Planet Atheism » Bjorn

A Gene Roddenberry Humanist

Bjorn — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 15:05:00 +0000

On an unseasonably warm September evening in a basement auditorium at the University of Minnesota, Scott Lohman, president of the Humanists of Minnesota spoke before a diverse audience of people invited by Campus Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists on Star Trek, science fiction and how the genre can provide a platform for a Humanist message.

Mr. Lohman began his presentation with a story about how he started to think as a Humanist. It began as a child watching Star Trek and he refers to himself as a “Gene Roddenberry Humanist.” Next, he included what every Humanist must include in a presentation, a slide called, “What is Humanism?” He cited the following, which is from Humanist Manifesto III:

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

Next, Mr. Lohman explored science fiction as a genre and why it can be useful for exploring big ideas, complex concepts and attitude changing situations. He stated that science fiction is a literature of ideas which dares to ask, “What if?” In Star Trek, for example, writers found out how to talk about complex controversial social issues, simply by placing characters in a different planet and painting their faces blue. As a genre, science fiction is known for taking ideas and running with them. Through this exploration, writers have the freedom to get an audience to think of big things, such as, “What makes us human?”, “What gives life meaning?” and “Does it pay to be ethical?”

Star Trek started in 1966 and was unique on television for a number of reasons. First, in science fiction, it had been common to change the cast of characters in each episode, such as in the Twilight Zone. This would allow writers to convince the audience to identify with characters and that clearly worked. After 78 episodes aired, Star Trek continues on through syndication, even today.

Mr. Lohman then walked the audience through the history of Star Trek by providing examples of episodes which feature Humanist themes. In the first season of the Original Series Star Trek explored what makes us human in “What Are Little Girls Made Of?,” and should we live in a controlled or open society in, “The Return of the Archons.” The writers explored the concept of computer generated war in, “A Taste of Armageddon,” including this quote from Captain Kirk, “All right. It's instinctive. The instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers, but we are not going to kill today. That's all it takes - knowing that we won't kill today.”

Mr. Lohman continued the exploration of Star Trek and its bold themes featured through its history, from the Original Series in the 60’s to the Animated Series, the Next Generation, Deep Sapce 9, Voyager and Enterprise. A complete episode guide for Humanists will be provided at the end of this article.

Star Trek and Humanism should serve as an inspiration for budding authors out there and even activists who want to bring a Humanist message to a larger audience. Science Fiction, as a literary genre, can be cleverly subversive and disruptive to common conceptions. Mr. Lohman provided an entertaining, through message. The leadership of the Campus Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists organized a successful event. I know I heard Activities Director, Jeff Mondloch, greeting people before the meeting, even straining to remember names, which was great! (A tip to organizers, name tags can be dorky, but help new people become familiar.)

Humanist Episode Guide (Courtesy of Scott Lohman)

The Original Series

Season 1
“What Are Little Girls Made Of?” - What makes us human?
“The Return of the Archons” - Should we live in a controlled or open society?
“A Taste of Armageddon” - What if we had computer generated war with real causalities?

Season 2
“Who Mourns for Adonais?” - What if an alien thought he was the Greek god Apollo?
“The Apple” - What if you lived your life with no responsibilities?
“A Private Little War” - Is it moral to interfere with other cultures’ wars, as we did in Vietnam?
“A Piece of the Action” - What if a culture had been contaminated by a book about gangsters in Chicago?

Season 3
“Let This Be Your Last Battlefield” - What if two races hated each other because one had a half white, half black face and the other had a half black, half white face?

The Animated Series

Season 2
“How Sharper than a Serpent’s Tooth” - What if an alien visited ancient Earth to become known as a Mayan god?
“Bem” - What if an individual creature could split itself into multiple entities?

The Next Generation

Season 1
“Encounter at Farpoint” - What if an omnipotent being accused humanity of barbarism?
“11001001” - What if a society became too dependent on technology and only understood the world in binary?

Season 2
“Measure of a Man” - What makes us human?

Season 3
“The High Ground” - Is it interference to assist the wounded in a conflict?
“Who Watches the Watchers?” - What if a primitive culture was being monitored by an advanced culture and became exposed to advanced technology?

Season 4
“Devil’s Due” - What if an advanced species terrorized another species, posing as a god? Is advanced technology indistinguishable from magic?

Season 6
“The Chase” - What if an advanced humanoid species populated planets all around the galaxy?

Deep Space 9

Season 1
“Duet” - Can an individual make a difference in a war?
“In the Hands of the Prophets” - How should religion and politics interact?

Season 3
“Past Tense” - What if San Francisco segregated the poor into compounds to prevent social upheaval?

Season 4
“Rejoined” - Do we love a person’s personality or their body?

Season 5
“Trials and Tribble-ations” - What if a television show wanted to pay homage to its history by bringing back themes from a previous episode?

Voyager

Season 2
“Death Wish” - How long is forever? What if a being who couldn’t die wanted to?

Season 3
“Distant Origin” - What if dinosaurs left Earth and evolved in another part of the galaxy?

Season 4
“Mortal Coil” - What if someone could die and be recreated? How would that person match their experience with what they have been told of the afterlife?

Season 5
“Equinox” - Does it pay to be moral?

Season 7
“Workforce” - What if the crew were brainwashed to believe they work in a factory instead of on a ship?

Enterprise

Season 2
“Congenator” - What if a species had three genders?

Season 3
“Similitude” - What makes us unique?

Grassroots Anything – Lessons learned from running an atheist organization

Bjorn — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:50:00 +0000

I was president of Minnesota Atheists for only a few months. Since then, I have been happily observing other freethought groups and listening to presentations on how to make a group more effective, including developing campaigns, communication and diversity. I thought it would be helpful to detail where I fell short with Minnesota Atheists on these fronts and also what appeared to work (though the evidence is mostly subjective, since we weren't great at paying attention to metrics).

Campaigns

Desiree Schell, Maria Walters, Trevor Zimmerman and K.O. Myers created a Campaign Manual for Grassroots Skeptical Activism, though the lessons learned in this manual are useful for any grassroots activity, even at a small scale. The framework can be modified, depending on what you are planning on doing, for example, any activity should have stated goals, a primary and secondary objective, tactics and a post activity evaluation.

When I was running Minnesota Atheists, the main goal I had was to double dues-paying membership in a year. Looking back on that, that was really a primary objective. A goal should be something large, for example, making it more socially acceptable to identify as "atheist" in Minnesota. That is, after all, one of the mission statements of Minnesota Atheists and a campaign could be built around that, including a full scale campaign with tactics as varied as contacting media and politicians, targeting sympathetic organizations in outreach and writing letters to politicians. One way to measure the success of this campaign would be an increase in membership.

Communication

Like any organization today, a diverse range of communication is used to inform members of what is going on. When I was with Minnesota Atheists, I advocated for expanding our communication to members through Facebook and using our email list to send out newsletters. The benefit of using these sources, is the ability to assess effectiveness. When I redesigned the website of Minnesota Atheists, I wanted to be able to analyze as many metrics as possible. I wanted to know where our visitors were coming from, what they were looking at, how long were they spending on our site and how many unique visitors we received. I also wanted to be able to compare this data moth over month, or year over year. By using more online resources, we were able to see if our outreach was expanding or shrinking. By using an email marketing service, we were also able to determine, with some accuracy, if our newsletter was actually being opened. Sure, you may be sending an email out to 1,500 people, but if only 20 open it, you may need to spend some time to determine why that is.

While metrics gathered from electronic media are helpful, another piece of communication, getting feedback from members, former members, and just interested parties, was important. Since I had only been involved with the organization for a couple of years, I wanted to really reach out to as many people as possible, to find out what they thought, so I emailed out a survey. One limitation of a survey, especially with a group like Minnesota Atheists, with a diverse range of membership, including some people who do not use email, or use it very little, is that you may not hear their feedback. Looking back, I think it would have been helpful to gather these responses by calling members. Through the survey, I was able to gather some information from some people, only about 120 responses in 1,500 requests, but these responses from people have been echoed by others in the freethought community, including the charge that Minnesota Atheists is too liberal-leaning of an organization, doesn't have enough family friendly events and doesn't meet at times or places which are convenient to me. These responses helped push the expansion of Meetup events even further than we had ever before. One other interesting response from the survey, is that many people joined Minnesota Atheists because they want to meet a community of like-minded people. Many people were becoming first-time members simply because the group exists, is easy to find online and easy to join. It wasn't really because of anything specific we had done, or were currently doing. It was as simple as being there.

Diversity

At Minnesota Atheists, there has always been a push to have half men and half women on the board. While this increased diversity on the board, it also felt forced, for example, only women candidates would be sought after if a woman left the board. More women have become involved with Minnesota Atheists, even though the board make up is much different now, with mostly men, which may mean that the make up of the board doesn't impact attendance at events nearly as much as the events themselves.

When I first joined Minnesota Atheists, I felt really out of place because of my age. Most people meeting at a library on a Sunday afternoon had gray hair and were men. Though I haven't been to a Minnesota Atheists event in a while, before I left, there were younger people becoming involved as well as more women. This was more due to our social events than anything else, I think. We expanded to include book clubs, pub nights, small group discussions, family events and even a debate class. It took getting women and younger people to run small activities during a month to get people like them to be more active. This diversity was organic and didn't involve a pink-themed newsletter to attract women. What I found challenging, was in making people feel comfortable running their own event. When I approached people to run a book club, if they were interested, or some other event, some people felt afraid to do so because they feared the board. Some people felt like every event must be scrutinized and vetted by the board in order to happen and felt pressure to conform to some unwritten standard which all activities should meet. Once people got over that fear, things went a lot better. Since we charged people for membership, many people who are involved with the organization are not necessarily members, which also became a challenge in finding people to run events. When I was with the board, we were never really able to settle the argument surrounding volunteers working off their membership by running events, if they wanted to. I think this would have been helpful in finding more parents of young children to get involved in running family-friendly events.

With Minnesota Atheists, I felt like we were completely neutral toward women and people of different cultural, religious and racial backgrounds, but we were not. It's a problem I think a lot of groups have, where they pretend like race and cultural identification don't matter, so activities like a presentation of privilege never come up. That is one thing I regret not working on, is in having a more diverse selection of speakers on different topics, including people from different cultural and/or racial backgrounds. While our monthly meetings were considered public outreach events, we rarely had non-atheists attend, so it wasn't really an outreach tool to non-atheists. Realizing this, would allow us to discuss more challenging issues, which may or may not have anything specifically to do with atheism, but would be more rewarding to the people participating and allow the group to welcome more people who may be atheist, but who may not identify as atheist first.

Conclusion

Organizing atheists is just as challenging as organizing any other group of people. People are challenging. The feedback you will get will often be from a minority of really passionate people in your group and sometimes just the loudest complainers. Most feedback about how well or poor you are doing as an organization, you will NEVER hear and much of what you decide to do will be based on either your vision for the organization or instinct, but the more information can be measured, the more feedback can be gathered, the more successful your group will be in reaching its goals. You do have goals for your group, right?

