Monthly Archive for November, 2007

Now I’m Not Sure I Want to Live Here

I'm currently moving to my new place of residence in El Paso, Texas. It seemed all nice and good until I stumbled across the disturbing news that the director of science curriculum for the Texas Education Agency, Chris Comer, has been forced to resign because she forwarded an email annoucing a speech by Barbara Forrest, who is a philosopher of science and traces ID's connections to creationism.

Why was it so terrible to announce a speech by a reknowned scientist? Because a Baby Jesus lover who is offended by reality is the Chair of the State Board of Education. Dr. Don McLeroy is a well known advocate of Creationism and ID, and in September he put in place a policy where the TEA must remain neutral on evolution and ID. Obviously part of the new effort to quietly diminish evolution since creationists have been unable to force it out overtly.

Now, what was the offending email that cost Comer her job? Here's a copy of it (from The Austringer):

***

To: Glenn Branch
From: Glenn Branch
Subject: Barbara Forrest in Austin 11/2
Cc:
Bcc: [redacted]
Attached:

Dear Austin-area friends of NCSE,

I thought that you might like to know that Barbara Forrest will be speaking
on “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse” in Austin on November 2, 2007. Her
talk, sponsored by the Center for Inquiry Austin, begins at 7:00 p.m. in
the Monarch Event Center, Suite 3100, 6406 North IH-35 in Austin. The cost
is $6; free to friends of the Center.

In her talk, Forrest will provide a detailed report on her expert testimony
in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board trial as well as an overview of the
history of the “intelligent design” movement. Forrest is a Professor of
Philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science at
Southeastern Louisiana University; she is also a member of NCSE’s board of
directors.

For further details, visit:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/austin/events/barbara_forrest_inside_creationisms_trojan_horse_lecture/
Sincerely,

Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
510-601-7203 x305
fax: 510-601-7204
800-290-6006
branch@ncseweb.org
http://www.ncseweb.org

Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools
http://www.ncseweb.org/nioc

Eugenie C. Scott’s Evolution vs. Creationism
http://www.ncseweb.org/evc

NCSE’s work is supported by its members. Join today!
http://www.ncseweb.org/membership.asp

***


Hmm...I don't know if that warrants a firing. Tell me if I'm wrong.

I wonder if Ben Stein's new movie, Expelled, will talk about his. After all, this woman actually lost her job, unlike the Creationist hacks featured in the movie who simply couldn't get their papers published because they didn't have anything scientific in them. But I doubt it. Ben Stein is blinded by religion too, and the fact that supporters of evolution are having it worse wouldn't work to well in Stein's tale of Intelligent Design persecution.

What's worse is the TEA's proposed facilitator. (Sounds almost like a comic book villian, doesn't it...The Facilitator)

The State Board of Education (SBOE) has a proposal before it to hire a "facilitator" or "standards writing consultant" to write the standards document after workgroup members consisting of master teachers and university professors have initially written the initial standards document and after additional university professor experts review that standards document. One wonders why the initial writing and review are necessary when the facilitator will have complete freedom to write whatever he or she wants at the conclusion of the process.


One does wonder. Perhaps it's a way to put something in place that none of those experts would approve of? What's the point of even having all those experts? You might as well fire all of them too and just have a Bible to consult instead. After all, it has all the knowledge one really needs, right?

Anyway, we'll see what happens, but I certainly plan of living far from here before I have any kids.

For more information, read this report on the firing and information on the facilitator, both from the Texas Citizens for Science.

Congress and the Whore of Babylon

During my sabbatical many interesting things occurred in the faith based community. Most of these events were the run-of-the-mill preacher activities involving sex, greed, drugs, and gambling, and are far too numerous to mention.

But--(I bet you all saw this coming) there is one ongoing event that has really peaked my interest--the investigation by Republican Senator Robert Grassley into the financial activities of six of the U.S.'s top televangelists.

