Archive for June, 2007
Planet Atheism, for those who don't know is a blog aggregator for, you guessed it, atheist and non-religion related blogs. It was set up by Pedro Timóteo, who has a blog over at Way of the mind. If you have a blog that you feel may fit the criteria, check it out and see if you can join.
Anyway, thanks to Pedro for setting up Planet Atheism, and letting me join it, it was greatly appreciated.
First Lady Uses Faith to Battle Disease - U.S. - CBN NewsLaura Bush thinks the African health care crisis can be fixed by applied superstition.
Mrs. Bush says those groups know very well the healing power of faith.Umm, Laura, you do understand that mosquito nets work whether you believe in them or not? Right?
[. . . ]
"There is a way to reach out," she said. "For instance, putting these kits together for World Vision to deliver or going through with your Sunday school or other faith based groups to raise money for mosquito nets."
Technorati Tags: Faith-Based healing, Laura Bush, mosquito nets
Powered by ScribeFire.
You gotta wonder though... Digg? Pownce? What's next? Wallk? Eeat? Sleepp?
Anyway, if anyone can share an invite to Pownce, I'll give most of my invites back via some sort of fun contest

I have been tagged by Chris at Deeply Blasphemous , Kriscinda at Goldbricker , Dave at The Galloping Beaver , Beast at Atheist Haven, and Nona from Fish Wars on Cars. I am very late at doing this meme and consequently, I am sure that all the blogs I read have been tagged already. Perhaps I can just link back to some of them without requiring them to repeat the meme over.
Here are the rules.
We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
At the end of your blog post, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.
Don't forget to leave them a comment telling them they're tagged, and to read your blog.
This was much harder than I expected. What do I tell people about me? What could possibly be interesting to the rest of the blogging community about myself? I have no idea but here goes.
Eight Random Facts Or Habits:
1. I could read reasonably well before I went to school. I couldn't write though. In retrospect, I think I was probably a natural left-hander like my mother, but I was being encouraged to prefer my right-hand. I think I can remember my Aunty, who was a teacher, placing a pencil in front of me and asking me to pick it up. According to my memory, which may be accurate or inaccurate at this stage, I continually tried to pick it up with my left hand much to the disappointment of those viewing the experiment. ;) Nonetheless, reading has always been a pleasurable activity for me and is probably one of the distinct reasons why I find the internet such an attractive place.
2. I always think that I am right. In other words, I start with the premise that I am right and work from there. I am quite conducive to being shown otherwise, but I do not assume that others know better than I do unless they are a recognized expert in a particular field and even then I find that I am quite willing to challenge them on their assumptions. (This exercise of completing eight random facts or habits may turn into a litany of my flaws.) I have always been opinionated and I don't consider this by necessity, to be a negative characteristic. After all, I have to lead MY life; I can't lead anyone else’s. I was encouraged to classically "think for myself” and once in the habit of this, it is virtually impossible to defer to others through an appeal to authority, an appeal to age, an appeal to gender, or any other fallacious appeal that at least some of us, find compelling. I was encouraged to be a self-determining adult.
3. My favourite sandwich is white bread with vegemite and rare onion. You may all gag now at the thought, and gas masks are highly recommended during and after consumption of said sandwich.
4. Over the years I have methodically stripped away the vestiges of superstition and meaningless ritual from my life and feel much the better for it. Though I am aware that many people enjoy the imposition of external power structures, mores and belief systems upon their lives, I am not one who thrives on rigid structure or routine. It saps my energy and my enthusiasm. Nothing depresses me more than the thought that I must complete a certain set of behaviours within a given time frame and in a specific pattern. For better or for worse, I am unquestionably individualistic.
5. One ritual I have no intention of parting with at the moment, probably because I find it pleasurable, is the use of scented candles. Good quality scented candles burning in the house with few other light sources, is very relaxing and contemplative.
6. I have a fascination with what makes people tick. That is, what drives them - how they think, and why they believe what they believe. Obviously, this also extends to myself. It is of endless fascination to me that none of us have the exact same visual, visceral, intellectual or emotional reactions to the same object or experience. Obviously, we are not meant to behave as if we are clones of each other, yet so much of societal influence is an encouragement towards conformity. I do not make a "good drone." I actively rebel against the business model which treats people as identicals, or machine parts. I think the politically correct term is "human resources."
7. I have been "addicted" to computer gaming; more specifically, play station and nintendo games. Many of the strategy games are challenging and thought provoking. I also enjoyed first person action and role-playing games. And if I disappear from here for any length of time, it is probably because I have found a play station game which is taking my attention. I rarely use game cheats unless I am stuck on the same level for a couple of days, then I might weaken and look up some info concerning it on the net. I like to complete the game and don't see a lot of sense in buying a game and not mastering it to its conclusion.
8. I like a glass of red wine with my dinner, preferably a grenache, but I am not really that fussy. One is just right. Two is enough to send me off to the land of nod. Three and I am dancing on tables singing "Hey Big Spender" at the top of my lungs. Not really, but if you were kind enough to read this far, I thought you deserved a disturbing image of me to complete the picture.
