Dr. Francis Collins is one of the greatest living Americans. He is the man who brought the Human Genome Project to completion, ahead of time and under budget, and who now directs the National Institutes of Health… I know Francis, too, from various public and private debates over religion. He has been kind enough to visit me in his own time and to discuss all sorts of novel treatments, only recently even imaginable, that might apply to my case. And let me put it this way: he hasn’t suggested prayer, and I in turn haven’t teased him about The Screwtape Letters. So those who want me to die in agony are really praying that the efforts of our most selfless Christian physician be thwarted. Who is Dr. Collins to interfere with the divine design? By a similar twist, those who want me to burn in hell are also mocking those kind religious folk who do not find me unsalvageably evil. I leave these paradoxes to those, friends and enemies, who still venerate the supernatural.
It’s not often that an anti-theist goes out of his way to praise a Christian, so Collins must be doing something to please the atheists. Sticking up for good science over bad faith is definitely one way to win rational people over.
Collins has the right goals: he’s wrangling with congress to open up opportunities for more stem cell research. His opponent is the Christian pro-life contingent, and hey, look, Collins speaks their language — he’s One of Them. Could that help? Will he get through to them and break the logjam? Stay tuned!
I’m a bit cynical. I think we’re looking at a deep-seated ideological conflict, and that the right wing won’t budge no matter how folksy and friendly and religiously copacetic Collins might be. But this is a case where, if Collins succeeds in battling the bureaucratic believers and overcoming the hurdles to stem cell research support, I will grudgingly admit that he was a politically astute choice for his position, despite my earlier contrary sentiments. I still think he’s a dingbat, but maybe we need a few dingbats on the interface between science and politics.
I think that’s a pretty high form of compliment coming from him
If you haven’t read it yet, there’s a lengthy profile of Collins in the New Yorker this week, portraying him as a staunch defender of science despite his evangelical Christianity. If you can get through the beginning, you might gain some newfound respect for the guy.
Pat Condell has been releasing some less-than-stellar videos about his opposition to the (close to) Ground Zero Mosque (and community center). At least, I haven’tbeen a fan of them.
But until I saw this excellent video by The Amazing Atheist, I hadn’t seen a response to him that I liked quite so much…
Note to self: Always walk toward the camera when going on a rant. It is *so* much more effective than just standing there.
Atheism is a conservative position. We accept statements only so far as there is reason and/or evidence to back them up. Anything else is speculation. We make no leaps of faith. If there should some day be a compelling reason or piece of evidence for a god, then we would acknowledge it and change our views.
Clarity
An atheist possesses clarity in his or her thinking processes. We are able to identify those things for which we have evidence and separate them from other things that are merely wishful thinking.
Consistent
An atheist is also consistent. We apply our skepticism equally to all supernatural claims. We do not say, “All prophets, saviors, or gods are false -– except ours.” We make no exceptions or special pleadings.
Contradiction-free
Another benefit of atheism is that it is contradiction-free. We don’t have to try to reconcile an all-loving, all-seeing, all-powerful god with the existence of evil. We don’t have to define love exactly the opposite of how we normally define it in order to make it applicable to a god. We don’t have to claim that a poor supernatural designer is intelligent.
Courage
An atheist possesses courage. It is natural for people to have a healthy survival instinct. However, some people have such a fear of death that they feel compelled to believe in an afterlife to alleviate those fears. It takes intellectual and emotional courage to abandon belief in an afterlife because there is no evidence for it (and compelling evidence against it). It also takes intellectual and emotional courage to abandon one’s belief in a cosmic, supernatural “protector” and realize that, as far as we know, we are alone in our universe and must therefore help each other as best we can.
Consequences
There are certain consequences that naturally follow from being an atheist. Since there are no gods to help us, we must rely on ourselves and each other. Since there is no afterlife, it becomes more important to improve life on Earth.
Conclusion
One of the arguments of Pascal’s Wager is that a person loses nothing by believing in a god. This is not true. Accepting Pascal’s Wager means saying that we are willing to abandon reason and evidence as our guides to living, and instead make a leap of faith to… where?
It’s true that by converting (or deconverting) from theism to atheism a person will lose his or her sense of divine specialness, cosmic meaning in life, and any hope of an afterlife. But you can’t lose what you never really had.