How JREF Can Become More Diverse

Bjorn — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:21:00 +0000

At The Amazing Meeting 9, a panel focused on diversity was moderated by Desiree Schell and included panelists blogger Greta Christina, Executive Director of the James Randi Educational Foundation D. J. Grothe, activist Debbie Goddard, comedian and journalist Jamila Bey and blogger Hemant Mehta. During the panel, the suggestion was raised on how to increase diversity at TAM through having a diversity of topics open for discussion, including diving into the “soft sciences” and discussing issues such as the drug war, poverty, the right for homosexuals to marry, etc. D. J. Grothe spoke with a word of caution against doing such a thing, for a number of reasons. Since I think that spreading critical thinking to the public at large is important, I thought I would present some options for JREF.

First, I will be focusing on JREF solely. In my opinion, local organizations are able to judge what to do, but JREF can be a great motivator for the direction local groups may go. Second, I have not been a member of JREF for even a year. I don’t have an understanding of the history of the organization, so my assumptions may not be correct. Third, when I speak of diversity, I will use the same categories included in the panel, which are a diversity of sex, sexual orientation, race, income, age and ideas. Lastly, with regard to opinions panelists gave at TAM, I am going on memory and notes I wrote. I will also be referring to comments made by people on Twitter, which shouldn’t be taken as representative of any particular group, but are what I gathered as feedback.

Whenever someone suggests an organization should or should not do something, I like to examine the mission statement of the organization. A mission statement is part of the organization’s legal documentation and not just some tag line. Every action that an organization takes should further the mission in some way. If an organization engages in actions which are not in line with the mission, donors could sue the organization to have funds returned. The mission statement of the James Randi Educational Foundation is:
“Our mission is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.”
Based on this mission, it appears that having a presentation on the drug war and/or other social issues would be outside of the scope of the JREF, since the focus is only on “paranormal and supernatural ideas.”

I think it would also be important to examine if the JREF has had topics on issues which may be outside of its mission, as defined. What this may mean, is that the mission statement may need to be changed and/or an event like TAM is considered to be different than an action specifically created by JREF, which would allow for more flexibility in topics. During TAM 9, most presentations can be directly tied to the mission of JREF. There are a few exceptions, however, such as Lawrence Krauss’ presentation on Richard Feynmann and Sean Faircloth’s presentation on Theocrats.

These two presentations and the theme of TAM 9 show where there is room to do what the diversity advocates on the panel are hungering to do. The concern raised, is that by limiting the focus of JREF to just the paranormal and supernatural, you are excluding others from participating. The scientific method and critical thinking are important pieces used to analyze claims regarding the supernatural and paranormal. People who value this method to prevent harm caused by people making false claims will usually have an appreciation for science and discovery in general and would trust analysis of other topics using the scientific method and critical thinking. For example, analyzing the claims made by proponents of drug control policy in the United States to evaluate whether that policy was effective in meeting its goals or not.

Here is where some concern was raised by D. J. Grothe in the discussion. D. J. argued that he goal is to make TAM welcoming to everyone, including having a diversity of beliefs represented. The challenge to that, is that you must increase the diversity of topics discussed at TAM in order to attract a diverse audience. Otherwise you will attract a group of people who are interested in Bigfoot, UFO’s, science and philosophy. D. J.’s partial challenge to that, is that the topics at TAM haven’t changed greatly. The focus is still on skepticism, debunking the paranormal and supernatural claims, yet this year saw growing diversity in attendance, with 40 percent of attendees identifying as women. It will be important to determine why that diversity is increasing and if the selection of topics has much to do with why people are choosing to come to TAM or if there are other reasons why someone is choosing to attend.

While listening to the panel, a few themes from commenters were noted. One comment raised by PZ Myers, is that D. J. Grothe is attempting to play the role as gatekeeper for allowed skeptical discussion. I would say that is a fair claim and is likely one of D. J.’s responsibilities as executive director of JREF. If D. J. allowed for a presentation on the drug war and the presentation was overly political, JREF may be blamed for it and may also be accused of promoting a political position. However, we can see that Sean Faircloth’s presentation, while not advocating for, or against any political candidate, could be seen as being overly political by some who may not view the separation of church and state as important as others do in the skeptical community.

Another commenter mentioned the concern that JREF, by focusing on social issues, could easily become a defender of the Democratic Party. I think the commenter raised this question, since, while someone can evaluate the testable claims made by legislators who created the laws which form drug control policy, it becomes easy to write the next half of the presentation, for example, Congressman Smith, while promoting legislation X, advocated that it would do Y. Since it did not do Y, legislation X is a failure, so I propose legislation Z.

Will increasing the diversity of topics at TAM increase attendance? Maybe. It would take surveys to determine why people are attending in the first place. Can JREF increase the diversity of topics at TAM without appearing to become too political? I think they can, but it is a careful process. Is it important to advocate for skepticism and critical thinking in a more broad sense than what JREF may focus on and reach out to all people. Yes. This is why I think that outreach at the local level by independent groups may lead to greater diversity at TAM.

While there were many presentations at TAM regarding the paranormal and supernatural, many were also focused on diverse topics, such as organizing, being an effective communicator, space exploration, how are minds work, including how we can be fooled and how to deal with mental illness. I see these type of events useful for inspiring an application of critical thinking across a broad range of topics since they are designed, in some way, to make you a better skeptic and a better promoter of skepticism. In this way, you become an advocate for critical thinking in other organizations you may be involved with, whether that is at work, your school, a local skeptics organization or an organization which advocates for social change. Skeptics can be seen as soldiers fighting a battle against woo using the tools of critical thinking, effective, audience specific communication and the scientific method.

Because JREF is silent on issues like the drug war, rights for homosexuals and poverty it is easy to claim that JREF is acting cowardly by avoiding these issues, or even worse, being complicit in discrimination by not acting. Though, the same criticism could be held of other organizations which don’t view themselves as advocates for broad social change. Should JREF become a leading organization, inspiring local organizations to use skepticism to tackle difficult social issues we all deal with, in an effort to increase the diversity D. J. Grothe wishes to obtain? Would or should JREF’s mission change to accommodate this change? Are there members of JREF who would rather not have presentations on “soft science” social issues and appreciate the effort to maintain political neutrality? Are there also members who will feel ignored if his or her issue isn’t discussed? These are tough questions which need answers. The leadership and membership of JREF should address them through considerate research and analysis. The diversity panel is a good start, but it is obvious that JREF will need to determine how to meet the goal of increasing diversity.

In my opinion, which should be taken with a large grain of salt, since I have not been active in the skeptic community for long, is that local groups will be the largest sources of outreach and can affect the diversity shown at JREF. Similar to the papers presentations given on the last day of TAM, a handful of local organizations can give presentations on outreach efforts they have conducted and/or be given an opportunity to give a presentation which is important to their members. If local organizations increase diversity and those local members become active with JREF, the leadership of JREF may have an incentive to expand its mission beyond its more narrow focus to include issues of importance to a wider audience.

I look forward to more discussion on this issue. I don't envy D. J.'s job of steering the focus of JREF to maintain the balance of allowing for thoughtful discussion on complex social issues with less clear methods for testing claims and avoiding criticism for being a left leaning organization without consideration for "other points of view," but I feel diversity won't increase if we don't take the time to determine how to get more people involved. It may be a complex task, but we're clever people, right? We can do this.

Campus Group Doing the Small Things Well

Bjorn — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:17:00 +0000

My first "atheist" activity was a debate which was co-sponsored by Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, now Campus Atheists Skeptics and Humanists at the University of Minnesota. Since then, I have tried to go to events when they are interesting and financially supported the group on occasion, because CASH has some great resources available to them that other local atheist groups do not. For example, predictable meeting spaces, easy access to market ideas, a large population of people who may be primed to find an identity and/or make the world a better place, volunteers who can meet more frequently and opportunities for funding and grants which don't exist for non-student groups.

While CASH has tons of benefits available to them, the leadership has gotten off track at times. It can be easy to take all of these benefits for granted, especially getting funding from student service fees which eclipse funding other atheist student groups receive around the country. It can also be easy to fall into the temptation to "phone it in" despite working hard to organize a few larger events during the year, weekly events can be daunting and it is easy to throw another game night or pizza party, week after week, simply because of apathy. Some people are great at being accountable and others need more motivation. This should be a lesson to other student groups: non-students are watching!

Student group leadership changes each year, which I think is a great thing, even though you can be throwing the dice and having to live with whoever was convinced to devote a ton of time to the cause for the next semester or year. Since I've been following CASH, I have seen some great leaders graduate and move on, some not so great leaders thankfully moving on to things they are better suited for. Over this last year, I have seen a better focus on making CASH a great organization, rather than just a group of friends who like to hang out and use student service fees to buy pizza.

Here are the things CASH has done well over the last year:
1. Had regular communication. When CASH wasn't as great, one sign was a lack of communication. Their website or Facebook pages were rarely updated and when they were, it was often the day of the event, or the day before. For someone who isn't on campus, or for people who like to go to interesting events, it's really important to know these things ahead of time. It also shows you care about the events you're planning.
2. Had a variety of events. While I hate on things like South Park night, or game night and prefer discussion and speakers, if you only have one type of event, you'll alienate people who like the other events.
3. Supported the diversity of opinion among atheists. Atheists aren't some unified front with total agreement on every issue, particularly about what role should atheists have in making the world a better place and how to accomplish those goals. If we can't even speak with each other about things we don't agree on, how are we ever to convince non-atheists to support causes we value?
4. Learning lessons at conferences. The Secular Student Alliance holds a number of leadership conferences each year. While some students can use this as an excuse to goof off and skip speakers, CASH's leadership, at least some, got a lot of value from the speakers and talking with other student leaders.
5. Bridging the summer gap. I received an email from Jeff Mondloch at the end of June. That has never, ever happened before and was great to see. In the newsletter, he let people who live in town, or take classes over the summer, that CASH is already planning for next year (awesome) and put out a notice about am interesting non-CASH, but atheist-related event people might like to keep them interested.

From a non-student, but avid supporter of a student group, I'd like to let volunteers of student groups know that communication matters, reaching out to the local, non-campus atheist community can be a great way to get funding, if you need it, meet interesting people with different experiences. Also, know that what you do matters. If you're heart isn't in it, or your priorities are different, work as hard as you are able to, even though you may not be getting paid, because what you do matters. If you can't find that good balance, work hard at grooming someone who can help you or replace what you are doing. If you dread going to another meeting to plan the next event and you try hard to come up with excuses, think about passing the torch. Also, don't be afraid to ask community leaders for help. While non-students can be busy, they may be motivated to support your cause and ease some of your burden.

I know I usually write about things as a rant, but I'm happy to report that CASH is doing well and I look forward to the next year.