Now, I am not so naive as to believe that this investigation will change the blind stupidity suffered by those who give money to these con-men, nor am I so stupid that I believe that a Republican Senator is going after members of the largest demographic of Republican donors without some ulterior motive. But, it does make for some pretty good entertainment, and material for my arguments when idiots like Creflo Dollar are grilled about their Rolls Royce, mansions, and corporate jets.

Hopefully, by now, at least one reader has wondered about my reference to the Whore of Babylon, because the explanation for this reference follows.

The Whore and her mountYears ago I had a discussion with a co-worker about the popular Protestant belief that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. The topic was brought up by this idiot and struck a nerve with me for two very different reasons. First, it is a topic that I suffered through for my entire childhood. When I was a child, my fanatic Christian father would quite often get on one of his many Holy Spirit and alcohol induced tirades and babble on for hours about the evils of the World. His second favorite topic during these sermons was Pope John Paul II's un-holy alliance with Satan (his favorite topic was my going to Hell because I was not a good kid).

The second, and major reason I attacked this moron's preaching about the Pope was my late wife. She was a devout Catholic, and an extremely good person whom I loved very much, and my idiot co-worker continually rambled on about her going to Hell for her beliefs, so, as is my nature, I did some reading, and confronted my antagonist with passages from the Bible which showed that, in fact, Billy Graham (this guy's favorite preacher) was the Anti-Christ not the Pope.

Part of my "proof" revolved around the Anti-Christ coming from the Whore of Babylon, and went something like this:

According to the Bible salvation and sex are gifts from God. A prostitute is evil because she charges money for something that is a gift from God, not a commodity to be bought and sold. Salvation is also a gift from God delivered by Jesus Christ who made a point of throwing a hissy fit when he caught people doing business inside a church.

Billy and another fine American ChristianWith these points in mind, a televangelist, who makes money by promising to deliver a gift freely given by God is merely a whore. The Whore of Babylon in the bible is obviously an institution, and the primary institution on this planet that exhibits whore-like qualities is televangelism. Billy Graham was the first major televangelist (born from the Whore known as televangelism) in the World, so is the primary candidate for Anti-Christ.

Since my discovery, I have often referred to televangelism as the Whore of Babylon as I did above.

Have a great day all, and beware of people promising salvation (or a good time) for money.

This Guy Is Great

Sometimes it's just nice to hear unrestrained rants against religion. One of my favorite sources is Pat Condell's series of videos on YouTube. Here's a sample:



I love this guy, and I see nothing disrespectful in being truthful. The fact remains that most religions are simply interpretations of antiquated stories that don't tell us anything useful beyond providing a window on the culture that wrote them. No one should feel hesitant about pointing that fact out.

Anyway, Condell has a whole bunch of videos on YouTube, and I encourage you to check them out.

Let the Games Begin—Again

Jeebus Christ--I disappear for a few months (Well almost a year) and people try to hijack my blog to spread their own messages. I guess I should be flattered.

Anyway--sorry about the absence. I had an incredible opportunity to do some things, and see some places, so I jumped on it, but the fun's over and now I return to my normal life, and my normal rants.

So, let the games begin---again.

Belief Vs. Opinion

Posted by Steve-

In past religious discussions, I have heard many religious moderates mention the fact that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and that it is not my right to challenged their beliefs. And herein lies the problem. A belief and an opinion are not the same thing. An opinion refers to a personally held attitude which says nothing about the concrete state of things. For example, it is my opinion that sausage pizza is better than mushroom pizza. Here I am not attempting to demonstrate some inherent truth, but simple stating a personal taste representing a very local rather than universal reality. Further, opinions require no additional evidence beyond the statements themselves, for once again, one is not attempting to demonstrate a truth that extends beyond oneself. A belief, on the other hand is a statement concerning a perceived reality which may or may not turn out to be correct. True, a belief does not have to rest upon strong evidence when first stated, BUT if strong evidence should arises that contradicts such a belief, it should be strongly reconsidered and perhaps reject. Example: a woman claims to believe that her husband is faithful. Now, either he is or he isn't. If this same woman were to stumble upon her husband and another woman having sexual intercourse, her earlier stated belief would have been proven false. She can hold onto this belief if she so chooses, however, she can no longer claim this it to be reliable, correct, valuable, or what have you. Further, she can no longer expect that stating her bunk belief aloud will not be met with legitimate contradiction.
Thus, unlike opinions, religious beliefs can be demonstrated to be false, or at least very likely false, should enough evidence arise to do so. When someone tells me that they believe in the existence of a omnipotent, benevolent, anthropomorphic god they have made a statement concerning a supposed reality, which can be demonstrated to be true or false. I believe that the latter shall end up being the case.