The reality of atheism far outweighs the dream of religion. There is an excitement and beauty to perceiving the world as it really is, and not as an illusion.
Would you change, remove, or add to anything on this list?
We had a “Parent Night” at my school last night, so I haven’t had too much time to read about the Discovery Channel Hostage Situation… but the short of it is that James Jay Lee went to Discovery Channel headquarters, took hostages, and was shot and killed by a police sniper after he appeared to take aim at a hostage. The hostages are safe and the crisis is thankfully over.
Lee was also an atheist. I’m sure it won’t be long before certain groups latch onto that fact as if it’s his defining characteristic and what prompted him to act this way.
In one of my first conversations with Lee, he informed me that he moved to the DC area to be involved in political activism… that this was where everything was supposed to be happening and he was disappointed that more was not going on. He certainly did not hide the fact that he thought he could save the world but he never made any statements about breaking the law or using violence to obtain his objectives.
In short, he said he was staying here until he ran out of money — probably this year. (He was not employed.) I was suspicious that he was planning to commit suicide when that time came.
…
… As I read the media reports now, many of the pieces are coming together and I’m now realizing that today’s events were Lee’s plan for quite some time. I also went back and searched my e-mail and I noticed he used the name “Mister Guerilla” on his account… I hadn’t paid any attention to this earlier.
Shelley will write more today, but I think she perfectly sums up my initial thoughts after hearing about this story:
Atheism is only a statement about one thing — a lack of belief in god. It says nothing about what else you may or may not believe or how you came to lack belief. Some people do not come to atheism through critical thinking and other times those who do, fail to apply critical thinking to aspects of their life outside of religion.
The atheists aren’t to blame. Lee alone is to blame. And good riddance now that he’s gone.
One of the main reasons many of our groups exist is to provide safe havens for atheists who have nowhere else to go. Even if Lee was loosely associated with these groups, there’s no reason to think that any of the members condone his actions.
… Good information about reality helps us make better decisions about how to act in that reality. It helps us understand which causes are likely to have which effects. And the reverse is true as well. Decisions based on bad information are no better than guessing. Worse, in some ways, since we’re more willing to let go of decisions we know were based on guessing. It’s like people in data processing say: Garbage in, garbage out.
…
Reality is a harsh mistress. She demands our honesty. She demands our work. She demands that we give up comforts, that we let ourselves feel pain, that we accept how small we are and how little control we have over our lives. And she demands that we make her our top priority.
But she is more beautiful, and more powerful, and more surprising, and more fascinating, and more endlessly rewarding, than anything we could ever make up about her.
And we can’t let her in unless we’re willing to let her be what she is.
The entire piece is here and, much like all of Greta’s writing about this subject, I’m guessing you’ll want to share it with everyone you know.
At the University of Georgia yesterday, the UGAtheists celebrated “Stone a Heathen Day,” using some Bible verses to generate some buzz about their group on campus.
The idea came from the Pastafarians at the University of South Carolina. As UGAtheists president Randall Bourquin said to me, “They dreamed it up, shared it with me, and will be executing their own day on Sept. 30th.”
Bourquin and other atheist students encouraged people walking in Tate Plaza to stone them according to the Bible’s commands.
Leviticus 24:14, a command from God to Moses, reads: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him.”
The UGAtheists laughed at their own self-condemnation.
“Jesus said, ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,’ but he said nothing about water balloons,” Bourquin said.
…
… Bourquin said one reason his group organized “Stone a Heathen Day” is because it is not easy to be an atheist in a community such as the one at the University.
“It’s pretty tough to extract sympathy from almost anyone,” he said. “It’s more or less socially unacceptable to come into a room and say, ‘I’m an atheist’ and get a pat on the back.”
What a great way to show some of the crazier stuff in the Bible. You shouldn’t take it seriously (or literally) here, so why should you take it any more seriously when it is used to justify bigotry and promote Creationism?
It clearly hit some nerves, too:
Butler Stoudenmire, a sophomore from Albany, watched Bourquin recite Bible verses and ask for the group’s punishment.
“They’re definitely poking fun at religion,” he said. “It doesn’t personally offend me, but they’re giving Christianity a bad name.”