Skeptics Find Comfort in a "Cocoon of Doubt"

Bjorn — Mon, 30 May 2011 03:26:00 +0000

My father graduated Luther Seminary with a Master in Divinity this past weekend. Jeannette and I attended the commencement ceremony with a sermon provided by Rev. Craig Koester. Rather than providing a sermon full of optimism about making the world a better place through promoting peace and equality, self empowerment and freedom of all people, he seemed to be making one last ditch effort to convince graduating seminary students that they didn't waste their time and that convincing other people that the Resurrection of Jesus really happened matters.

He even went so far as to bring up doubt in the scripture he quoted:

Matthew 28:16-20
"Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.""

See? Even Jesus' disciples doubted Jesus was Jesus, even though they saw him. So, that means that God needs "faithful doubters."

Also during the sermon, he touched on the problems Christianity faces, namely Catholics, Pentecostals and Evangelicals and their scandals. "You also might overhear at the coffee shop as people crowd around their laptops and iPods, people questioning whether organized religion really matters." Skeptics find comfort in their doubt, never having to be certain about anything, he continued. Going so far as to describe skeptics as living in a "Cocoon of doubt."

Skepticism is not a negative position. It's also not a position taken for comfort. Rev. Koester mentioned that doubt is the default human reaction. It's only natural to doubt, though somehow skepticism is something to attack. I would argue that if doubt is the natural position people start with, then it takes very little convincing for most people. For example, if we take the passage from Matthew, all Jesus had to do to convince the disciples was to say God gave him all authority, the equivalent of "because I said so."

More and more people are identifying with no religion. Rev. Koester wants to blame Catholics and skeptics, rather than trying to face the reality that arcane ritual and an insistence on a resurrection are not sustainable in a modern world. That doesn't mean that the world is becoming skeptical, atheistic, or even less religious, but it does mean that Lutheranism has to compete with non-denominational Christianity, generalized spirituality and other non-traditional religions. Christians even feel more free to throw away pieces of dogma they no longer find useful, such as the threat of Hell, literal interpretations of the Bible, condemnation of homosexuals, or even the divinity of Jesus and the concept of three gods in one.

Skepticism is not nihilism. It's also not easy to simply doubt. Skeptics have no problem accepting evidence and taking a position on whether something is true or not, though skeptics are free to change his or her mind, based on new evidence. These seminary students may be presented with new evidence, but will have enormous pressure to continue to believe something they may not trust. There are few jobs available to pastors who have lost their faith, which is a shame.

Rev. Koester would have been wiser to inspire graduates to inspire congregations to make the world a better place through promotion of peace and promoting social and economic equality rather than making a last ditch effort to keep students from realizing how messy the business of organized religion is and loosing their faith. It makes me think of a graduating class of physics students being reminded that gravity is real and though you may doubt gravity is real, you just need to remember that I said it was so, and that is good enough.

Skeptics Find Comfort in a "Cocoon of Doubt"

Bjorn — Mon, 30 May 2011 03:26:00 +0000

Matthew 28:16-20
"Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.""

Atheist smart Car: An Aftermath

Bjorn — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 02:33:00 +0000

In October 2009, I bought a used smart car because I've always thought they were neat. I also got a good deal on a trade in and the cost of the car was well below its Kelly Blue Book value. Also in October, I stepped down as president of Minnesota Atheists after only serving for 8 months. I did so for a number of different reasons and I still think it was the best decision for myself and for the organization.

In the spring, I decided to commission Dan Norte of Dark Dan's Window Tinting in Owatonna to cut and apply Out Campaign decals on the smart car. Since I had a Ford Focus, I've had decals on my cars. The first time I had a Pac Man decal on my hood to cover a paint chip from road debris. I figured it was cheaper than repainting and the decal would protect the metal. What I found out, was that cars with nerdy decals get a lot of attention and that was cool. It was so cool, I did it again with a new car.

August Berkshire, long-time organizer of Minnesota Atheists, owns the vanity plate, "Atheist," for the state of Minnesota. When deciding how I wanted to participate in breaking down stereotypes of atheists, I thought something similar to a license plate would be a good, non-invasive option.

Over the last 10 or so months, my car has been blazoned with giant red "A's," the website for the Out Campaign, a plug for Camp Quest of Minnesota, and a slogan, "Don't Believe in God? You are not alone." The result? A handful of conversations at gas stations and parking lots and a few thumbs up on the highway. I'm sure most of the people I work with have no doubt how I view the God issue, but no one has brought it up. My goal for having the decals was to gain awareness, just as the Out Campaign is supposed to do. I think to some degree, that happened.

So, is it dangerous to have atheist decals stuck all over your car? For me, it wasn't. Though, I'm a sample of one. It you feel compelled to wear your atheism on your sleeve, seek out your local sign maker, get a decal cut, and slap it on! Of course, anytime you wear your religious views on your sleeve, you risk being "that guy." How would you feel if someone felt so compelled to put giant Ichthys fish on their car? Even if to some people I was, "That Guy," I still think it has been a positive experience. The smart car will likely be retired in the next week for a new car.

Atheist smart Car: An Aftermath

Bjorn — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 02:33:00 +0000

Christians are:

Bjorn — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 05:17:00 +0000

The Friendly Atheist asked a question, "If Christians would listen, what would you say to them?" In the comments, I noticed there were a number of statements about Christians. From reading all the comments, it looks like many of them are directed at fundamentalist Christians and others are more general. I plucked out the statements I noticed.

Christians:

are hypocritical.
think atheists aren't human.
try to convert people.
only talk about Christianity.
need a spiritual being to cling to.
believe everyone needs his/her specific beliefs in his/her life.
hold modern beliefs which aren't Christ-like.
think that philosophy, science, postmodernism, movies, etc. are out to get them.
tell others how to live their lives.
are judgmental.
have insider/outsider thinking.
are narrow-minded.
follow the golden-rule over empathy.
reject reality.
believe that God created the heavens and Earth in 6 days.
think they are horrible and unworthy.
have been brainwashed into believing something that makes them intolerant and hateful.
are trapped in a religion that takes advantage of good intentions.
limit their understanding of the whole wide universe to the Bible.
manipulate family members to isolate and reject atheists.
think that moral behavior is impossible without belief in God.
don't think before they speak.
have been told what to think by their Church.
don't realize its hurtful to be judged.
force people around them to obey parts of their behavioral code that comes solely from the Bible.
think that atheists are ignorant, angry or abused.
condemn others.
do good things to build a magical castle in the sky for when they die.
believe in a magical place of fire where some people go when they die.
don't practice tolerance.
think shellfish are ok, but homosexuals are not.
are arrogant.
believe they can behave in whatever manner they want.
think atheists haven't been introduced to religion.
think atheists are mad at God or at believers in God.
have not read the Bible.
don't use evidence based in reality.
have not researched science.
fear atheists.
come to beliefs through reflection of what they believe about the world.
think they are right.
believe that they are going to an imaginary Nice Room and atheists go to an imaginary Naughty Room.
use evangelism to score more members for their cult.
live their life in the service of their master, real or imaginary.
think asking questions and searching for answers is a bad thing.
are being spoon fed.
hate people that are different.
are in an abusive relationship with god.
play the victim.
force personal beliefs on others.
are raised to be judgmental.
act as though Jews and Muslims are so different even though all three religions worship the same deity.
indoctrinate their children.
take the Bible seriously, but disregard other holy texts.
don't condemn religious actions that are extreme, illegal, or in violation of the separation of church and state.
actions and inactions are contributing to many of the major ills the world currently faces.
think that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
push an ideology on people based on undemonstratable propositions.
do not have a scientific mindset.
hold nonsensical beliefs.
promotes ignorance and stifles a child's natural curiosity about the world around them.
use words, actions and votes to express disrespect for another's sexual orientation.
constantly attempt to convert atheists.
are on the wrong side of big issues like slavery, segregation, discrimination against blacks, discrimination against women, discrimination against gays.
made war, tortured others, fueled the Inquisition, destroyed cultures with missionary work.
close their eyes to progress and scientific evidence.
wreck families and ruin lives.
are unwilling to change their opinion on whether god exists or not.
don't read the Bible critically.
don't try to see where other people are coming from.
use the Bible to justify already present hate an d bigotry.
afraid of logic.
know that the truth will prove them wrong.
have a church whose negative judgmental behavior is responsible for a lot of pain and mental problems in young teenagers.
demonstrate bigotry and homophobic behaviors.
choose to act based on morality handed down from an authority and/or to avoid punishment or receive a reward.
think the Bible is the absolute truth.
know that the atheist argument is more rational but choose to believe because its what they want to do.
actively try to conform the rest of the country's beliefs and laws to theirs just so they can feel safe.
hold onto beliefs which are verifiably false.
think they hold a monopoly on feelings of awe or compassion or happiness.
would run riot in the streets without a belief in a god.
think that atheists are immoral.
don't apply empathy to their worldview.
actively work to keep gays second-class citizens.
can't see the beauty of the world for what it is.
have not read the Bible with an open mind.
assert they have the moral high ground.
support other Christians who are impolite or bigoted by not asking them to stop.
judge people based on actions and don't value people alone.
are blind to the simple truth that Jesus loved hanging out with "outsiders."
expect atheists to do more volunteer work than anyone else or else atheists are amoral and selfish.
believe that the Bible would condemn a Christ-like individual because they did not profess a belief in Jesus.
think that their religion is true because it is how they were raised.
believe that since atheists don't believe in God then they believe in Satan.
believe that humans are God's most prized creations.
get defensive when you ask them why they think what they think.
don't think they would believe in another deity if they had been born in another part of the world.
won't listen to atheists.
can't have a discussion with atheists without trying to convert them.
think life is meaningless without a belief in God.
think Christians are oppressed in America.
are offended that atheists exist and question Christian views.
think that atheists are ignorant.
think that God favors some of the human race over others.
attend political rallies which are the very intersection of bigotry, hatred and willful ignorance.
have pastors who are human, hateful, spiteful and manipulative humans who use their power to spread agendas of intolerance and bigotry.
should worship their God in private.
only believe because they want to believe.
think that they are nothing without God.
think that atheists deserve eternal torment for not believing in God.
think their religion is the one true religion.
spew vitriol and hate.
think that atheists want to take away their beliefs.
believe in a middle-ages God.
worship a big mean man in the sky to avoid being responsible for his or her own actions.
try to create laws which mirror rules in the Bible.
think everyone should be subject to the rules of God, whether you believe in God or not.
insist on forcing others to listen to their prayers in public.
who run for public office are the ones who hate other groups and make Christians look like lunatics.
struggle with difficult things in the Bible.
don't follow the teachings of Christ.
don't allow themselves to doubt.
are subjected to group think.
think similar things, express similar views, ask similar questions, give similar answers in one congregation and everything is different in another.
treat everyone like they too believe in God.
treat non Christians like they live a wild, party lifestyle.
think they have the upper hand regarding morality.
have not studied other religions.
hold beliefs which cannot be proven objectively.
can't see people beyond his or her religious identity.
think they are guarded by a supernatural protector.
are not perfect. No one is.
deny medical care to children.
violate Jesus' instructions every time they pray in public.
worship idols if they attend a church which has an American flag in it.
abuse children by threatening them with hell.
think atheists hate Christians.