Now to tag some other blogs. Ok, I give up. If you would like to be part of this meme, please tag yourself.
de-Conversion has a new post about preaching Atheism, so rather than make a super-huge comment, I briefly commented there and decided to make a post of my own.
I read an article in Wired a few months ago about Richard Dawkins and evangelical Atheism. I was repulsed to begin with-- I hate it when Christians try to do it to me, why would I want to do it? I rejected Dawkins for a long time because of this.
But since then I've had more time to think about it, and I've changed my mind.
Over at Atheist in a Minivan, Possum Momma has a post from January about an essay her daughter wrote, in which she proclaims herself as an Atheist. Her teacher had this to say:
Her teacher wrote this at the end of her essay:
"Possum#1*, thank you for your thoughtful remarks. I don't think you're an atheist but I respect your empathy for your friends. Please see me after class today. A+"
After class, possum#1 said that her teacher told her she couldn't be an atheist because her "ability to care for others feelings isn't an atheist trait." and that her "attitude was very Christian." WTF?!
Also at Atheist in a Minivan, there's this post, which is a Baptist preacher's reaction to the essay. Also, some choice comments from said preacher follow the post, including many about how Atheists merely feign morality.
ALSO on Atheist in a Minivan (she's getting a lot of love from me today), this post points out how this country music singer (and I suppose all his fans) feel about atheists-- we're incapable of any emotion, bad parents, and druggies.
I also have my own experiences, people in high school assuming that I worship the devil, people I considered friends telling me they couldn't spend time with me anymore... it never ends.
Complete misunderstanding of Atheism is rampant, and we have to do something to stop it. That's why I'm convinced that we have to be evangelical in one way or another. I think evangelical Atheism is almost a survival mechanism at this point. We should never “stoop” to the methods used by Christian evangelism (among others), but it’s essential that we get the word out about atheism/agnosticism/non-theism.
I’m not saying we shove it down people’s throats, but we need to open people’s eyes to the alternative to religion. Whether they wish to choose this path is up to them. I would never suggest trying to force Atheism on the faithful.
At the risk of sounding cheesy, I hope there will be a day when we can all live together in peace regardless of religion (or lack thereof) but it requires an understanding of the other side. An understanding which the majority of people don't have about us.
So I pose the question to you: should we evangelize Atheism?

It is the afternoon of September 25, 2000, and Jonathan Edwards is making his way to the triple jump final at the Olympic Stadium in Sydney. In his kitbag are some shirts, spikes, towels – and a tin of sardines.
Why the sardines? They have been chosen by Edwards to symbolise the fish that Jesus used in the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. They are, if you like, the physical manifestation of his faith in God.
As he enters the stadium, he offers a silent prayer: “I place my destiny in Your hands. Do with me as You will.” A few hours later he has captured the gold medal, securing his status as one of Britain’s greatest athletes.
Edwards’s faith was never an optional add-on. It has been fundamental to his identity – something that has permeated every fibre of his being – since his trips to Sunday school in the company of his devout parents; since he went to a Christian youth camp in North Devon and devoted his life to Jesus, tears streaming down his cheeks and his face glowing with divine revelation. Since he decided to risk everything to follow God’s revealed path, moving to Newcastle in 1987 to become a full-time athlete in the belief that his preordained success would enable him to evangelise to an unbelieving world; since he withdrew from the World Championships in Tokyo in 1991 because his event was scheduled for the Sabbath.
By the time Edwards retired from athletics in 2003, he had established himself as one of Britain’s most prominent born-again Christians. He soon landed the job of fronting a landmark documentary on the life of St Paul and also secured the presenting role on the BBC’s flagship religious programme, Songs of Praise. He looked to have made the transition to life after sport with a sureness of touch that eludes so many professional athletes. Perhaps this was another advantage of his bedrock faith in God.
But even as he toured the nation’s churches with his BBC crew, Edwards was confronting an apocalyptic realisation: that it was all a grand mistake; that his epiphany was nothing more than self-delusion; that his inner sense of God’s presence was fictitious; that the decisions he had taken in life were based on a false premise; that the Bible is not literal truth but literal falsehood; that life is not something imbued with meaning from on high but, possibly, a purposeless accident in an unfeeling universe.
Having left his sport as a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical, Edwards is now, to all intents and purposes, an atheist. But why? It is a question that has reverberated around the Christian community since the rumours began to circulate when Edwards resigned from Songs of Praise in February. Edwards a backslider? Impossible.
I am sitting opposite Edwards, 41, in the garden of his large home in Gosforth on the outskirts of Newcastle, but he does not resemble a man whose world has been turned upside down. His boyish face, cropped with sparkling, silver-grey strands, is alert and alive. One gets the impression that he is looking forward to the ordeal of a lengthy interview. Perhaps he regards it as a kind of confessional, an opportunity to bare all and be done.
“I never doubted my belief in God for a single moment until I retired from sport,” he says. “Faith was the reason that I decided to become a professional athlete, in the same way that it was fundamental to every decision I made. It was the foundation of my existence, the thing that made everything else make sense. It was not a sacrifice to refuse to compete on Sundays during my early career because that would imply that athletics was important in and of itself. It was not. It was always a means to an end: glorifying God.