Yes, it’s poking fun at religion. There’s nothing wrong with that. And if Christianity has a bad reputation, I’m pretty sure we can blame most of that on Christians themselves.
After one atheist student asked if Christian student James Wood would throw a water balloon at him, Wood declined.
“Behind that action I think is a sinful desire to get back at them,” said Wood, a senior from Marietta. “I don’t think Jesus would throw a balloon at them.”
Right. But Jesus would *totally* have banned gay marriage and voted for Sarah Palin.
One professor called out the atheists for using Old Testament cruelty:
Richard Elliott Friedman, professor of Jewish studies in the religion department, said any argument using the Bible — whether theist or atheist — requires extensive study.
“It’s not for amateurs to interpret the Bible,” he said.
Like that’s ever stopped anyone before. When Christians heed that lesson, I’m sure the atheists will follow suit
By the way, there’s a great picture of group member Daniel Brettschneidergetting “stoned” in the UGA student newspaper. Check that out.
I love the beginning of the school year. All these creative atheists groups are out in full force, getting their message out, shaking up theistic sensibilities, and making me smile in the process.
… The Constitution says that there can be no religious test for office and society needs to catch up to that idea.
But there is a point when religion should come into play.
Do you really want a president who could launch a nuclear attack… who also believes he/she will be in “God’s glorious presence” in the afterlife?
Do you really want a president who can appoint important positions in the field of science like the head of the National Institutes of Health… who also believes the Earth was created about 6,000 years ago and that evolution is a lie?
Do you really want a president who has the power to veto legislation regarding women’s health care… who also believes abortion is equivalent to murder and that life begins at conception?
I wouldn’t feel comfortable voting for those people. It has nothing to do with the labels they give themselves and everything to do with what they will do with those beliefs. I want a president who makes decisions after hearing from experts on the issue, not after hanging up on a conference call with a group of pastors.
If you like it or hate it, leave a comment there! (The comment system should be working this time around…)
Clinton Leinbach, who traveled to campus from Selinsgrove, Pa., said he came to warn people about the dangers of not accepting Jesus.
…
Leinbach said he thought it was possible to convince the atheists — who were standing across from him in protest — to accept Jesus.
But Dan Farbowitz, a member of the Penn State Atheist Agnostic Association, didn’t seem to budge from his convictions.
He was cloaked in a brown, hooded robe — garb familiar to Jedi masters like Luke Skywalker and Yoda — and held a sign that read “Consider Jediism.”
Excellent
It’s not like the campus preachers had much of a strategy, anyway. They just came to preach the hate and then acted shocked when they realized it wasn’t working:
After preacher Shawn Holes told the crowd that being gay is a sin, counter-protesters held up rainbow flags — a symbol for gay rights.
But Holes said they had taken his message the wrong way.
“I love homosexuals,” Holes told the crowd.
Too many jokes forming with that last line…
An article in the school paper says that the barrage of signs just caused more confusion than anything — I’m fine with that. Whatever gets the focus off the preachers. It also helped that the atheists weren’t the only ones with amusing signs:
Causing even more confusion was a group of students holding up signs with nonsensical phrases like “Words on a sign” and “My arms are tired from holding this sign.”
Nate Johnson (sophomore-aerospace engineering) said the signs were created to poke fun at both sides of the protest and weren’t really targeting anyone at all.
I’m loving these recent stands against campus preachers. There’s no need to get angry. We just need to be clever. Ridicule them with their own Bibles. Say something equally as absurd as whatever they’re saying. Play Bingo. Worship a boot. Use them to raise money for charity. It’s all better than letting them speak unchallenged.
(Pictures via Matt Becker (on Facebook) and reader Emily)
Last week, I held an online fundraiser for the Secular Student Alliance with the grand prize being a special copy of I Sold My Soul on eBay with the signatures of several atheist leaders and celebrities within our movement.
Over the weekend, I randomly selected a winner. I emailed the person to congratulate him and let him know he had won.
He responded with this:
… I am very delighted to win, but I found Richard Wade’s comment too sensible, and would request that you put it up for direct auction with proceeds going to the SSA.
The winner also chose to remain anonymous, too. (How generous is that?! I <3 awesome atheists.)
But the book remains available and it needs a home.
So here's what we'll do.