Christians are:

Bjorn — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 05:17:00 +0000

Free Speech and the Bible Humpers

Bjorn — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 02:55:00 +0000

This weekend saw hundreds of thousands of people coming out in support of GLBT rights by attending Twin Cities Pride in Minneapolis. Non-heterosexual lifestyles are seen as offensive to certain people. There are different reasons for this. Some express that non-heterosexual lifestyles are "against Nature," others will cite religious scripture for justification of the opinion that any other form of sexuality other than heterosexuality is immoral and will result in those individuals facing an eternity in torment in the afterlife.

Twin Cities Pride rents out a large public park in downtown Minneapolis for two days at some considerable cost. To absorb this cost, they solicit donations, sell sponsorships, and sell tent space to vendors and organizations. Because Twin Cities Pride rents the whole park, they establish certain rules within the park which vendors must follow. Vendors are allowed to hand out materials, but only at the location they have rented and the organization is allowed to choose who is allowed to pay for a table and who can not.

Why is this an issue? Brian Johnson, a Christian known for protesting Pride festivals was allowed by the Minneapolis Park Board to preach and hand out Bibles at the festival in Loring Park. Twin Cities Pride attempted to prevent him from doing so by issuing an injunction against the decision by the Park Board, which was rejected. The judge's reason? What Brian Johnson was attempting to do is exercise his right to free speech, so long as he isn't disruptive. I agree with the decision. If a protester can be refused free speech at this event, what about a gay rights supporter at a Christian festival?

Brian Johnson wasn't the only protester we saw this year. John Chisham was there as well. We have seen him over the past few years at the Duluth GLBTQAI Festival. He carries a large sign with Bible quotes and preaches at will about sin. He has assistants who will stand and read from the Bible and always includes someone who video tapes his interactions with attendees at the festivals. What would you see from one of these videos? Gay rights supporters shouting, telling him HE is going to Hell, yelling other vile things and even spitting on him. This kind of video encourages Christians to give to his cause. The people who support gay rights are clearly a violent group who are anti-Christian and need to be preached to.

I should mention that I held up a "Hug an Atheist" sign next to his sign at GLBTQAI Duluth last year. What was interesting, is how upset people were getting over him just being there. Some people responded to my sign with great enthusiasm, simply because of his presence. Still others in the audience ignored both of us. Ultimately, both of us should have been ignored and eventually, we were. This is the lesson that the people at GLBTQAI Duluth have learned. Don't give him an audience. Don't yell at him and get upset.

Minneapolis wasn't used to seeing John. A crowd formed around him, of about 50 to 60 people in the afternoon on Saturday. People stood in front of him and listened to him preach while shouting back. Others held up a sign which read "Bible Humper." He had an assistant with a video camera and the audience was providing all the footage he would need. Someone shoved him, was detained and released without a ticket. If he had been ignored, he wouldn't have received the press he was seeking.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I also saw someone holding up a copy of Christoper Hitchens' "God is Not Great" while he shouted at John, as if "God is Not Great," is some sort of anti-Bible scripture.

This brings up the point of having so many religious groups at Twin Cities Pride. "Standing on the Side of Love" is a campaign from the Unitarian Universalists to "harness love's power to stop oppression." Since the annual meeting of the Unitarian Universalists was only blocks away, their shirts and signs flooded the event. At some of the stages, religious benedictions were offered from religious leaders and spiritual hymns were sung. These people support gay rights and equality, but I don't think it is because of their religion. I don't support equality because I'm an atheist. I don't think someone should have to justify equality with a religious or non religious belief. I think it's great that other organizations support equality, but I do wish that we could do it together.

I had the feeling last year that the religious and political groups were trying to gain converts at gays were their market. I wouldn't wear a "Would Jesus Discriminate?" sticker because I was wearing an atheist shirt and I was irritated at the notion of using Jesus as a modern day pawn to sway people to support equality. I was less irritated this year, because I'm pleased that there are more people supporting equality and it bothers me less that people are able to find support from a familiar religious framework. I rationalized this by assuming that it would be easier for someone who is already experiencing a difficult time with a life choice to find support which is familiar than trying to tear down religious beliefs. I would rather that more Christians supported equality than inequality and discrimination. Equality as an ethic is more important to me than views on theology.

Free Speech and the Bible Humpers

Bjorn — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 02:55:00 +0000

Challenging Assumptions and Seeking the Different

Bjorn — Mon, 24 May 2010 14:13:00 +0000

Over the last month, I've been reflecting on how I've felt about being part of the atheist community. I've expressed my frustration with Minnesota Atheists because of the use of ridicule in articles in their newsletter which artificially create an isolationist community which is enforced by an undercurrent of anti-religious sentiment. My hope for the community is to move beyond that. I am tired of atheists pulling quotes out of the Bible to show Christians how ridiculous their scripture is. I know the intention is to wake Christians up, to get them to realize how foolish their beliefs are and to get them to leave their faith, but maybe that isn't even the intention. Maybe it is out of frustration, or a sense that because since leaving religion, an atheist will usually feel more free and atheists want that same feeling for others. Others may want to convince religious people to become atheists because they see harm in participating in a religion which accepts magical thinking and if anything is possible through Christ Jesus, Christians won't worry about planning for the future, educating their children, seeking treatment from doctors, etc. I think I have held all of these intentions at one time or another.

I am frustrated because I hold the assumption that most Americans believe that this country was founded as a Christian Nation. When I've spoken with Christians who hold this view, their assumption is that atheists want to remove religion from the public square, which is offensive to them because they see that act as limiting their freedom of expression, even if that freedom of expression is forced on others. I'm frustrated because I would like more people to realize that the separation of church and state is good for both sides, but the way the issue is framed, is that it is used for atheists to suppress Christians.

I am also frustrated when I read stories about parents who, for religious or cultural reasons, refuse to treat a child's diabetes or other easily treatable ailment. An organization like Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty should not be unnecessary. I've frustrated over this situation as well, because on one hand, child neglect appears to be rare in this country, although one death is too many, and on another is the desire to allow for religious expression and practice. Can a 14 year old child refuse medical care because they would rather receive herbal treatment for cancer because this is what his religion tells him to do? An 18 year old? Should our society force medical care on others and is that even practical? Wouldn't people just keep their children in hiding and do they already? Do people support religious exemptions for vaccines also support federal funding for Christian Science prayer rooms? I think my frustration comes from my perspective. I don't think that a Christian would listen to me if I tried to convince him or her that seeing a physician is better than prayer, if that Christian were refusing medical treatment, simply because I am an atheist. I would think that the better approach would be to have people from the Christian community respond. I might be too optimistic about this effort because it would be easy for an adherent to dismiss anyone who doesn't think the same way they do.

I attended at event sponsored by the Saint Paul Interfaith Network which focused on designing successful dialogue between people who have very different opinions. During the presentation, which was made by Bob Stains of the Public Conversations Network. One of the things which stuck out, was a presentation on how a community becomes fractured and the kind of behavior people on each side exhibit. In this presentation, a slide went up with the kinds of behavior and language people on split sides of an issue use, which resonated with me more, because I felt like this showcased my frustration with the unwillingness of atheists to have meaningful dialogue with religious people. We = good, right, wise, virtuous, victims, similar, has the facts, are straightforward. They = bad, wrong, foolish, evil, persecutors, are all alike, use emotion, are sneaky.

I know my opinions will change, but my assumption now, is that trying to foster reasoned dialogue, especially among people who disagree, is a better means of gaining support for issues like the separation of church and state and how to protect an individuals freedom of expression without violating any one elses freedoms.

Even within the atheist community, there are sides which are become isolated and splinter. I think this is true in many communities, but I assumed that atheists would be better at being able to use reasoned dialogue amongst each other, even in cases where there is disagreement. If I criticize the actions of atheists, people have an assumption that I am not an atheist. If I write about my experience in the atheist community, it is written off as being too isolated of a community and not representative of the whole. If I express frustration with people who obviously want to make atheists a more respected group of people in the community but are acting in a way which is counter to their goals, whether they state their goals or not, I am seen as a censor. The assumption people make, is that I don't want atheists to speak up when a religious person does something harmful, or when the leadership of a religious organization supports a discriminatory policy because I don't think its useful to make a list of excuses Christians give for the "horrible behavior of their God," or attempting to engage in theodicy arguments.

There are plenty of atheists who are anti-religion who have reasons to disagree with my opinions. My frusturation comes from people who want to build a community of atheists who are seen as positive contributors to society and fail to see the consequences of events like a Debaptism, a $6.66 spaghetti dinner, a presentation which made the case that religious thinking has led scientists astray and public presentations about atheism which make the case that it is foolish to believe in a God. I'm frusturated because the people who run the organization seem ignorant to these consequences. "I should be able to express myself without worrying about who I'm going to offend," is a sentiment I've heard if I raise concern over the use to ridicule in particular. I have little concern whether someone is offended or not, but I am concerned if someone is offended by an offence because he or she isn't willing to understand what he or she did to cause offence in the first place. I also don't like it when people act how they would like to act, then are surprised when someone thinks what they did was wrong. Then there is a shaming of the shaming, or the apperant censoring of the censoree. No one is free from criticism and not all people who don't have a beleif in a god are the same. Don't pretend that you can't possibly understand why someone would find your action offensive and react by isolating yourself. Have a greater understanding of your motives for acting. If the reaction to your actions was unintentional, try to find out why. Should I censor myself around people who are religious? I wouldn't call it censorship, but I try to consider what outcome I would like to see before I act. When I haven't done this, things haven't ended well.

Challenging Assumptions and Seeking the Different

Bjorn — Mon, 24 May 2010 14:13:00 +0000

My atheist journey

Bjorn — Sun, 09 May 2010 01:26:00 +0000

Having been frustrated with the organized atheist community, I thought I would write about my short experience to show why I have the opinions I do.

I came out as an atheist on accident. If I hadn't done so, I likely wouldn't have gotten involved with organized atheism. I had read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris, but didn't feel like I needed to find a community of people who thought the same way i did. My family is religious, but it wasn't a big deal to answer my mom's question of, "Did you find a church to go to?" with, "No."

Because I did come out and my mother didn't take it too well (She didn't speak to me for six months, of course, I also blamed her and other liberal religious people for 9/11 because of what I read in Sam Harris' book), I started searching for a group of atheists. Jeannette was going to the U of MN at the time and there was a campus group of atheists. I ended up watching a debate with Dr. Robert Price about the resurrection of Jesus and saw a former teacher from high school there. He was one of the most respected teachers and I felt that if he was an atheist and showed up to other events, I just might find an atheist community.

Over the next few months, he and I would bump into each other at meetings and lectures. I had started to go to Minnesota Atheist events, caring less about what the topic was about, then about meeting people. The problem, was that this community only met once a month and people didn't talk to each other much. If this former high school teacher hadn't also been showing up, I probably would have given up on going to meetings because I didn't feel like I fit in yet.