“But when I retired, something happened that took me by complete surprise. I quickly realised that athletics was more important to my identity than I believed possible. I was the best in the world at what I did and suddenly that was not true any more. With one facet of my identity stripped away, I began to question the others and, from there, there was no stopping. The foundations of my world were slowly crumbling.”
Edwards retains the earnest intensity that was his hallmark when he gave talks and sermons at churches up and down the country. He is a serious person who regards life as a serious business, even if he is now unsure of its deeper meaning. But why did someone with such a penetrating intellect leave it so long to question the beliefs upon which he had constructed his life? “It was as if during my 20-plus-year career in athletics, I had been suspended in time,” he says.
“I was so preoccupied with training and competing that I did not have the time or emotional inclination to question my beliefs. Sport is simple, with simple goals and a simple lifestyle. I was quite happy in a world populated by my family and close friends, people who shared my belief system. Leaving that world to get involved with television and other projects gave me the freedom to question everything.”
“Once you start asking yourself questions like, ‘How do I really know there is a God?’ you are already on the path to unbelief,” Edwards says. “During my documentary on St Paul, some experts raised the possibility that his spectacular conversion on the road to Damascus might have been caused by an epileptic fit. It made me realise that I had taken things for granted that were taught to me as a child without subjecting them to any kind of analysis. When you think about it rationally, it does seem incredibly improbable that there is a God.”
Would Edwards have been as successful a sportsman had he been assailed by such doubts? It is a question that the world record-holder confronts with bracing candour. “Looking back now, I can see that my faith was not only pivotal to my decision to take up sport but also my success,” he says. “I was always dismissive of sports psychology when I was competing, but I now realise that my belief in God was sports psychology in all but name.”
Muhammad Ali once asked: “How can I lose when I have Allah on my side?” Edwards understands the potency of such beliefs, even as he questions their philosophical legitimacy.
“Believing in something beyond the self can have a hugely beneficial psychological impact, even if the belief is fallacious,” he says. “It provided a profound sense of reassurance for me because I took the view that the result was in God’s hands. He would love me, win, lose or draw. The tin of sardines I took to the Olympic final in Sydney was a tangible reminder of that.”
The upheaval of recent months has not left Edwards emotionally scarred, at least not visibly. “I am not unhappy about the fact that there might not be a God,” he says. “I don’t feel that my life has a big, gaping hole in it. In some ways I feel more human than I ever have. There is more reality in my existence than when I was full-on as a believer. It is a completely different world to the one I inhabited for 37 years, so there are feelings of unfamiliarity.
“There have also been issues to address in terms of my relationships with family and friends, many of whom are Christians. But I feel internally happier than at any time of my life, more content within my own skin. Maybe it is because I am not viewing the world through a specific set of spectacles.”
“The only inner problem that I face now is a philosophical one,” Edwards says. “If there is no God, does that mean that life has no purpose? Does it mean that personal existence ends at death? They are thoughts that do my head in. One thing that I can say, however, is that even if I am unable to discover some fundamental purpose to life, this will not give me a reason to return to Christianity. Just because something is unpalatable does not mean that it is not true.”
His crisis of faith offers a metaphysical dimension to the inner turmoil that afflicts so many sportsmen on their retirement. Some will say he has journeyed from light into darkness, others that he has journeyed from darkness into light – but none could doubt the honesty with which he has travelled. The Eric Liddell of his generation has sacrificed his religious beliefs on the altar of intellectual honesty, a martyr of a kind.
World of his own
— A committed Christian, Edwards refused to compete on a Sunday until 1993, most notably missing the 1991 World Championships in Tokyo. “It is an outward sign that God comes first in my life,” he said at the time.
— Contested the World Championships for the first time in 1993, the first of five successive appearances, winning a medal at each one, including gold in 1995 and 2001.
— There was little hint of his 12 months to come in 1995 when, the previous year, he finished sixth at the European Championships, second at the Commonwealth Games and was ranked No 9 in the world.
— Edwards’s life changed in 1995, when he set three world and seven British records, achieving the unprecedented feat of two world records in his first two jumps of the final of the World Championships in Gothenburg. His 18.29 metres that day remains the world record. His wind-assisted 18.43, to win the European Cup in Lille, is the longest triple jump on record.
— A run of 22 consecutive victories ended when he finished second to Kenny Harrison, of the United States, at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. Edwards had finished 23rd and 35th in his two previous Olympics and finished second and third at the World Championships between Atlanta and the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, where he took gold.
Original ArticleThis should provide hope to all of us! Hopefully this story will become widely talked about, and encourage other people to cast a critical eye over their beliefs.
Unfortunately some people still feel that this isn't a good thing! But this is one, rather public, addition to the free thought cause.
Mingle2 - Online Dating
Imagine what I could do with the money...
Now, one would say, well, don’t go near one then. But only if it were so simple, cause these aren’t your everyday razor toothed shark from Jaws variety or the Big f**k-off 'Moby-dick' whale variety, but armour plated, indoctrinated, militant, flying fish!. The Florida's Fish and Wildlife Commission (FFWC) have launched a campaign to warn people that a brush with an "armour plated" sturgeon - an endangered species that dates back 225 million years and can grow to 8ft and weigh 200lb - could send them to the surgeon. They've got a kind of armour plating that makes their bodies tough. It's as if you were riding a motorcycle at 35 mph and someone threw a 100lb concrete block in your face."