Did you decide continued

Posted by Steve-

I'd like to answer a question raised in response to Brandon's ealier post. What do we think about cultural distinctions in general (Black, Italian, etc.). Becoming integrated in, influenced and molded by a culture is an inevitability, and in fact, necessity of human development. There is nothing wrong with speaking French if you were raised by French speaking parents or in a French community. What is inappropriate, and what is promoted by the dogma of religion, is the idea that our cultural preferences represent some sort of concrete reality, that the way We do things is fundamentally correct. When a Catholic refers to the saving grace of Jesus Christ son of God on high, and truly believes in this reality, the cultural issue arises. Either he must reject the reality that had he been raised under different circumstances (say the son of an Orthodox Jew)he would believe otherwise or he must admit to naivite on a grand scale: "I realize that, had my parents been Muslims I'd be a Muslim and reject Christ, but lucky me, my folks got it right!" (Further, he may want to ask what those poor saps who happened to be born prior to the rise of Christianity did to deserve missing out on the grand revelation [the Christian God is supposed to love all his creations equally]).
An analogous situation would be the Ohio State/Michigan rivalry. Is it reasonable to be a passionate alum who boos the other team and scorns their symbols? Sure. Is it reasonable to truly and honestly hate another person, or believe that one school is fundamentally inferior to the other? No. For in the latter circumstance, you fail to realize that, had you been born on the other side of the border, the coin would be flipped. I should point out, however, that this is not a direct analogy, for the Universities of Michigan and Ohio State represent concrete, verifiable realities. On could point out, for example, that Michigan Stadium is lager than Ohio Stadium.

Did You Really Decide?

Posted By Brandon

Concerning other people's children I would often hear my mom claim, "if those kids were raised in my house, things would be quite different". She was telling the truth! If the neighbor's child grew up in my house he would have watched Entertainment Tonight at 7:30pm and gone to bed at his age appropriate bedtime (which happened to be arbitrarily decided). If that other person's child was French and adopted by my parents shortly following birth, his native tongue would be English, NOT French. Is this so because the child has made a cognitive decision that English makes more sense to him? No, his environment made the decision for him. It seems fair to say that the previous examples gives us a small glimpse of socialization's influence. To take the same idea a bit further, if any child once born to (insert your favorite religious conviction) _______ parents were to be raised by my parents he or she would be a reform Jew. Same as in the language example, does the child have any say; did the child decide that any one dogma made most sense to them? Probably not. You may be thinking that is only how it is in your family. If you are of that mind, I challenge you to explain your own subscription to faith and that of your parents and their parents before them. I am willing to bet that there is a certain pattern.

Consensus On Morality Aboard A Bus

A very interesting friend of mine is a Kurd from Syria who was raised in a private Assyrian Christian Orthodox school and currently studies with me in Switzerland. He speaks Kurdish, Arabic, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Assyrian and Aramaic (which dwarf my own English, Spanish, Serbian, French, Italian combo) and he’s basically a very lax and essentially non-practicing Muslim, who learned how to pray as a Christian before learning to pray as a Muslim.

However, he still believes in a very meta-physical idea of a Supreme Being. Not that I hold it against him, but it led to an invigorating and stimulating discourse on morality while aboard the bus.

You must forgive me for resorting yet again to reproducing the conversation in an adapted dialogue form.

“Morality must come from religion. You see, for better of for worse, humankind believes.” said Salare.