One of the reasons why I was looking for a community, was because I wanted to hear from other atheists how they dealt with family issues. I was planning on getting married in a year and a half and would have to manage tense situations with family members who wanted me to get married in a church. I did get help from people in Minnesota Atheists and the Humanists of Minnesota with where to hold the wedding and had a recommendation of who could officiate. But I still felt like I was on the own with dealing with my family. Events I went to focused on whether God existed or about why Christianity was so wrong, especially the Bible. While the presentations had interesting speakers, I didn't feel like I was part of a community by going to these type of meetings.

What events did I like the most? I remember meeting Lori Lipman Brown who was a lobbyist in Washington working for the Secular Coalition of America. Her presentations were inspiring. She got me to see a value in forming a community of atheists to fight for the rights of the nonreligious as more of a civil rights issue. I was raised in a religious family and didn't have to face discrimination through school, but I heard about people who did and felt like this was a worthy cause to get behind. I also liked going to the Day of Reason because I felt like it was an effective way to present a positive message about the separation of church and state. What I really wished, was that religious leaders would join the Day of Reason, but could understand why they might not feel welcomed.

Over the next few years, I was involved in the leadership of Minnesota Atheists. I wanted to give back to the community because I wanted to fix some of the things I didn't like about my experience, mostly making new members feel welcomed and to encourage more family friendly events. I wanted to try to get people who were like myself involved in the atheist community in order to support efforts of other groups like the SCA and to encourage others to support the separation of church and state. I didn't have to try to attract people who were in a similar situation as myself, people who were searching for a community, because MN Atheists is easy enough to find, I wanted to reach out to people who didn't have a need for an organization and encourage them to join and support the issues which were important to me.

The problem I found, is that for people to join an organization, they have to be more or less self motivated. A group like MN Atheists is great for people who feel harmed by religion. The positive outreach efforts, like highway cleaning and supporting gay rights by appearing at GLBT festivals is enough to get some people curious, but I saw people get turned off by the focus on religion. Over time, it started turning me off as well.

I think it is easier to form a group of people around the harm of religion then around some sort of secular ethical club. The humanists get close to this idea, but there are vocal opponents to the label of atheist among the humanists which makes that community unwelcoming at times. This is where my frustration is coming from. I think it is possible to have a community of non religious people who are concerned about societal issues, humanitarian efforts, local community support, volunteerism, doing good, etc., without the literal biblical interpretation games, the strawmen arguments atheists make amongst themselves, the anti religious rhetoric, the isolationist attitude which discourages work with religious leaders when it makes sense. It is easier to have a group form around a lack of belief then around some sort of "do good" group, which is why I'm satisfied, for now, with volunteering with different groups here and there, supporting causes which have meaning for me. I know I pissed a lot of people by criticizing the behavior of certain atheists. My criticism comes from my frustration from not being able to find a community of people who share the same values I do. It is similar to the frustration I felt after coming out as an atheist. I know there are other people who think the same way I do, but there won't be a community formed out of this frustration.

My atheist journey

Bjorn — Sun, 09 May 2010 01:26:00 +0000

Atheists Destroy

Bjorn — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 01:31:00 +0000

In 2009, President Barack Obama spoke to Muslims in his Inaugural Address. "Your people will judge you on what you can build and not what you destroy."

This focus on destruction is not unique to Muslims. It is a poison to any community. It is prevalent in the poison of racism which has invaded Christian groups in the form of Militias. Parts of the Tea Party also have this disease of destruction, seeking to repeal Health Care Reform, fringe elements praying for Obama to die. In my view, it's these elements which poison the communities they are a part of. In some cases, the point of the community is to destroy another.

To me, there seems to be a growing number of atheists who want to see religion destroyed. I think these people, who may have always been around, are the ones who can make the community suffer. It is difficult to form a community around what you don't believe in and that is what atheists do. Atheists are an incredibly diverse community, however, those who participate in organizations seem to be overwhelmingly liberal politically, don't have kids, or their kids are out of the house. Most seem to have been raised with a religion and have sought out a community because it can be difficult to, in some cases, be rejected from friends and family because you don't happen to share the same views on theology.

It's this last point, I think, which causes much of the anger among active atheists and causes problems for others which are looking for another type of community. People who have chosen intellectual honesty over friendships and normal relations with family will be pretty angry at the reason why their lives are different now. I know I was really angry at religious people and religion in general after reading Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. I blamed even moderate religious Christians for every bit of religious violence. The Twin Towers fell because of the group of peaceful Quakers who meet every week. When I saw the Freedom From Religion Foundation's ads which said "Imagine No Religion" and showed a picture of the World Trade Centers standing, I cheered. It made perfect sense to me. The terrorists were Muslim and without Islam, they wouldn't be Islamic terrorists and wouldn't have killed themselves without the promise of 72 virgins. It was a simplistic notion and I bought into it.

I feel like my opinion of religion and religious people is different than it once was. It is bigoted to treat all religious people alike. Religious people are not stupid. Religious people can share the same ethical values I have. Religious people can understand science and are not brainwashed into belief. I might have been poisoned by the Interfaith movement, but I see a value in joining people together who have different views on theology, but share similar goals for how to make the world a better place. My former views wouldn't have supported this one bit. By working with religious people, I was allowing them to spread lies to children to brainwash the uneducated and ignorant. The side effect is that our world will not progress as long as the religious are allowed to be religious without atheists speaking up and ridiculing and shaming them into disbelief.

One challenge with atheist groups is focusing on missions. Do you exist to form a community of people who feel alone, who need support, who feel like they need to do something to lessen the impact of religion on society? Do you exist to teach people who are religious that atheists are normal? Do you exist to make the world a better place and how do you go about doing that? I don't think that the focus on converting the religious to atheists, which some atheist evangelists want, is a realistic goal and causes problems in communities which are trying to grow. These are the people who would go door to door expressing the "good news" of atheism. These are the people who seek to destroy and are poisoning the community in the same way the violent and racist members of the Tea Party and Christian groups have done. The difference is that the numbers are much smaller but the effect is the same. The people who aren't into that, the ridicule and victim mentality, the people who weren't raised religious, the people who think that religion isn't evil, will simply leave.

I'm on the fence. I'm going to form a community of one.

Atheists Destroy

Bjorn — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 01:31:00 +0000

Two-Faced John 14 12-14

Bjorn — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:30:00 +0000

While driving home from work last week, I listened to Make It Plain with host Mark Thompson. Mark Thompson is religious and makes a point to say "God bless you," to every one of his callers. I don't think I've caught him missing one yet. He does offer an interesting show and it doesn't get too religious, but this one evening, a caller who wanted to talk about the health insurance crisis got him fired up. The gentleman on the phone mentioned that he had been diagnosed with leukemia but it was not serious enough that his insurance would authorize treatment. He explained that he has a strong faith in God, but that it's getting hard to have faith. Mark comforted the caller, mentioning that he would pray for him and reminded him that he needed to pray for himself.

Then he whipped out John 14:12-14.

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

I had heard this same quote mentioned before, but by a former Pentecostal minister who now speaks to atheist groups. Lee Salisbury used to be bathed in the Holy Spirit and deeply believed in the words of the previous passage but it became one of the passages which gave him the most trouble. When was the last time you heard someone rise from the dead, grow a lost limb, cure the blind, speak in tongues, feed a multitude with fish and bread, walk on water, or change water into wine? Either Jesus is lying or the Gospel is wrong, is what he concludes.

During Mark's brief interview, he claimed to have cured this caller of his cancer by the power of God. This is a dangerous line of thinking which extends into the abuse and death of children by religious parents who see modern medicine as a sin against God, because your trust should be with Him. This man was overjoyed to hear that he had been cured, even though he must have known it wasn't true.

Apologists for this particular piece of the Bible have various answers for why we don't just scrap modern medicine and train Christian healers to fix our biological problems. Answers include, "We won't know until the 144 thousand witnesses for Christ receive their anointing," "Citing Acts which mentions that converting one sinner is a greater work than all of the miracles that Jesus did, so that counts," "No one in history has been Jesusy enough to be able to perform supernatural acts. The potential is there for all humans to perform supernatural acts but we lack the faith and discipline to actually perform them." "People have risen from the dead and supernatural healing takes place in churches all over, there is proof, I swear."

This is the problem with Biblical interpretation. In one case, it can be used to give comfort to someone going through a difficult time and in another be used to harm children by refusing medical care. It is fortunate that most Christians are not Biblical Literalists, but I can imagine plenty of sermons have centered around this passage. How many people may have delayed visiting a doctor because they didn't want to test their faith in Jesus?

Two-Faced John 14 12-14

Bjorn — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:30:00 +0000

Then he whipped out John 14:12-14.

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Do atheists hate the sin, not the sinner?

Bjorn — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:54:00 +0000

Atheists who choose to argue the existence of gods with the religious will often be accused of being rude, intolerant, bigoted, close-minded and arrogant for having the nerve to say, "I don't think your god exists and here is why."

What will usually happen eventually, is that the atheist will say, "Your argument is stupid!" in a fit of frustration, or, "Your beliefs are stupid!" Here is where dialog breaks down and both sides stomp off. Where is the disconnect? Contentious dialog is difficult, even for those experienced in it, but why does dialog stop once ones ideas or beliefs are attacked?

Atheists, even the most outspoken, are usually very careful to separate the individual from ideas and beliefs. "You're a Christian and Christianity will cause you to have stupid beliefs," is technically different from, "You're a Christian and you're stupid." However, I don't think it's understood differently from the Christian perspective.

There certainly are atheists who think anyone with a belief in a deity or deities is stupid. There are others who hold this same viewpoint who will hide behind the language provided earlier in an attempt to appear fair-minded and open to dialog. My hope is that those who hold bigoted viewpoints would simply state them without trying to play games with language.

Ideas and beliefs don't need protection, people do. I think as long as people define who they are by what they believe, questioning an individual's beliefs will always be inferred as a personal attack which degrades dialog. To me, saying, "I don't think YOU'RE stupid, I think the beliefs you hold are." is similar to saying, "I don't hate you because you're gay. I hate the gay sex you have."

I don't think that religious belief should be free from criticism. I think that much progress can be made in dialog if both parties can agree that beliefs are different then who we are as individuals. From the religious side, when an atheist says, "I think Jesus rising from the dead is a stupid belief," they mean the same thing you'd say to a Scientologist, "I think that the idea of thetans is stupid."

It is difficult to resist an emotional reaction when the ideas and beliefs you hold are challenged, but that is the only way to have a reasonable dialog with someone who disagrees with you.

Do atheists hate the sin, not the sinner?

Bjorn — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:54:00 +0000

It is difficult to resist an emotional reaction when the ideas and beliefs you hold are challenged, but that is the only way to have a reasonable dialog with someone who disagrees with you.

