that I worship the devil. I am particularly fond of reading of reading stories from atheists who deconverted from being very religious. One of my favorites is Primordial Blog, especially Brian's "What the Bible Really Says" posts, and his four part series on being an evangelical faith healer. Lynn's Daughter also has some excellent tips coming from a "recovering evangelical."

Hearing about the lives of Christians (and followers of other religions as well, I just don't hear from as many of them) is interesting, albeit sad, but I like to think I have a better understanding because of it. Hearing about these lives from the perspective of atheists that have deconverted is one method of gaining this perspective, but obviously one must also discuss things with real theists! The is a sisyphean task, though, because of the amount of material. Some people, though, have committed the time and energy to really "take one for the team" and delve into the theist psyche. Or... at least their message boards!

Lya at Escapee from the Meme Machine has done this very thing, and we should all benefit from it. She visited 35 boards over a two month period, and generated some very good data. Her entire post is a must read, but the sections covered are:

The 11 most common misconceptions about atheists
The 5 most common excuses for having no evidence of the existence of god
The 14 most commonly used fallacies
The 4 most commonly used bits of known hoaxes/forgeries
Some notable outcomes

The most interesting section for me was the 14 most commonly used fallacies. I have been trying to brush up on my logic skills here and there over the last few months, and am especially trying to learn the common fallacies. This is a great list of what to start with. What I was most surprised with were omissions -- the lack of the "atheists worship the devil" misconception that I've personally come across, and the lack of a misunderstood "piltdown man" reference in the most commonly used hoaxes. Of course that's more about evolution but evolution is always a popular topic for theist/atheist debates. (I saw a post from a theist just a few days ago that confused Lucy with the piltdown man, and claiming that Lucy had been determined to be a hoax, and that therefore evolution was false and creationism is true. Of course, anyone that even uses the piltdown man itself against evolution has fallen into a trap -- it was the application of our knowledge of evolution that brought the piltdown man hoax to light, making it a triumph for evolution, instead of a disgrace.)

Thank you Lya for taking the time to do this. I know this must have tried your patience, but you have helped us all.

Are Theists More Superstitious Than Atheists?

Published

beepbeepitsme

on May 5, 2007

How Superstitious Are you?

What is a superstition? A superstition is the belief that events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship. A causal relationship is the logical relationship between one physical event and another physical event. So a superstition is where there is an event, but there is no logical relationship between an event and the cause, or subsequent event which is ascribed to it.

Superstitions are based on cultural beliefs in a supernatural “reality” and they relate to things that are not fully understood or known. Therefore, the type and nature of the superstition may be dependent upon the culture and the origin of the culture. This culture difference is evident when one thinks of the number 13 or the number 4. In Asian cultures the number 4 is considered unlucky and in western cultures the number 13 is considered unlucky. The Chinese pronunciation for the words “die” and 4 are similar, which explains why 4 isn’t a favourite number in many Asian countries. In western countries which have a christian tradition, the number 13 is considered unlucky because supposedly there were 13 at the last supper. So superstitions are culturally relevant, but many of them have their origins in a belief in the supernatural.

What are the origins of some of these other superstitions?

1. Breaking a mirror will bring 7 years bad luck.
(Before the invention of mirrors, man gazed at his reflection, his “other self,” in pools, ponds, and lakes. If the image was distorted, it was a mark of impending disaster.)
2. The devil or evil spirits can enter your body when you sneeze unless someone says “God bless you.”
(Ancient man believed that his breath was also his soul or “essence of life.” A rapid departure of that breath, a sneeze, is the same as expelling life from one’s body. Also, it leaves a vacuum in the head which evil spirits can enter.)
3. If you spill salt, you must throw a pinch over the left shoulder to ward off the devil.
(Salt was once a rare and costly commodity. As such, it was economic waste to spill any. Also, salt is a purifier, a preservative, and it symbolizes the good and lasting qualities of life. It was mixed into the foods used in the religious ceremonies of both the Greeks and Romans. One source of this superstition is Leonardo da Vinci’s painting of the Last Supper. The betrayer Judas, has accidentally spilled salt onto the table.)
4. Black cats crossing your path bring bad luck.
(The Egyptians worshiped the cat and punished anyone who dared to kill one. In the Middle Ages, however, the black cat was linked to witches and Satan. Since it was believed that a witch had the power to transform herself into a cat, it was thought likely that a cat who crossed one’s path was a witch in disguise.)

Without going through the origin of lots of superstitions, it is evident that many of them originate from a belief in the existence of supernatural forces which can either be harmful or helpful. Ancient man always had supernatural explanations for natural events. Supernatural explanations when systemized became religions and that is probably why we still find today that highly religious cultures are also superstitious cultures. That includes the majority of people on the planet except for perhaps those who are atheists, agnostics or skeptics. I haven’t met any overtly superstitious atheists, but I have known many superstitious theists. Superstition and religious beliefs appear to walk hand in hand.

Religious practices are most likely to be labelled “superstitious” by those who do not share the religious belief. Especially when they include belief in extraordinary events, an afterlife, supernatural interventions, apparitions or the efficacy of prayer, charms, incantations, the meaningfulness of omens, and prognostications. Greek and Roman pagans, (who were theists but not christians), scorned the man who constantly trembled with fear at the thought of the gods, as a slave feared a cruel and capricious master. “Such fear of the gods (deisidaimonia) was what the Romans meant by superstition.” (Veyne 1987, p 211).

PS: Don’t forget to watch the video I made.

superstition religion culture folklore superstitious supernatural supernaturalism theist atheist

Lou Dobbs and Christopher Hitchens

Published

David W.

on May 5, 2007

I've never watched Lou Dobbs before, but after seeing this clip, I'll just have to give him a try. This almost redeems CNN of the Paula Zahn debacle, in my eyes.