“What do you mean believes?” I asked

“Everyone believes in something. It is an intrinsic part of our being insignificant in this vast universe. A believer will believe in whichever God he wants to believe in. I personally believe they’re all manifestations of one Supreme Being, whatever that is. An atheist will believe in science, or in the education their parents gave them, or in inherited moral values and so forth”

“I disagree with a number of things. Firstly, I like to believe I’m a moral person. I donate blood. I donate old clothes to Serbian families who need it. I help old ladies cross the road. None of these moral values came from religious morals because, as you point out, I received a very correct and secular, I might add, education from my parents.

Secondly, I firmly disagree with your comparison of religious belief with scientific belief. A religious person who believes in God will by definition have faith that their God exists. They will require no evidence to back their beliefs, indeed, they will often ignore contrary evidence to suggest the absence of a God. They might have had personal experiences that are out of reach to other people, but psychiatrists may or may not give these experiences concrete medical explanations. It’s an unchanging, unflinching world view. C.S. Lewis said (absurdly) once of his own religion that “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else”, which is rather misleading because an unchanging and unflinching world view is more like an over polarised pair of sunglasses which shields the beauty of the world from you.

My point is that an atheist who has a naturalist view of the world will base his views on existing evidence and on existing models, themselves supported by ample evidence. It’s a worldview that changes and adapts to contemporary discoveries. And there is ample evidence to suggest that morality is inherited, that it is an evolved trait in our primate species.”

“Adrian, you see, you are a moral person yourself, and indeed there are many like you who are moral for moraility’s sake. But for the same reason that many stores need security cameras to stop people from stealing, many people need to have the feeling of fear in order to stop themselves from killing or stealing. It’s part of the inherent egoism of humanity.

You are clearly capable of maintaining a very correct moral stance yourself derived from your own world views. But there is a problem not within religion itself but within the people who follow it and who engage in perverse acts sometimes despite the fear of being watched by God or by a security camera in a store.”

“Indeed, there are amoral people. What I, personally, find amoral is that many people need to be threatened into being moral, but right you are this is just what defined the diversity of our human species.

However, I disagree with your idea that religion is not inherently the problem. While it is true that many people derive their morals from religious texts, and that many pick and mix according to the day and age they live in (few Creationists would seriously take to heart the Biblical encouragement to slavery), the fact that organised religions can have such a powerful effect on people is to me, damnedly immoral.

For a start, I agree and I am the first to postulate that were religions to be truly inconsiderate of the fates of other people’s souls, and as long as they only promulgated morals that dealt in a similar, if not identical way to the legal civil code, the world would be an infinitely better place, and it would coexist with religion.

However, this is goes against the very nature of organised religion. It is moral for an evangelist to spread the word of Jesus to as many heathens as he can, because they honestly believe they are trying to save other people’s souls. The Muslim Hadith quite clearly orders Muslims to kill or convert unbelievers. It is hard to take that verse as a metaphor as it is quite clearly unambiguous [ed note: Qur'an Sura 9:5 reads as "Kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is gracious, merciful." and the Hadith, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260, Narrated Ikrima reads "for the Prophet said, "If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."].

My point is that there are a set of religious values which do indeed help to stop violent people from murdering. However, in practice, the leadership of organised religions attach a much higher importance to ‘values’ which help them control their flock.

I mean ridiculous and violent things such as the obsession with sin and sexuality – who you have sex with, when you have sex, how you have sex – and other inane and irrelevant ‘morals’ such as an anti-abortion stance (which is nowhere justified in the Bible, for one), chauvinism (in covering up women’s heads and conferring them less rights than a 6 year old male), anti stem-cell research and a long etc. If the heads of organised religions really cared about morals such as ‘Do Not Kill’ they would issue press statements on every murder committed by a believer instead of issuing inane statements on abortion or Church-State separation. Rather, the Catholic Church will pardon you for murder if you sit in a box, tell an anointed elderly pederast and pray four or five times.”

To this, Salare absolutely agreed.

And thus on the 7th bus stop, Odin said “Let there be consensus”. And there was consensus. And Odin saw this and everything was good.