Endangered?? They are armour plated!! And 8 ft, 200 lbs!! What are they endangered by?? And hang on.. they are the ones attacking us!! Now you will say, but they are in Florida, you are in London, what do you have to fear?
But you see, I am a worrier. (No, it’s not a typo). I worry too much. I worry that 'Smart Car' drivers are out to run me over. I worry that tea/coffee machines are designed to scald the user. You might think that this sort of thing is rather silly, but you won’t be laughing when you have been run over and scalded. And now I have to worry about giant, amour plated fish jumping out of the water and killing me. I realize that they are in Florida and I am in London, but they are obviously determined and indoctrinated. Also the article doesn’t say how far they can fly. (We didn’t think the Jap's could fly to Pearl Harbour either...). You're probably thinking that common sense should tell me I am safe. That’s what the guy in Florida was thinking as well right before a sturgeon broke his spine.
Among last year's victims was Dawn Poirier, 32, a beauty shop owner from Kenneth City, Florida. She was on a boat with her boyfriend when a sturgeon measuring up to 6ft rocketed out of the water, smashing into her face and ripping off the vessel's engine before toppling back and swimming away. It took two weeks for her to recover consciousness, after which she underwent surgery to reconstruct one side of her face. "I was in a coma. I don't remember 15 days of my life," said the mother of two. "My entire life was changed because of a flying fish."
I think the fish must be under some kind of evil dictatorship. The Sturgeon General probably shows them video's of humans eating sturgeon foetuses (caviar) and frying the prisoners or war in batter. It's no coincidence that we don’t even hear about them for thousands of years and now suddenly they start a major military offensive against us. Major Hamlin warns us - "We fear the fish could only just be getting started". See, he is a Major. Surely, Shirley, he knows what he is talking about. I say we call our boys back from Iraq or wherever they are now and set up a protective perimeter around London ASAP! No one’s safe till we know that these fish aren’t building any Inter Continental Ballistic Fish!

I’ve always found Fascism to be something inherently flawed. It comes out from the idea that ones own race, nation or whatever other group you might think of, is somehow superior to everything else. The whole point of it was that the “fascio” (which is Italian for union) is stronger than than the single unit. So by coordinating together, the members of a specific group became stronger than the divided people around them. Unfortunately, as is doomed to happen with such endeavors, when these groups manage to come to power, their members get corrupted. Not only that but all examples of ideals that fascist leagues have stood for, have been ones that reasonable people have found flawed. Nationalism especially takes the cake for being so completely unfounded on any other idea than the supposed superiority of ones nation.
SO, onwards:
- We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
- Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
- People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
- At the end of your blog post, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.
- Don't forget to leave them each a comment telling them they're tagged, and to read your blog.
2. Fact: I know I shouldn't be, but I'm a sucker for lolcats. Usually internet fads annoy me to the point of anger, like 1337 5p34k, but lolcats just make my day. I have the I Can Has Cheezburger feed in my feed reader. I mean, come on, how can you not smile when you look at this:

3. Habit: I'm a digg junkie. There isn't a single item that hits the front page that I don't at least read the little blurb for. It's great! You really find out a lot of news that you wouldn't from more traditional media, as well as a lot of time-wasters.
4. Fact/Habit/Embarrassing Confession: For a few years now, I have had what you could almost consider an imaginary friend. I thought one day "I wonder what someone from 18th century America would think about our world today" and ever since then I can't stop imagining some person from Colonial times following me around and being amazed and confused about everything. It's not like I talk to him, but I do imagine conversations I would have with him. Really, it's amazing how far we've come, and it's an interesting thought experiment, but I can't seem to turn it off whenever my mind is idle.
5. Fact: I have ADD. This could explain #4 a bit, I suppose. I've learned to deal with it on my own, because medication really messed me up, and my stomach has never completely recovered. This didn't help #6 out at all.
6. Fact: I have a chronically bad gastrointestinal system. I got it from my mom. I have recurring diverticulitis, but I have it under control with a high fiber diet. Diverticulitis usually doesn't show up until late thirties, early forties, and I'm now 25. I have acid reflux. I used to throw up all the time but it's been a blissfully long time since I've done that. Hopefully it's getting better with age.
7. Fact: I'm a geek, to the extreme, and I love every minute of it. I own about 10 computers, and a few of them even work. I love sci-fi movies (good sci-fi... not the Sci-Fi Channel original movies like FrankenFish). I have seen every episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and I knew about Firefly before it was canceled. I have only come across a very few computer problems I couldn't fix, I know enough HTML/CSS/PHP/MySQL to do some quality web design. I have three monitors on my desk right now, two of them hooked up to this PC, two of them soon to be hooked up to another PC (one of them shared via KVM). I used to run Linux exclusively. And I can use all of this at my job!