Taking things entirely too far

Published

David W.

on May 5, 2007

So.... did everyone celebrate the National Day of Reason? (cleverly held on the same day as the National Day of Prayer, you know) Others appeared to have celebrated the National Day of Being Stupid.

Remember the first "challenge" from the movie Die Hard: With a Vengeance? It involved Bruce Willis standing on the sidewalk in Harlem, wearing a sandwichboard with the phrase "I HATE N*****S" on it. It was like that.

An atheist in South Carolina got beat up and robbed outside of a gym for having another phrase written on his back windshield. Miraculously, it was 8pm before he was beat up. The phrase? "F*** the Skull of Jesus" Rebellious atheist, anyone? I'm really sorry the guy got beat up, and I respect his freedom of speech. But that doesn't mean there aren't some things that are best kept to yourselves. I was really glad to see how objective the cop's report was, though.

PA: Email subscription, and a small change

Published

Bleak Shadow

on May 4, 2007

On Planet Atheism, near the top of the right sidebar, below the RSS feed link, there is now a new button: Email subscription. As the name implies, it allows you to receive Planet Atheism by email, as daily digests (that is, all the posts from a day are collected in one email message).

Personally, while I read a lot of blogs and sites through their RSS feeds, I prefer to visit PA directly, which I do several times a day (there's always something new and interesting there). But that's simply a matter of personal taste, and, much like atheists have only one thing in common (a lack of belief in gods) but can be (and are) different in every other way, so Planet Atheism readers can (and do) have their own preferred way of reading PA. :) Therefore, I wanted to give you as many choices as possible:

visit the site;

add the RSS feed to an aggregator such as Bloglines or Google Reader;

receive digests by email.

Emails come from FeedBurner, not me, and include an "unsubscribe" link at the bottom.

As I said, this is not my preferred way of reading PA... but if you prefer it to the other two options, go ahead. :)

As for the small change: there were a couple of HUGE posts on PA during the past few days. By "huge", I mean many, many pages long, even with a full-screen browser window and a relatively small font. Therefore, there is now a limit, even for the full posts version of PA, which is 10000 characters. That's still a lot -- I believe that, in months of PA, and hundreds of posts, there were probably less than 5 posts that went above that limit. In those very rare cases, you will have to follow the link to the original blog.

20070504: two more…

Published

Bleak Shadow

on May 4, 2007

Humanist Network News

The Thinker's Podium

62 now. :)

Virginia and Censorship

Published

David W.

on May 3, 2007

It's official, we've signed on a house in Virginia, and will be moving around the 18th of this month -- very quickly! This is all taking place much faster than we had ever expected, but that's a good thing. I'm looking forward to the new house. Here is the view from the end of the driveway (which will be the view from the office as soon as we clear some trees from the end of the driveway).

I've recently speculated about the atheist population in that area, and by coincidence one of the stories I've read about recently is based at a high school around Roanoke, which is in the next county over from our new house.

Reed Braden innocently lends another atheist Dawkins' book The God Delusion. The friend's father, either not aware or not accepting of his son's atheism, finds the book and confiscates it. He calls Reed threateningly at 11PM, and later demanded from his principle that he be punished 'for "handing out literature" and attempting to convert his already-Atheist son to Atheism.'

Gideons were handing out bibles in the school parking lot a week earlier.

I contacted Reed directly about atheism in southwestern virginia. His report was about what I had expected. They're there, just not visible. Sounds like a good opportunity to start organizing!

20070503: 60 blogs and counting!

Published

Bleak Shadow

on May 3, 2007

The 60th blog on Planet Atheism is Geoff Arnold, which looks quite interesting indeed. Incidentally, one post in it directed me to the WP-Footnotes WordPress plugin, which I've just added to my WordPress blogs, such as WotM. :)

In other news, I've just updated moonmoon (the aggregator software I use) to the latest trunk version, and Planet Atheism should now load faster.

A Brief History of Disbelief

Published

beepbeepitsme

on May 3, 2007

JONATHAN MILLER’S BRIEF HISTORY OF DISBELIEF Part 1

From the youtube description of the series: –

In this first ever television history of disbelief, Jonathan Miller goes on a journey exploring the origins of his own lack of belief and uncovering the hidden story of atheism.

Jonathan Miller visits the absent Twin Towers to consider the religious implications of 9/11 and meets Arthur Miller and the philosopher Colin McGinn. He searches for evidence of the first ‘unbelievers’ in Ancient Greece and examines some of the modern theories around why people have always tended to believe in mythology and magic.

With the domination of Christianity from 500 AD, Jonathan Miller wonders how disbelief began to re-emerge in the 15th and 16th centuries. He discovers that division within the Church played a more powerful role than the scientific discoveries of the period. He also visits Paris, the home of the 18th century atheist, Baron D’Holbach, and shows how politically dangerous it was to undermine the religious faith of the masses.

The history of disbelief continues with the ideas of self-taught philosopher Thomas Paine, the revolutionary studies of geology and the evolutionary theories of Darwin. Jonathan Miller looks at the Freudian view that religion is a ‘thought disorder’. He also examines his motivation behind making the series touching on the issues of death and the religious fanaticism of the 21st century.

The other parts of the series can be viewed here:

A Brief History of Disbelief 2.

A Brief History of Disbelief 3.

A Brief History of Disbelief 4.

A Brief History of Disbelief 5.

A Brief History of Disbelief 6.

A Brief History of Disbelief 7.

A Brief History of Disbelief 8.

A Brief History of Disbelief 9.

A Brief History of Disbelief 10.

A Brief History of Disbelief 11.

A Brief History of Disbelief 12.