Brief Physics Intercision – Force due to Electric charges between varying dielectrics

Allow me to interrupt the (irregular) schedule of the Gospel with a Physics question.

I study Electrical and Electronic Engineering in Lausanne, Switzerland. In a recent Electrotechnique I class, the topic of force due to an electric charge came up. Basically, for two positive electric charges Q_1 and Q_2 in a vacuum (permitivity \epsilon_0, a distance r), the force due to the electric charges can be expressed as the following:

F_1 = F_2 = F = \frac{Q_1 Q_2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2}

However, that supposes that the dielectric between them, in this case a vacuum, is the same. What I asked today in class, and this was something the professor was incapable of answering on the spot, was: how do you express the force if Q_1 is in one dielectric \epsilon_1 and Q_2 is in another dielectric \epsilon_2? Let’s say for convenience, there is a clean separation of the two dielectrics at a point, say, \frac{r}{2}.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Layman’s terms:

Given two ideal, solitary, positive electric charges, a theme very commonly used to explain electromagnetism equations in Physics, you can express the force they exert upon each other. However, it assumes that the material which lets through the electric field caused by each other is the same throughout the system. What if one charge was in one type of ‘material’ and the other in another type? It’s a simple enough concept to imagine, and it’s very easily answerable if you’re talking about capacitors (a type of electronic component that stores electric charge).

Thanks in advance.


God’s Timeline

Whilst returning home two days ago, I noticed this flyer on one of the noticeboards near my house. Unfortunely I missed the 'debate', but I was intrigued to find out what position was being taken, though my instinct pointed towards creationism.

Well what would you know, my instinct was right. The church has a page where you can listen to some talks by the eminent Paul Garner. I haven't gotten round to listening to them (thank you very much dial-up), but I'm sure they'd be worth a laugh.

It's a common strategy for creationists to try and make a big thing of the scientific credentials of their speakers. here we have Paul Garner with BSc (Hons), FGS (which I thought at first meant For Gawds Sake). But no, turns out he has the BSc for Environmental sciences (Geology and biology) and he's a fellow of the Geological society. How I don't know. However his next club is a little more predicatable.

The BCM have a page on their beliefs. Basically they're a bunch of young earthers. Really it dulls the brain. But we do find common ground on one point:

We reject the ‘two books’ concept which suggests that God’s revelation in nature can be approached independently from God’s revelation in Holy Scripture. We reject the idea that knowledge may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ truth.

They're right. Knowledge cannot be divided into secular and religous. There is only the truth. And it certainly isn't what they think it is.

Politician’s popularity unaided by his popular faith

Harry Clarke joins Andrew Bolt in bemoaning the anti-Christian menace.

This time it's Catholics, followers of the most popular sect (5 million) of the most popular religion (12.7 million) in Australia, who are being discriminated against:
Sadly, I cannot help thinking that prejudiced views on Tony Abbott's Catholicism have hindered his prospects. We live in a secular society where people like Abbott who seek to live by a decent moral code are regarded suspiciously.
Abbott is not disliked because he lives by "decent moral code". He is unpopular because he tries to enforce, through legislation, an illogical, harmful "moral code" based on belief in a sky fairy.

There is nothing decent about restricting access to emergency contraception. Or fighting embryonic stem cell research, an area of great potential which one day could allow for the development of "replacement nerves and organs to overcome a range of devastating illnesses."

Parliamentary Liberal Party members recognise how secular and socially liberal Australia is. As such, Abbott will never be their leader.

The Sunday Age Faith column II

Ever wondered why some people are rich and others poor.

Rachel Woodlock, in last week's Faith column (no link available), gives us an Islamic view:
...the amount of wealth a person might acquire over their lifetime was already written by the hand of god before birth.
So if you are a citizen of Zimbabwe, fighting hunger and 14,841% inflation, take comfort in the fact there is nothing you can do about it and that Robert Mugabe was sent by Allah to keep you poor.

If This Was God’s Doing Then I Contend That God Is An Idiot

Today I hit my hand on a lamppost.