Top Ten (Free!) Things You Can Do To Help the Atheist Community

Bjorn — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:17:00 +0000

10. Come out of the closet.
No matter what label you are comfortable with, atheist, agnostic, humanist, skeptic, let the people around you know what you think. Everyone's situation will be different and for some it will take time to wait for the right moment, for example, "What church do you go to?" "I don't go to church, I'm an atheist, but you can ask me about what I think, if you'd like." The more people who let their friends and family know where they stand and what they think, the more it encourages others to do the same and it helps to foster allies for causes atheists are concerned about, such as the separation of church and state and rights for non-theists.

9. Read the paper.
While it appears that newspapers are a dying media, their reach is still in the thousands on a local level. Read the Editorials and Opinion pages and submit your own response when someone makes a bigoted statement about those who don't believe in any gods. Write encouraging responses when you see religious groups supporting our issues.

8. Treat discussions with religious friends and family as an opportunity for dialogue.
Talking with co-workers about religion or politics should not be a debate. It can be challenging but some of the most important conversations you will have may be with people you completely disagree with because it gives you a chance to understand where someone else is coming from. You can use this perspective to get people to support our cause if you know the things which are important to them. The ends of our goals will ultimately benefit everyone and its our job to make that case. Remember that disagreeing with someone's beliefs is different then attacking someone personally, but to many, that distinction isn't clear, so it's important to educate others about that.

7. Become politically involved.
Volunteer for a campaign or simply attend caucus meetings. Atheists and other non-theists are a minority in this country but that doesn't mean that our voice should be unheard. By becoming involved you can speak up when it appears that everyone is on board with things like school vouchers, faith-based initiatives or giving preference to religion in our schools. Of course, the best you can hope for, is to run for office, be that a school board, city council, or higher roles in the state or national level.

6. Make friends.
Whether you attend meetings held by a local atheist organization or you talk to people online, make an effort to establish friendships. Offer to have a few people from a group over to your house, or go out to eat, or simply hang out at a park. Organizations are useful for getting people to meet each other, but that can't be the only time atheists see each other. This is especially important for people who may be too busy to make it to a lot of meetings because they have kids.

5. Go to events in the real world.
Plenty of people find comfort in the anonymity of the Internet but it is important to get outside. Look for local groups through Facebook or Meetup.com and drop in. You should have at least one thing to talk to others about. A good opening question is, "So, how long have you been an atheist." For some people, that conversation can last hours. If you don't like the message of the group or how events are run, tell the organizers. Not many groups have paid staff who run events, so don't be too critical, but letting an organizer how you feel might get an organization to change how events are run. If the group rubs you the wrong way, try another group, or consider starting your own.

4. Volunteer for an atheist organization.
Volunteering for such a diverse community is challenging and rewarding. At the local level, every town has someone who feels that they are the only one in that town who thinks the way they do. The most important message organizations send is that, "You are not alone." If you only have a little time a month, consider hosting a small event for the group, like a book club or just a brunch. The more people who help out, the better! Just be sure you are aware of the mission of the organization before getting too involved.

3. Be active outside of the atheist community.
If atheist spend all of their time talking with each other and only meeting people with different points of view when we attend debates about the existence of god it can become easy to get isolated and ultimately bigoted toward people with religious belief. Join a group for another interest of yours, like a hiking group, book club, movie club, etc. You can also support a charitable works project, even with a religious group, so long as you support the cause. It might seem silly, but you are acting as a representative of the atheist community when you make it known how you think. It is one more way to normalize the atheist worldview and gets more people to listen to what we have to say.

2. Start an atheist organization.
Communities around the world, especially small towns, are the ones who need groups more than anywhere else. Meetup.com may not be free, but Facebook is. There are all sorts of creative ways to let others know about your events and you shouldn't be discouraged if only two people show up to your first few events. Reach out to national groups like Atheist Alliance International to find groups in your state who might be able to offer advice. If you are a student, whether in a high school or college, use the Secular Student Alliance, please! The only reason why that group exists is to help you. Running a group can be free and very worthwhile. You'll be hooked on organizing when you hear someone say, "I thought I was the only one!"

1. Be open to answering questions.
Many people aren't comfortable talking about something as personal as his or her religious views; however, the most effective way to help the atheist community is by educating those around you about what you think. The hope is that your friends and family will understand that you share more in common then you thought and that the "atheist agenda" isn't about removing freedoms of expression granted to those who are religious but about protecting the rights of everyone to be free from abuse by a religious minority which seeks to impose their beliefs onto you.

Top Ten (Free!) Things You Can Do To Help the Atheist Community

Bjorn — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:17:00 +0000

Trust and Bias

Bjorn — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:10:00 +0000

Whether you accept or reject evidential claims (your bias) has a lot to do with what you trust.

Recently, at a dinner with atheists, one person commented that there has been extraordinary work in the field of autism research. A doctor has successfully cured 25 children of autism by removing mercury from from their blood through a process called chelation. Others at the table remarked that chelation is dangerous and that ethyl mercury found in Thimerosal is different then methyl mercury, which is most associated with mercury related poisoning and neurological damage, because ethyl mercury is removed from the body more easily then methyl mercury.

His response? Chelation is not dangerous, that is something they just want you to believe. The mercury differences is just a smokescreen. Just look at a YouTube video of mercury destroying neurons! My child has spasms the day after he received a vaccine, that might have been due to the mercury in the shot. What about fluoride in the water? It's a known carcinogen, yet our government forces us to drink it.

I had only met this person this evening, so I don't have a lot of history to go on, but from talking with him, he's a passionate person, concerned with the environment, sustainability, organic gardening and has a distrust of corporations and the government.

Because of who and what he did not trust, this affected his acceptance of evidence, disregarding objections raised.

A concerned Facebook group member contacted me earlier this week, recommending that I send out a correction about the Tim Pawlenty scandal over the apparent misuse of funds obtained by selling Support Our Troops plates. A staff member received $30,000 as a partial salary, the same person in charge of overseeing the Governor's Faith Based Initiaves, from the Support Out Troops funds. When the DFL brought the issue to light, it was determined that this staffer was working for veterans, on behalf of a veterans welfare group, seeking out eligible veterans who were not using services to which they were entitled.

Did I send out the correction? No. I don't think sending out messages on Facebook qualifies my role as a journalist and besides, who would care? I also am acting with bias. I don't like Tim Pawlenty's socially conservative politics and as an atheist, I'm sensitive to, not only the misuse of government funds, but the misuse of funds which support a program which offers an unfair advantage to religious organizations, making it more difficult for quality secular organizations to operate. Because of my bias, I still see an issue with what happened. I still think that sharing staff between the Governor's office and another organization leads to too little transparency. So, I am hesitant to write it off as an innocent decision on the part of Tim Pawlenty. But, this is largely due to the fact that when I'm presented with information, I don't have as much skepticism when Al Franken is accused of wrongdoing as if Tim Pawlenty is, because I don't trust Tim Pawlenty, but should I trust Al Franken?

It would be a difficult world to live in if trust was thrown out of the window and all claims were subject to deep analysis. But, even at that point, what do you trust, your own experiences, your senses, your memory? It it more important, then, to be aware of ones bias? But, is it that innocent, just to be aware and let your opinions be clouded? Bias can be innocent, such as preferring one local sports team over an non local sports team; however, can be more dangerous when advocating for expensive, ineffective and potentially dangerous treatment for a condition which is becoming more well understood, but until then the favorite enemy of the day will be to blame for the cause.

Trust and Bias

Bjorn — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:10:00 +0000

What is in a name?

Bjorn — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:00:00 +0000

Atheist, humanist, secular humanist, Bright, freethinker, secularist, naturalist, these are all words I've heard people use to describe themselves. I recall the diversity of identifiers used at the Atheist Coming Out Day last year. I was reminded of this diversity when an issue came up with the newsletter for a secular organization. Should "humanism" be capitalized?

I began doing some research to see what the organizations used, the American Humanist Association and the International Humanist and Ethical Union. The IHEU uses Humanism and encourages member organizations to do so. The AHA also encourages the use of Humanism versus humanism. One of the reasons given is that Pope Paul VI referred to himself as a humanist.

The consensus among the people who were working on the newsletter was that atheist should be lowercase and many also thought that humanism should be treated in the same way. One of the reasons given to treat humanism in the same way as atheism was that both are not religions and religions are capitalized. However, there is a feeling that capitalizing a word adds to its respect, as determined by the author. Certain authors do not feel that religions deserve any respect over atheism or humanism, so should also be written as islam and christianity.

The core issue is the challenge we all face. We lack branding and a unified label. While researching the humanism issue, I ran across articles touting the efforts of humanist organizations to simplify the use of humanism by removing labels like "secular" from the front and expanding the use of the "Happy Humanist" logo. This logo lets humanists from all over the world recognize each other and other organizations.

Atheists have attempted to do the same thing by choosing a logo at an Atheist Alliance International and rallying around the red "A" of the Out Campaign from the Richard Dawkins Foundation. However, atheist groups aren't as unified as humanist groups are with branding.

I think that the diversity of labels in our community is a strength and a weakness, but an unavoidable weakness. I have met members of Minnesota Atheists who are frustrated with others who don't use the label "atheist" and have tried to encourage others to push aside words like agnostic, non religious, Bright, even humanist in favor of the label "atheist." This has encouraged some to adopt the label of "atheist," but has also made others feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. By browbeating others into calling themselves what we would like to be called in an attempt to unify the cause we may be alienating others who would be just as enthusiastic about supporting the separation of church and state and raising awareness in the community of our issues.

I used to be enthusiastic about encouraging people to use the word atheist to describe their worldview. I used to get really irritated when someone would be uncomfortable with the word atheist and I would want to do what I could to rid them of this fear. What I realized is that personal labels, no matter what they are, are something each of us need to come to ourselves and not be pushed into. We should not be shamed into choosing one label over an other, whether that is atheist, humanist, secular, non religious, Bright, or any other future iteration of identification we will invent to describe what we think.

What is in a name?

Bjorn — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:00:00 +0000

DisUnityCOR

Bjorn — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:40:00 +0000

Earlier this year, Fred Edwords started a project modeled after PhilyCOR, or the Philadelphia Coalition of Reason. The initial goal of PhilyCOR is to unite different atheist, humanist, and other secular organizations in order to build a stronger local community. While this has been a lofty goal, by looking at the various Coalition of Reason sites set up during the year, along with high profile advertising campaigns, the impact has not been worth the effort spent by members of the freethought communities the Coalitions of Reason's represent. The sites are lacking in new content, feature a handful of press releases and articles from news sources surrounding the "shocking" advertising in the local community and a small amount of local events lead by only a few members of the Coalition, which leads me to believe that having an external source (UnitedCOR) sweep in, spend money on an ad and leave has little impact.

So, what is the big deal? UnitedCOR comes in, invites a few chosen groups to join the COR, some accept, others join out of peer pressure, an ad campaign is run, and the groups are left to themselves. If only it were that simple.

Because UnitedCOR is an organization which is independent and undemocratic, run by Fred Edwords and an unknown benefactor who are choosing to spend money to further their own cause, the groups which are members have little say in what UnitedCOR does. It is clear from press coverage which follow billboards which appear in communities which have started COR's, that the COR's are formed to support interest in Greg Epsteins's new book.