8. Fact: I'm a movie/music snob, but not in a bad way. I hate the crap they play on the radio these days. There's an occasional good song, but I have actively sought out most of the music I listen to. Lately at least half of the movies I've seen have been Asian, and not the generic Kung-Fu movies that get imported to America. Takeshi Miike and Takeshi Kitano from Japan, Chan-Wook Park and Joon-ho Bong from Korea, Johnny To and Wilson Yip from China, could all teach even the best directors in Hollywood a thing or two about how to make a movie. That said, I still enjoy the pointless Hollywood crapfest like Ultraviolet, which is definitely a terrible movie but it's just so damn fun to watch! So while I'm snobbish in my preferences, it's definitely not to the exclusion of others.
So now, who am I going to tag that hasn't been already... hmmmmm...
The first two are the only blogs I read (out of like 30 or so if you include rarely read ones) that are relatively active and haven't been tagged yet.
Chadmac
Cragar
Now, some random people on Planet Atheism
Blurp
Kill the Afterlife
Radical Atheist
Stupid Evil Bastard
The Spiritual Atheist
Hell's Handmaiden
As I mentioned previously, I went to a talk this evening by Daniel Dennett, Is science showing that we don’t have free will, wherein he argued that determinism is not incompatible with the concept of free will, and is in fact irrelevant. He puts forward the (on the surface convincing) case that determinism, being a function of physics, is independent of free will, which is a function of evolution.

I won’t even attempt to analyse his arguments here, as I only made very sporadic notes through the hour and a half presentation, although in general I thought that he made quite a good case, but I will refer back to the recording when it becomes available.
This was the first time that I’ve seen Dennett in person (he’s much taller than I imagined) having previously only ever heard audio recordings and seen brief video interviews. As I’d hoped, he was thoroughly engaging, humorous, straightforward and a joy to listen to.
The only thing that someone who didn’t have any exposure to philosophy in general, or Dennett in particular, was his single use of the term “skyhook”, although the context would have given the listener an idea of to what he was referring.
My choice of quote of the evening (paraphrased as I didn’t have a pen and paper to hand at that precise moment):
There’s a technical term for that period of time between a decision and regret: the onosecond.
I’ll post a link to the podcast (it was also video recorded, so it may even be a video podcast) as and when it’s made available on the University of Edinburgh podcast page.
For Tales, here’s the video showing the motor proteins in action (as on the front cover of Nature 27 June 2003) (1m15s in).

And two books to buy: I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter and The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan. As if I don’t already have enough to read…
And finally, congratulations to Professor Dennett on his honourary DLit (and to Michael Palin too!) from the University of Edinburgh.

Mingle2 - Online Dating
1. We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
2. Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
3. People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
4. At the end of your blog post, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.
5. Don't forget to leave them a comment telling them they're tagged, and to read your blog.
1. I watch Fox News for the entertainment value it unintentionally provides.
2. I thank my parents on a regular basis for doing a poor job at indoctrinating me.
3. Despite my age, I'm still giddy with excitement that the last installment of the Harry Potter series will be released in less than a month.
4. I loathe the music that is played on the radio, so I blast NPR or Point of Inquiry in my car instead.
5. I think respect has little to do with age or rank. I believe its earned and lost based upon the content of an individual's character.
6. I think candor is an underrated and often disrespected character trait, but I hope to bring it back in fashion.
7. I often drink more than one cup of coffee every day, but I could quit tomorrow if i wanted to. : )
8. I find making lists about eight random facts about myself to be a suprisingly challenging task.
I hereby tag the following blogs:
1. The Second Enlightenment
2. Stardust Musings and Thoughts for the Freethinker
3. Seeking a Little Truth
4. Deep Thoughts
5. Plonka's Blog
6. Debunking Christianity
7. Atheist in a Mini Van
8. The Friendly Atheist

That said, there is actually an element of randomness to the process, but that is a very different thing from saying the process itself is random. What the mistaken or dishonest challengers have done is to inflate a grain of truth (that random factors influence genetic mutation and cause changes in environments) to represent the entire concept.
This mistake goes unchallenged far too often.
Case B: "Evolutionary theory says that life spontaneously arose out of lifelessness"
This one is at least as insidious and wrong. First of all, the meaning of "atheism" that is most consistent with modern usage and linguistic consistency with the rest of English is "non-theism". It works the same way as our other "a-" prefixed words, such as "apolitical", "aspherical", and "asexual". Thus, since "theism" is the belief in one or more deities, "atheism" is simply the non-belief in any deities. Non-belief is a neutral position, in that it does not indicate a belief in a thing nor a belief in the opposite of that thing. It is simply the absence of belief either way.
But it's absurd to think that non-belief is a variety of faith. Instead, people who make the above claim that atheism requires faith tend to get to this point by first mischaracterizing atheism as only its most extreme form...a belief in the non-existence of deities (a.k.a. "strong atheism").
Now, although this is actually closer to a faith position, and can be argued by reasonable people (as opposed to the argument using the more correct definition of atheism), I say that it is still not faith-based in the same sense as in Western religion is. Here's why:
We naturally tend to (say we) believe things don't exist until we see evidence that they do. Just think of all the things that you would feel comfortable saying you believe don't exist, even though you really don't have evidence either way. Unicorns, leprechauns, Zeus, etc. Now, for sure there are people who would prefer to say that they are actually agnostic with respect to these things, but for most people, although they would admit that they don't know for absolutely certain that these things don't exist, they are at least certain enough about it to feel fine saying that they "believe" they don't. Again, this doesn't mean that they are absolutely certain about it...just certain enough to be worth saying, for convenience's sake, that they believe it. Belief doesn't necessarily mean certainty.