A banal and innocuous event and I’m glad to say that my finger quickly felt a lot better as soon as I stopped thinking about it.

As it happens I was talking with a classmate who believes passionately in God. As it happens, I was pulling his leg for something completely unrelated to religion and as it happens, as I hit my hand he retorted “Ah, that’s God punishing you for being such an idiot.”

I could not resist the temptation to strike back with chaos.

“Which one?”

He looked puzzled.

“Well, God.”

“OK, fine, so it was a divine punishment, but by whom? Zeus?”

“Dude, you know I’m a Christian who -”

“No, it must have been Thor, the God of lightning who moved my hand into a post of electrical dark magic. Although it could have also been Shiva, the destructor, who wished to inflict pain unto my pinky.”

via flickr/AprilM2107

“God has a plan for you, Adrian, so it must have been God.”

“There are many Gods you could believe in. What makes you think it was yours who was looking at me, a heathen, at this particular moment and judged that the punishment for teasing you for your football club was to strike my pinky with a lamppost?”

“OK, fine, it was all of them.”

“Hm, no, rather, the punishment was to strike the lamppost with my pinky. Has the lamppost been immoral?”

“Lampposts are inanimate objects.”

“Apparently not immune to divine punishment. You know what? OK, fine, God, your God, the Christian God, the father of Jesus of Nazareth, looked at me teasing you for your football club and decided that he would punish me, and assuming he thinks like you do that atheists are fools, then for my heathenness as well. He looked at the opportunities around him. He could have steered my path into a traffic collision. He could have dropped a 10-pound flower pot onto my head. He could have even interfered with meteorology to strike me with lightning, hail, blizzards or fish. But no, he sees a lamppost and my pinky and says ‘Hupa, Hupa, Hupa PinkyLamppost’. It didn’t even hurt. He didn’t even leave a couple of wires to electrocute me to death – that would have been admirably subtle”

“God exists whether you don’t believe in him or not.”

“If God’s plan to punish me for a banal terrestrial matter really was to strike a lamppost with my pinky ever so lightly then I contend to you that God is an incoherent, disorganised slacker and a complete idiot.”

We spent the rest of the walk home arguing about football.


Site Change

Putting up good content regularly requires a lot of time. I did it for a few months, then I asked for some feedback from you (see most recent post before this). Nearly two weeks have passed since then, and not a single person said so much as “hello.” I intentionally did not post since then [...]

Nutters Marginalised

In comments broadcast in a BBC1 television documentary, The Blair Years:

Tony Blair has sparked controversy by claiming that religious people who speak about their faith are viewed by society as "nutters".

The former prime minister’s comments came as he admitted for the first time that his faith was "hugely important" in influencing his decisions during his decade in power at No. 10, including going to war with Iraq in 2003.

Andrew Bolt stands up for those persecuted Christians in the West:
The one faith about which politicians mustn’t be open is Christianity...
This is certainly the case in Australia where our new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has failed to mention his Christianity over many years. The recent election was also devoid of politicians being open about their faith or openly appealing to Christians.

And even if those two previous sentences were proved to be false, Bolt has marshaled damning evidence of the omnipresent anti-Christian hatred in the Anglosphere:
Here’s a particularly foul example of that anti-Christian bigotry. From the BBC, of course.

And if you dare follow the link you find this "particularly foul" exchange:

JEREMY PAXMAN: Does the fact that George Bush and you are both Christians make it easier for you to view these conflicts in terms of good and evil?

TONY BLAIR: I don't think so, no, I think that whether you're a Christian or you're not a Christian you can try perceive what is good and what is, is evil.

JEREMY PAXMAN: You don't pray together for example?

TONY BLAIR: No, we don't pray together Jeremy, no.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Why do you smile?

TONY BLAIR: Because - why do you ask me the question?

JEREMY PAXMAN: Because I'm trying to find out how you feel about it.

TONY BLAIR: Possibly.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Right, would anyone else like to have a question?

That's right, Blair was questioned about his praying habits.

First they came for the communists etc.