Greg Epstein is the Humanist Chaplin at Harvard. He believes that the "New Atheism" of authors like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, has a bad image in the public, so rather then defending and supporting the rights of atheists to engage in open dialog and raise important issues regarding religion, he has instead decided to ride their coat tails with a movement he calls, the "New Humanism." "We are interested in anything that is good, without God," Epstein writes. He sees the "New Humanism" movement in stark contrast to the negativity of "New Atheism." I think this dichotomy is false. UnitedCOR carries this attitude that "New Atheism" must be stopped and replaced with "New Humanism."

What harm is there in joining a UnitedCOR sponsored organization? The benefit is that you receive some attention due to a website and billboard. My thought is that organizations can receive just as much, if not more, coverage for doing work in the communities their serve. The harm, is that these organizations then take place in the discrimination of other organizations UnitedCOR and related local organizers seek to exclude.

Do you mean to say that UnitedCOR, a group which seeks to, according to their mission, "to raise the visibility and sense of unity among local groups in the community of reason, to create a national dialogue on the role of nontheists in American society, and to improve the way that nontheists are perceived by average Americans," would exclude atheist groups? Yes.

In PhilyCOR, The Rational Response Squad was excluded due to objections raised by the Ethical Humanist Society of Philadelphia. The Rational Response Squad an been an excellent resource in engaging an audience a generation or two younger then the membership of most freethought organizations. Their exclusion is shocking to me.

It is not surprising that a group which labels itself as an Ethical Humanist society would behave in this fashion, especially after the controversy in Chicago over a dis-invitation and later police action taken by the Ethical Humanist organization there. Our strength is in our diversity. Tolerance must extend to those with whom you disagree. I am not interested in listening to an atheist or humanist echo chamber.

In Minnesota, Atheists for Human Rights was excluded, under the excuse that they are a national organization and national organizations are not to take part in UnitedCOR groups. August Berkshire has had a long standing grievance with Atheists for Human Rights, for various reasons and used his role as organizer of Twin Cities COR to exclude this organization.

At its best UnitedCOR is an ineffective attempt to bring freethought groups together. At its worse, it seeks to exclude groups it chooses while promoting people it deems worthy, such as Greg Epstein.

If you are a member of a UnitedCOR sponsored organization, pay close attention to what is being thrust onto your organization and what is being done in your name. Whether you like it or not, the actions of UnitedCOR reflect on your group.

If you are considering joining a UnitedCOR sponsored organization, I would make sure that your organization's goals match with those of the organizer of your local COR. After all, we all strongly support rationality and careful thought. Groups have the freedom to choose for themselves but must be made well aware of the impact of their decisions.

DisUnityCOR

Bjorn — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:40:00 +0000

An Evolution Solution (non-Wave version)

Bjorn — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:47:00 +0000

A majority of Americans reject evolution. You may have read the Gallup poll from this past February which counted only 39 percent of respondents as holding a belief in evolution. However, this problem is not new. While researching this problem, I have run into many polls from other organizations which constantly place a belief in evolution in the minority. The majority opinion is that God created humans in their current form. What can be done to better educate the public?

Are our teachers failing us? Is there is an organized opposition to the theory of evolution which is simply more compelling then the evidence which supports a gradual change over millions of years? I will admit, creatures popping into existence, fully formed, makes for a great story, but when I want to learn about how things really are, I have to rely in science and empirical evidence, even if the story isn't as fanciful. Richard Dawkins continues the fight to educate the public about evolution with his book, "The Greatest Show On Earth." Will his book work? Will the people who buy it already reject the Christian creation myth?

I would say that it isn't a wasted effort. As I walked through a local book store, I saw the atheist books tucked in with science books, mostly about Darwin and evolution. While you can be religious and believe in evolution, I won't deny that there have been many who read about how evolution really works, not how they were taught in church and that one lie of creation unraveled the web of lies their church, family and friends had been telling them their whole life. Science has evidence, the comfort of predictability, while faith is an empty guessing game.

What else did I see in the book store? In the religion section, few books about evolution, but more books about how to either reject evolution or how religion and evolution are compatible. I'd like to see some of those science books sneak their way into the religion section. Would that have worked for you? I know many atheists who decided that the evidence for a god was lacking after reading "The God Delusion," which was more about evolution then it was in rejecting faith.

Last month, I attended "Atheist Coming Out Day" hosted by Campus Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists at the University of Minnesota. Here, people sat in a circle and told their coming out story. What shocked me, was how many people were so new to calling themselves "atheists," and felt comfortable going to a group meeting to tell everyone about it. Out of the 60 people who "came out," more then a few were raised in conservative Christian families, including one child of missionaries, one child of Salvation Army parents, and one who was a Bible Quiz champion. All of these people strongly rejected evolution, until college. All it took was a freshman biology course with a brief introduction to evolution to realize they had been actively deceived by the people who cared about them. For some, the process of leaving faith behind took a few years, others left more quickly.

What is important, is that there is a community of like minded people who are there, if only to "come out" to, to share our experiences and to make it easier for the next wave of people to throw off life according to mythology and embrace reality.

An Evolution Solution (non-Wave version)

Bjorn — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:47:00 +0000

An Evolution Solution

Bjorn — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:59:00 +0000

An Evolution Solution

Bjorn — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:59:00 +0000

B-Rated: Alien Contamination (1980)

Bjorn — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:43:00 +0000

Best Quote: Hubbard: [after slapping Col. Stella Holmes] This is just so we understand each other.

Super Short Summary: Alien "Cyclops" convinces space explorer to move it to Columbia to grow deadly alien space eggs, develop a distribution network and cover import-export business in order to sneak deadly alien eggs into New York City's sewers.

Why You Should Never Watch This Movie: While the 80's may have had it's moments, this movie will make you wish you never lived through it. Despite the lead female character's rank as a colonel, she runs around like a helpless woman while the lead male, Lutinent Tony Aris, acts like an arrogant, cocky male throughout. While that may be distracting, you'll be more distracted by the poor blood-splattering special effects and poor costumes of the investigation teams who are assigned to examine a biological agent which has killed a crew. The team climbs on board wearing painter's masks and open face suits which don't seal at the hands, wearing fabric mittens and exposed bottoms (you can see the actor's jeans!). I know it was the 80's, but that's just stupid.

If the Cyclops doesn't get you, the eye liner will.

B-Rating: BBB

B-Rated: Alien Contamination (1980)

Bjorn — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:43:00 +0000

SSA 2009 Conference

Bjorn — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:09:00 +0000

On Friday, August 7, 300 atheists descended onto the Creation Museum in Petersberg, Kentucky. The Creation Museum, an Answers in Genesis project, is designed as a more traditional science museum than some carnival ride (as other "creation museums" have been). It presents evidence to support their pre-drawn conclusion that all that has ever happened in the past is contained in the Christian Bible. Since the Christian Bible contains lineages and ages of people, they conclude that that scientists who have used material evidence to come to the conclusion that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old must be mistaken about atheism.

Why were 300 atheists going to such a place? "To mock them," responds PZ Myers, evolutionary biology professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris. The goal was to fully understand what arguments were being made to support Creationism and fully expose such arguments as circular or based on poor reasoning. Dr. Myers made light of the event by riding a fiberglass dinosaur which featured a saddle. What started off as a fun event would shortly turn into a serious conference of about 100 attendees at Ohio State University in Columbus.

While the tone of the Creation Museum trip was full of mockery, the conference itself featured a strong theme of cooperation. For example, Jesse Galef, Communications Associate for the Secular Coalition for America, gave an inspiring presentation about how to reach out to your elected officials. Should atheists look for non atheist allies when lobbying? "It can certainly help get attention - showing that it's not just atheists who support the side," Galef responds. Sean Faircloth, Executive Director of the SCA, later spoke about the importance of reaching out to non-atheists and getting them behind our causes. "We need to get the soccer moms and Joe Six-Packs of the world to care about our issues, Faircloth said." One way to do that is to show clear harm. In many states and counties, religious organizations are exempt from health and safety regulations. This has resulted in the needless deaths of children from dangerous day care facilities and staff. It is absurd to replace government audit and inspection with religious authority.

The next day, Ashley Paramore, the Events Coordinator for Students for Freethought at Ohio State and an SSA board member, spoke about the importance of service projects to an atheist student group. Inspired by Ashley Carter from University of Illinois Atheists, Agnostics and Freethinkers, she organized a service project trip to New Orleans to repair damage done after Hurricane Katrina. What is unique about Ms. Paramore's project is that at the start she coordinated with the Thomas Society, a campus Christian group. There were several benefits to working with another organization: First, the Thomas Society had organized service projects in the past, were familiar with transportation, group insurance, feeding people, etc. Second, she was able to spend more time getting volunteers since she wasn't planning everything. Lastly, one of the goals of a service project is to break down the stereotype that atheists don't volunteer. By working with a religious group, Paramore’s group not only made that case, but they get a lot of time to dialog with people to break down stereotypes on both sides.

PZ Myers presented his keynote address, "Counting Coup," on Saturday night. While many may recognize him for his unapologetic bashing of the religious (this is the focus of his talk, his skill is to get people to pay attention by whacking them with colorful words), even he sees himself as part of a larger movement. He knowingly ignores diplomacy, choosing instead to cause reactions that will cause some to think differently than they had. After the talk, an audience member asked, "When is diplomacy okay?" "Diplomacy is always okay," Dr. Myers responded. He thanked the efforts of people like Sean Faircloth who are able to speak more kindly to others.

I would recommend supporting the efforts of the Secular Student Alliance and our local alliance member, the Campus Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists at the University of Minnesota. You can visit their sites at www.secularstudents.org and www.cashumn.org.

SSA 2009 Conference

Bjorn — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:09:00 +0000

How to get a geek into the woods, or Geocaching

Bjorn — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:15:00 +0000

Last year, after our wedding, we hauled ourselves up to Duluth to get away for a day or two. On our jaunt, I wanted pie and had heard of Betty's Pies, which is on the way to Two Harbors. So, we get pie, but have time to kill, so we stumble into Gooseberry Falls State Park. At the visitors center, there are displays of stuffed animals in the area, birch canoes, etc. But, there are also brightly colored signs advertising Geocaching at the State Parks (sponsored by Best Buy.)

We wander over to the info desk, check out a Garmin eTrex GPS, received a sheet with instructions for the GPS and headed out of the door.

We did get lost, but wandering around a state park isn't boring, even if you are lost. We eventually followed the right path to lead us to the "cache." We hiked on well established trails to an outhouse which overlooked Lake Superior. It was a great view and something we wouldn't have found on our own.

We were hooked. When we came back home, I plugged in coordinates to a few caches in Como Park and one that was stuck in a train on Energy Park into my car's GPS. We had no luck finding anything and stopped looking. We started up again about a month ago, because our friends, Crystal and Vic, started Geocaching. They were actually finding things like Geocoins, and Travel Bugs. It sounded really interesting, so we headed out with the Mio DigiWalker c310x. We didn't find anything.