Now I ask, does the above stance require faith? Do you believe "on faith" that leprechauns don't exist? If so, is it faith in the same sense as "I believe on faith that Jesus was literally resurrected"?
To an atheist, deities hold the same status as unicorns, leprechauns, and Zeus do to most everyone else.
Case D: "It's hypocritical for Americans to criticize illegal immigration to the U.S., because almost everyone in the U.S. is descended from an immigrant themselves."
Yes, many of us are descended from immigrants, but not from illegal immigrants (unless you count the original European settlers as illegal, but that was more of an invasion, really). The issue today is not so much immigration itself as the lack of control over it.
Like I said in the previous post, I’ve been tagged by several other members of Planet Atheism, a couple of times (3 times here, one on the PA announcements blog). I’m supposed to write 8 random facts about me, and then tag some other bloggers.
As for the first part, let’s see…
And I guess that’s it. With an extra one, too. ![]()
Now, I hope you’ll forgive me, but I won’t be tagging anyone. Many members of PA have already been tagged, and I’m too lazy to go check which have been, and which haven’t.
But if you read this and, for some reason, haven’t been tagged yet, feel free to consider yourself tagged.
Copyright © 2007 Way of the Mind
After being tagged by those goshdarned heathens Michael and Tobe38 I felt duty bound, nay, compelled, to partake of their inquisitions.
Here are the rules:
- We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
- Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
- People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
- At the end of your blog post, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.
- Don’t forget to leave them each a comment telling them they’re tagged, and to read your blog.
Here are eight things that you may not know about me.
- I’m red/green colour blind, which means that I’m really shit at snooker.
- I am learning Esperanto which I expect to have very little practical use but it somewhat satisfies my Utopian proclivities.
- Despite my penchant for uptempo hard-rocking electro, I have a soft spot for a certain Monobrowed Purveyor of Ultimate Filth.
- Things that I like: gadgets, languages, inverse square relationships, logic, leaves, dusk, well-designed software, swimming and diving, crêpe pancakes. Things that I dislike: the chanting of football crowds, the cult of celebrity, the texture of mushrooms, ball-point pens, dogs, heights above solid ground, electric fans.
- It has often been said by people that know me that I am exceedingly literal, pedantic, critical, verbose and logical, and that I have a tendency to pause conversation while agonising over the most appropriate term to explain myself as accurately and precisely as possible. I suspect that I may “suffer” from Asperger’s Syndrome, but this hasn’t yet been clinically diagnosed.
- I have four items of clothing that are not black (or washed-out variants thereof) and two of those are white shirts (only one of which has a collar). I have nine ties, of which I have worn only two.
- I’ve only ever voted once, due to an inherent distrust of all politicians, no matter their flavour.
- I have a (non-sexual) stationery fetish, and would gladly spend a large amount of money on the ideal fountain pen.
To be frank, this meme seems to have gone through the atheist blogosphere like a dose of salts, so, in the spirit of not trying to piss those people who have already received this countless times off, here goes:
- Pooflinger’s anonymous
- Lord J-Bar For Democracy, Not Theocracy
- Religion *is* a Problem
- One Good Move
- No More Hornets
- Daylight Atheism
- Aidan Maconachy
Damn, only seven.
Apologies if you’ve already been tagged to death.
I touched on this a bit in my last post, but I wanted to give this it's own post. My wife and I were discussing this over dinner a while back, and we agree that "yes we do." She said then that she wishes she didn't, but I don't really feel bad about it. But is that wrong? People could say that it's just like discriminating based on sex, race, or sexual preference, and there are some valid comparisons, but I see it as an entirely different discrimination.
You are born as a certain sex, as a certain race. You become homosexual either because of genetics, chemical reactions, or your environment. These are things entirely out of our control, and to discriminate based on these traits would be immoral. However, political affiliation, views on social issues, and religion (among other things) are in a different league.
I would never base my opinion on someone because they are a Bush supporter, or because they believe in traditional family values, or because they are anti-abortion. However, if someone said the following:
Democrats are all godless anti-American heathens who are trying to take women out of their rightful place at home, taking care of their masters, and letting them kill babies willy-nilly. They should all be killed and die a slow and painful death.I would discriminate against them, gladly, and without reserve.
Likewise, I would never base my opinion on someone who believed something they heard without getting any evidence. People do it all the time. But when presented with evidence, we tend to be rational and accept the fact that we're wrong. Therefore, when someone tells me they believe in Christianity (or any other religion for that matter), my first thought is usually "really? I thought you were more intelligent than that."
I have read a lot about many different religions. Throughout my life I've probably read at least half of the Bible. To me, none of the religions that I have read about provide any reasonable evidence of their validity, nor do they provide any real answers. Furthermore, while evidence exists that certain events in religious texts did happen, there is no evidence of anything "otherworldly" happening at any point in history. Just look at some of the things religion gives us:
Catholicism is controlled by a government of sorts, that can decide which beliefs people should hold. One day you may be told that you don't believe in something you've believed in all your life.