Planet Atheism

Like my old blog, The Iron Chariot is now a member of Planet Atheism. If you've never heard of it, Planet Atheism collects the recent posts from several contributing atheist blogs and reposts them in one easy to find location. So if you're a big fan of rationality and free thinking, I suggest out check it out.

It’s Kind of Sad Being an Atheist

Declaring oneself an atheist is, by itself, a purely negative statement. Being atheists means that, in the absence of some proof that a god(s) rules the universe, we don’t believe in any such god(s). We of course feel forced to define ourselves this way in a country where roughly 85% of the population believes literally in heaven and miracles.

But “atheist” is still an uncomfortable designation, since we don’t want to define ourselves solely on the basis of a negative belief. So what are we to do? The answer is not at all obvious. Many of us (including me) consider ourselves to be secular humanists. This means to me that we hold the same beliefs as any right-thinking liberal person: love, appreciation of the beauty of the earth and of cultural human endeavors, and the rights of all people to have access to a happy and fulfilling life. In the atheist Thomas Jefferson’s ringing phrase in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,…” (Yes, the rest of that sentence unfortunately mentions “their Creator”, but the impact of the “self-evident” phrase is not lessened thereby).

A movement called The Brights (www.the-brights.net) has proposed a solution to this quandary. I feel sympathetic to their statement of principles, but personally find it still too undifferentiated. Perhaps we atheists should extend our self-designation slightly to something like: Atheists Who Also Seek to Live Full, Loving, and Generous Lives. Too long a name, of course, but maybe a start.

Thinking: Good For The Soul

Well it's been a while since I updated. Mostly because I've just moved continents but also because we have received no further replies from candidates. Although most of the candidates I contacted are perfectly happy to spam my inbox 6 times a day (I'm looking at you Bill Richardson) but not reply to my questions.

Most Disheartening.

Anywho!

An Art Project is being assembled. The final grant application won't be processed until January but we're preparing now!

It is a many faceted project which will encompass a book, street performances and artwork in picture and video form. Todays call to arms regards the street performances.

We (By which I mean a crack team of atheists with nothing better to do, if you'd like to be one of them please email me at crispymartian @ hotmail dot com) are going to be standing at various locations (at the moment it is St Paul's Cathedral, Speakers Corner in London, The Vatican & The First Cathedral of Christ in Moscow, more places to be added soon) wearing billboards with questions written on them. Attached to the billboard will be a number of creative utensils including charcoal, marker pens and paints for people to submit their answers on.

The people wearing these billboards will not approach anyone in the street, nor will they be trying to steer anyone away from their specific God. The point of this exercise is to get people thinking, and to share ideas in a comfortable environment.

So! The first draft of questions is halfway through and here they are:

Why?
Who is God?
How can I be Happy/Why Am I Unhappy?
I Sacrificed Myself For You: Discuss
Should My Body Be Hidden?
Polyester/Cotton Blend = Abomination?
Selfish Prayers Here:
Confess Your Sins Here:
What is Sin?
Who Is Evil?
Why Are We Here?
How am I Here?
Why Won't God Heal Amputees (This question was stolen from a website with the same name. I have yet to ask the owners permission and will need it before I use it in any official sense)
What Would God Say To You?
Is My Love/Reality Not Enough?
Our Lady Of:?
Why Love Your Enemies?
If The Rapture is Coming: What Was The Point?
How Did All Those Animals Fit on That Tiny Boat?
What Is Creation?
Where Does Your Goodness Come From?
Who Are You/What Makes You You?
What Is Holy? - If people write polo's I will be the happiest girl in the universe
In The Bible God Killed 2,270,365 People; Wouldn't You Rebel?
What If They're Wrong?
This Building Cost £-. How Would You Spend The Money?

Please please please let us know which questions you like and which ones you don't. Any suggestions for more questions can be added in the comments and if you'd like to receive updates on this project or if you'd like to be a part of it please email me. If we get this grant we will be covering travel costs of all the people who come to our billboard extravaganzas.

And please see my previous entries for other fun atheist projects.