We found a Garmin eTrex Venture HC for about $85 refurbished to up our game a bit. Still, the caches we tried to find were elusive. It looks like the Como area is more difficult then we would like and was probably a bad place to start out.

Since then, we have crawled over Central Park and Villa Park in Roseville, Crosby Park in Saint Paul and Lake Harriet in Minneapolis. We have left a bunch of Travel Bugs we purchased to leave in caches, a handful of geocoins, and some trinkets. It's been fun, even if we've both been soaked, exhaused, muddied, pricked, bit and frusturated.

For more information on Geocaching, visit www.geocaching.com.

How to get a geek into the woods, or Geocaching

Bjorn — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:15:00 +0000

Why Organize?

Bjorn — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:59:00 +0000

American's who do not believe in any gods (we would call them atheists, although they may not) are a large part of the population. Some polls would say that there are more atheists in America than Mormons and Jews combined, however, we are either underrepresented, or our politicians are lying about their religious beliefs. If nearly one in five of us are atheists, as some polls suggest, why are we treated as a much smaller minority? Much of that has to do with numbers and organization.

Right now, across the country, atheist groups are scrambling to make themselves known to people who had no idea there w
as a group for them. They are doing this through ad campaigns, websites and radio shows. There are some who say that we are recruiting members to a hate group. I would say people are willingly joining a hated group. By being organized, by being a part of a group, whether as a dues paying member, or not, you are helping. The more you participate, the more you make others around you comfortable to be who you are without fear, or shame. We should not be afraid to say that we're going to a spaghetti dinner for Minnesota Atheists on the weekend when a coworker asks us what we have planned.

Don't we live in a tolerant society? After all, we have the separation of church and state to protect atheists and the religious from interference from churches and the government. We should be able to have an event in the public without fear of harassment, but we're not there yet. As atheists, many of us are not interested in debating with the religious about the existence of God, the accuracy of the Bible, or whether Jesus rose from the dead. However, simply by holding a sign with the Minnesota Atheists logo, you open yourself up to harassment.

Jeannette Watland, Associate President for Minnesota Atheists, held a sign at the last Flying Spaghetti Monster spaghetti dinner in Como Park to direct people to where the dinner was being held. She was only out there for 20 minutes, maybe a few hundred cars drove by, but in that time she was called names, yelled at, honked at, told to, "stop proselytizing," and forced into debates with people about the origin of the Universe. Just for holding a sign.

By getting involved, by speaking out and standing out, you are helping to educate the public. We live in a diverse community; however, our existence is hidden. We are your neighbors, coworkers, friends and family. We have morals and deal with the same problems in life as anyone else. One quote Jeannette remembered from her experience was from a mother pushing her child in a stroller. "What's that word mean, mommy?" "Atheist? That's a dirty word." With your help, people will see that it isn't.

Why Organize?

Bjorn — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:59:00 +0000

Ad Absurdum 2009-04-11 15:04:00

Bjorn — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:04:00 +0000

MN Atheists April President’s Column – "Our Atheist Community"

Bjorn — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:03:00 +0000

What makes Minnesota Atheists different? In the Twin Cities alone, there are many groups which could fall under the "Freethought" banner. There is a student group - the Campus Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists of the University of Minnesota - and non-student groups like the Humanists of Minnesota, Atheists for Human Rights, and Minneapolis Skeptics. As I wrote last month, Minnesota Atheists' slogan is, "Positive Atheism in Action." What does that say about these other groups? Are they negative? Hardly. We are a diverse group, with many different political opinions and different thoughts about how to dialog with religious people, but the organization as a whole acts in a certain way, which I believe attracts curious atheists.

First, we strongly support equal rights. Regardless of religion, sex, race, ability, economic status, or sexual orientation, you deserve to be treated equally under the law. From this general position, we march in gay pride parades and speak out at the capitol about the importance of keeping church and state separate.

Second, we acknowledge that religious people are not stupid for having supernatural beliefs. From this, we make presentations to schools and in the public about atheists, stating our views and fostering understanding by engaging in respectful dialog. This is one of the most difficult things to do, because it is easy for those who grew up believing in a god to forget what that was like, and how strongly some us believed, only to have had someone ask probing questions, in person, through a book, or the Internet, which began a process of reasoning which led to atheism. Starting with respect does not mean pandering, but allowing a conversation to be built on what is presented, rather than on assumptions about each other.

Lastly, we join together as a community to bring dignity to the label we assign to ourselves as atheists. Some criticize atheist organizations for acting too much like a church by having regular meetings, pot lucks, picnics, signing songs, and having fun together. But our community is important to all of the people who are a part of it, and to all of those who don't yet know that they are not alone.

I, for one, am proud to be a part of such a diverse community, and to feel free to mingle with fellow atheists, no matter where I am. We may not have much in common, but we have at least one thing.

Sunsara Taylor – "Away With All Gods" Tour at U of MN

Bjorn — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:50:00 +0000

by Bjorn Watland
On a crisp November evening at the University of Minnesota, a surprisingly large crowd gathered in a basement auditorium to hear from Sunsara Taylor, an unapologetic Revolutionary Communist and militant atheist. Hearing the views of a communist isn't as shocking as it may be in other arenas of the public; however, it isn't often that a communist will admit that they are also an atheist. Sunsara Taylor is not ashamed of either her Revolutionary Communism, or her atheism, as she presented Bob Avakian's book, "Away With All Gods, Unchaining the Mind and Radically Changing the World."

Sunsara Taylor's presentation began with a description of the horrors that wait to greet the curious reader of the Bible. "I wouldn't give this book to young children to read," Taylor mentions, also calling the Bible, "The most blood-thirsty book." The specifics from the Bible she mentions are the practice described of stoning women who were not virgins on their wedding night, God commanding soldiers to kill children, men, and women who have known a man, but leave the virgins for yourselves, and the series of plagues sent by God.

Citing these examples from the Old Testament of the Bible, Sunsara Taylor makes the statement that you cannot separate the New and Old Testaments, as some more progressive Christians might like to do. Jesus is often separated from the horrors of the Old Testament, however, by what basis would you consider Jesus to the divine without fulfillment of the prophecies found within the Old Testament? "Jesus is not someone you would want to follow or should follow,” Taylor exclaims. "He didn't end slavery; instead he taught how slaves should be obedient to their masters. He didn't stop patriarchy. He continued to preach that disease and illness are caused by sin."

Taylor explores the concept of sin. Sin is caused by the "Fall" of humanity. Christians believe that Eve was deceived by the Devil to eat from the Tree of Knowledge and then deceived Adam. What this means for women who inherit this original sin, is a special punishment or curse, which is painful childbirth and obedience to their husbands. The problem with this treatment of the nature of humanity, is that it creates a society which is patriarchal and these ancient myths should not be carried on today in the modern era.

Next, Taylor ties in ancient Biblical myths with practice in society today. She cites Proposition 8 in California, which defined marriage as one man and one woman. Proponents of a heterosexual definition of marriage use the Bible to argue against gay marriage. However, the Bible doesn't even treat marriage as between one man and one woman. King Solomon, in the Bible, has hundreds of wives and hundreds of concubines. "Sex existed long before people made up religions, and marriage is defined by societies, not by a god," Taylor reasons.

The next section Taylor dives into is all about the difference between science, religious faith, and to a lesser extent, art. "Science is not cold and bereft of meaning," says Taylor. The difference between art and religion is that art does not mandate that you accept it as a representation of reality. "Humanity cannot live without art, but must live without religion," Taylor quotes from the book.

Taylor has peppered her presentation with fleeting mention of being a communist, and mentioned some of the experiences that have formed her opinion of religion, such as attempting to defend an abortion clinic from violent protesters and actually reading the Bible only to learn about the horrible treatment of women, and other violence found throughout the book. At the end of her presentation, she attempts to tie in the rationality and reason of science and atheism and communism.

Taylor, like the books she is presenting, is not meant to be nice to religion, and not meant to take ideas lightly. She asserts that the idea of the "Golden Rule," only works on an individual level, and not in societies. Scarcity is no longer a problem in the world. We have the means to provide shelter, food, and safety to every person on the planet. We can feed the whole world, but people in food producing countries are starving because food is produced, and exported to "imperialist countries, like this one," asserts Taylor. We need to get rid of the means of production relations that are based on exploitation and rid ourselves of class distinction.

What are the options for the individual, according to Taylor? "Faced with the horrors of the world, you have three options," Taylor follows. You can grab all of the goodies and possessions through a global network of exploitation, close your eyes to the exploitation or you can open your eyes and confront the oppression and change the world you live in.

Taylor does not hold back in her presentation. During the evening she called Sarah Palin a Nazi for the practice of charging rape victims for rape kits because they contained emergency contraception. We should not feel good about being American, no matter who is President, because we are a nation which dropped two atomic bombs on cities in Japan, have killed a million people in Iraq, and carry out secret CIA operations, such as hidden prisons. She asserts that abstinence only sex education has genocidal implications and the Bible fuels it. She believes that humans have no inherent nature to be good or bad, and that the problems we see today were caused by the emergence of classes, private property and the state. In order to change the world, you must act in opposition to the oppressor in order to benefit the oppressed.

From the audience, a number of people raised concerns about the viability of a communist society, citing examples of failed attempts in the USSR and China. Taylor lauded the successes of Maoist China in raising the life expectancy from 33 years to 65 years in a short time as the country transitioned from feudalism. Among those who raised concern, one was an anthropologist, another an economist and another merely had concerns that humans, as animals, had a capitalist nature that is difficult to overcome. She handled criticism of communism, which made up the majority of the discussion afterwards, very well. As a speaker, she is confident, assertive, and concerned about understanding the point of view of the questioner.

Bob Avakian’s book, "Away With All Gods," as presented by Sunsara Taylor, is different from other atheist books, like those from Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, in that it proposes a radical political agenda as an opposition to religious fundamentalism.

Campus Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists (CASH) presented Sunsara Taylor. CASH is known as, "The Best Damned Group on Campus, " are an affiliate of the Secular Student Alliance and have been serving atheists, skeptics, and humanists since 1991. For more information about CASH, visit www.cashumn.org.

Bjorn Watland is a board member of Minnesota Atheists and Camp Quest of Minnesota. He also serves as an editor for the SSA eMpirical.

Atheist Women on the Radio

Bjorn — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:06:00 +0000

A change is in the air. Minnesota Atheists, the largest and most active atheist organization in the state, as been led by at least one founding member of the board since its creation in 1991. This year, that will not be the case. Jeannette will be serving as associate president, and I will be serving as president.

What does this mean for an organization of nearly 400 supporters? Well, the same activities and programs will continue, but a greater focus on community building, including activities for families and charitable works will inspire a greater number of people to participate.

To highlight these changes, Jeannette was featured on the radio with new board member Crystal. You can download the podcast here.