Mormons believe that a man got the word of God by looking into a hat.
Scientologists (do I even need to go there) believe that there are souls of creatures called Thetans attached to everyone that must be removed before one can become enlightened.
Christians believe in a god that, while willing to send you into the depths of hell to burn for all eternity if you break any of his commandments without asking him for forgiveness, loves you very much and is interested in everything you do throughout the day.
Isn't this worth discrimination? At least as much as someone saying they have an invisible friend who follows them around during the day? As much as people who truly believe knocking on wood will prevent bad things from happening?
Don't get me wrong, if I were in a position to hire, I would never value an Atheist over a Christian. If I were renting a house, I would never value an Atheist over a Muslim. I don't discriminate against anyone in that sense, and I have no problem being friends with religious people, as long as they are ok with me. But intellectually speaking, I value Atheism above all religion, and I will always think differently about believers because of their willingness to forgo all rationality and support a superstition thousands of years old.
I've typed the word "discriminate" so much that it's starting to just look like random letters shoved together, so I think now is a good time to stop.
It continues here
Mostly, the conversation boils down to the issue of objectivism versus subjectivism, and specifically whether subjective morality is valid.
Bob keeps bringing up, in various ways, his claim that subjective morality doesn't REALLY mean anything, since it is not founded on the absolute. He keeps claiming that without an objective standard, one has no rational basis for making moral claims. So far, he hasn't given any argument to tie these two together (objectivism and meaning/rationality). I don't see a problem with subjective rationality.
My primary response to him is that this is circular reasoning, since the implicit requirement he makes for something to be considered "meaningful" or "rational" is that it is objectively based. Thus, he is implicitly presupposing the very point he's trying to argue in favor of (that the only legitimate morality is objective morality). In my view, meaning is no less "real" for its being subjective. In my view, all human knowledge is actually subjective already, since we are limited creatures without omniscience. How can anyone claim absolute knowledge about anything, particularly knowledge of the very existence of absolute truth itself?
I’ve been tagged by other atheist bloggers at least 3 times now (one for the PA blog, two for this one), so, just so you all don’t think I’m ignoring you (since these things can actually be fun), I’m going to write my “8 random facts” tomorrow, OK?
Copyright © 2007 Way of the Mind
This blog, at least for now, will primarily be about this. I'll post links to whatever discussions I start up, and perhaps I'll comment here about those discussions.
I hope any readers that happen by will have a look at the discussions and contribute their own thoughts either here or there.
Also, I'd love to get any suggestions for new places where I might like to add my thoughts.
Here's a wiki I started some time ago for coordination of similar efforts by other people: http://freethoughtoutreach.wikispaces.com/
I'm still trying to un-bury myself from the pile of work our move left me with, but there are a few things worth mentioning.
I saw an unfortunate bumper sticker the other day, on a car decorated with several dozen peace/love/etc. bumper stickers (on all sides). There are many really appalling bumper stickers, and I suppose as far as these things go it could have been a lot worse. What really stuck me about this one, though, was that the heart of the message was in the right place, it was just the reasoning that was flawed.
Don't take life too seriously. It's only temporary.
I agree with the concept of not taking life too seriously (emphasis on the 'too'). But calling life temporary implies, obviously, that there is something else beyond life that is the "real" life. Taken seriously or not, this denigrates the value, beauty, and preciousness of life.
While I don't think that life should be taken too seriously, I do not think it should be taken too cavalierly, either. This is it. This is your life. Don't waste it. It's all you've got! Do good things. Be remembered. Live on forever in the history books and in the memories of your friends and families. Don't be stupid. Don't do stupid things. Better yourself at every opportunity. But have fun while doing it.
Speaking of being a little too cavalier, here's a funny story. We have some new birdfeeders, put up recently after our move. I enjoy watching the birds while I work from my home office, and I keep a pair of binoculars and a bird guide on my desk. We've recently been having a squirrel problem, though -- specifically, he's climbing up and eating all of the bird food.
At first, all I had to do was bang on the glass of our patio-style door between the office and the front yard. Then I would have to open the door a tad and slam it shut. Then I would have to open the screen door. Then step outside and wave my arms. Then take a few steps towards the squirrel. He kept coming back. He finally got used to me trying to keep him away. He got bold.
Yesterday he was happily eating on the other side of the feeder, so all I could see was his tail hanging down. I walked outside. He peeked around the side of the bird feeder and took a look to make sure I was keeping my distance, but quickly resumed eating. I walk a few steps to one side so the bird feeder was more directly between us, and so that if he peeked around again I wouldn't be there anymore. Then I snuck towards the feeder.
I got close enough I could have grabbed his tail if I'd had gloves. I don't know if he really didn't hear me -- I was barefoot on grass -- or if he was just that bold. I guess he wasn't taking life seriously enough. He kept eating. I got my head really close to the bird feeder and peeked around and went "BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!" I was eye to eye with him. Not four inches away. He did a little squirrel version of clutching his heart and peed a little in his fur. Ok, not really, but his eyes just about popped out as he was tripping over his tail trying to get away. Oh, it was brilliant.
He's learned his lesson, though. He is much more content with eating off of the ground now. Although he does occassionally get on the feeder again, he won't eat on the far side of the feeder anymore, and if I step outside he stops everything and doesn't lose eye contact with me until he runs off or I leave.
One quick link before I get back to work -- the NY Times has filled their science page up today with only evolution-related stories. Good on them!
It seems that they believe forcing individuals of differing beliefs to adhere to religious dogma through legislative fiats is a viable option when people do not voluntarily devote their lives to a particular religion. Does the rhetoric sound familiar? It should because it reeks of the same level of intolerance found in fundamentalist Islam.
Giuliani has made it clear in no uncertain terms that he thinks abortion is wrong. He simply doesn’t think it’s the government’s job to be forcing that decision on women. In Giuliani’s words, “I consult my religion, I consult my reading of the Constitution, I consult my views of what I think are important in a pluralistic society, and the reality that we have to respect the fact that there are people that are equally as religious, equally as moral that make a different decision about this. And should government put them in jail?”
America…Where your failure to impose your religious beliefs on others poses a possible hindrance to being elected to public office.
And what about the father, Phil? Oh, he's the Parents' Programme Director of, wait for it, Silver Ring Thing (UK) Ltd.
It's been interesting to see some of the views of other 'reason-able' bloggers. One of my favourites was a call for proof of her virginity in court. Others think that Lydia's actions are just over the top.
Some of the fundamentalists across the pond seem to think the whole thing is a disgrace, but for completely opposite reasons than the free thinking.
Please come back for lessons on how to spell, when to use a capital letter and for some lessons on causality. If I was dead I could not jump off a cliff could I?
When you are prepared to have a sensible argument please come back and we can have a sensible, civilised discussion.
Anyone else who wants to leave a comment either on the blog or via meebo please do so, the site could do with having some more discussions. I know I've been a bit poor at updating for the last few months but everything's back on track now!
Oops. I meant to post this the other day, but it completely slipped my mind.
One of the smashing guys at the HSS here in Scotland wrote to the SQA to see what it was up to, and ask if it was actually serious about thinking about including creationism/ID into the science curriculum. The SQA’s response was somewhat brief, but positive (if you think science should be done by scientists rather than priests anyway) (my emphasis):
Thank you for your communication,
Science courses are currently under review, however SQA has absolutely no plans to introduce Intelligent Design into these courses.
Regards
SQA Customer Contact Centre
And the peak output of stupidity subsides and reverts to normal background levels of 30 mad/second. Hurrah!
Thank you, Alan!
You might think it was Mary or Joseph, then maybe the magi, the shepherds, and the little drummer boy. But you'd be wrong. If the Book of Mormon is right, that is.
The first person to see Jesus was the brother of Jared (aka Mahonri Moriancumer). And he saw him more than 2200 years before Jesus was born. (The brother of Jared lived during the time of the Tower of Babel.)
It's a long silly story and I don't have time to repeat it here, but here are a few highlights.
The brother of Jared saw "the finger of the Lord" when Jesus was making some magic lights out of 16 stones that the brother of Jared had formed by melting some rocks.
And it came to pass that the brother of Jared ... did molten out of a rock sixteen small stones; and they were white and clear, even as transparent glass. ...O Lord, ... behold these things which I have molten out of the rock. ...
... touch these stones, O Lord, with thy finger, and prepare them that they may shine forth in darkness. ...
Behold, O Lord, thou canst do this. ...
And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord. Ether 3:1-6
Okay, he didn't get to see all of Jesus, but he saw his finger. And that was spooky enough -- for both of them apparently.
I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me. ...And the Lord said unto him ... Sawest thou more than this? Ether 3:8-9
Finally, after a bit more discussion, Jesus shows his whole body to the brother of Jared, and reveals that he is not only the Son of God but also the Father.
Behold, the Lord showed himself unto him,and said ... I show myself unto you. ...Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. Ether 3:13-14
So what's-his-name got to see not only the finger of Jesus but the whole enchilada, Father and Son.
I'll bet it looked a lot like this.

No, what I’m properly referring to is a comedy show on at this year’s Edinburgh Festival Fringe, called Xenu is Loose.
One of the benefits about living in a cultural fondue (at least for August and the first half of September) is the plethora of weirdness that consitutes the various Edinburgh Festivals.
It can also be a real pain in the arse.
Apologies for the punning post title, I couldn’t resist. :-)
/hattip to Religious Bullshit
Some muslim bloke says that female circumcision is wrong, after an eleven year old child dies.
While most of the civilised world has already recognised and realised that this sort of barbarism is not only utterly vile but completely unnecessary, it seems that those crazy muslims don’t necessarily think so unless it explicitly says so in their scripture, or someone in a silly hat says that their scripture says so after a bit of creative textual massaging.
While the end result is A Good Thing™, it still doesn’t get away from the incredible world of magical thinking, and merely reinforces the notion that religion is a bad reason for doing good.
It’s also a shame that another eleven year old girl (I’d bet a lot on the argument that she wasn’t the first) had to die for these wingnuts to realise this.

Planet Atheism buttons