The book is back up for grabs, but this time, it'll simply go to the highest bidder. (If you already donated money last week, that'll count toward your grand total.)
The current high bid is $250. (I’ll update that number as needed.) The bidding will end Sunday night!
And if you just want to give because the SSA is a great organization, that wouldn’t be such a bad thing, either
A website called Patheos seeks to “engage in the global dialogue about religion and spirituality and to explore and experience the world’s beliefs.” Yesterday, they released their “portal” on Humanism which includes essays from people like Ed Buckner (President of American Atheists), Ron Lindsay (CEO of the Center for Inquiry), David Silverman (National Communications Director of American Atheists), Roy Speckhardt (Executive director of the American Humanist Association), and some studly brown dude.
I became an atheist at the age of 14. That was back in 1997 — books about atheism were not on bestsellers’ lists and I felt alone in my thinking. I wanted confirmation that I was thinking rationally. I had so many unanswered questions about religion and no one to talk to about my thoughts. I didn’t want my religious family to learn about my new beliefs, and as far as I knew, none of my friends were atheists. My only option, it seemed, was to go online and search for atheist websites. I found only a couple worth visiting but I latched onto them quickly because I had so few resources at my disposal.
Thankfully, students in my position no longer have to resort to a handful of websites — or writers — to learn about life sans religion. The internet has revolutionized how people discover atheism, learn to live life without a god, and spread their non-belief.
The piece focuses on three ways in which the Internet is helping non-religious people:
The impact of the “Blogosphere”
Increased membership in and donations to atheist organizations
Larger and more niche atheist communities
A little backstory on the piece: I wrote it about 14 months ago (though it was just put on the Patheos site yesterday) and hadn’t given it much thought since then. As I was re-reading it last night, I was surprised at how I probably would’ve made the same three points now. (Though I really should have mentioned the relevance of YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook in spreading our message.)
Do you think there are other ways our movement has flourished as a result of the Internet? Obviously, Christians and other religious groups have also benefitted from coming online, but at least they had churches and small groups well before the Internet sprang up.
I think we’re unique in the sense that so many of us first publicly expressed our non-beliefs online instead of in person — moreso (in my experience, anyway) than any religious group.
The vandalized vinyl message was promptly removed by Adams Outdoor Co., on Friday. Adams Outdoor is replacing the message gratis and expects to have it back up around Labor Day to honor FFRF’s 6-week lease. The billboard went up on the first week of August.
An octogenarian Lifetime Foundation member who prefers not to be publicly named suggested the wording of the slogan as a legacy for his grandchildren.
The donor of the billboard is putting up $500 and the Foundation is matching that pledge for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the vandal(s). The donor expressed shock and revulsion that a vandal or vandals would deface his message to “enjoy life now.”
How awful our society is when a sign that promotes living for the moment instead of the afterlife is seen as a threat by some (presumably) religious person. But at least the billboard company is stepping up to replace it and FFRF is issuing a reward to anyone who can turn in the vandal(s).
Just keep in mind: the response in these cases should never be to retaliate in kind. We’re better than that. We’re the logical and sensible ones.
But we can always keep putting up more billboards…
I got a message from my friend Jon Weyer that someone he knows is going through a really rough time right now:
… my pastor’s son has Juvenile Myositis, a horrible autoimmune disease that causes him a great amount of pain and could kill him if it doesn’t go into remission. His name is Sam… Pepsi has a voting contest to get JM a $250,000 grant for scientific research.
If you have a minute to spare, consider clicking a few buttons and voting to make JM a memory. You can text in your vote, too.
It’s currently ranked first as I write this, but let’s help keep it there.
Karen McKay, a “retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel living in Western North Carolina,” has an opinion piece in the Asheville Citizen-Times that throws together just about every lie about church/state separation you can imagine, all so she can argue that people of faith like her who oppose the (close to) Ground Zero Mosque (and community center) deserve more tolerance:
But a Greek Orthodox Church at ground zero that was destroyed on 9/11 has not been allowed to rebuild. Children are not allowed to pray on the steps of the Supreme Court. Valedictorians are forbidden to thank God. Kids are prohibited from praying in school and at football games. Local governing bodies are ordered to cease opening prayers.
A federal judge orders that a memorial cross that has stood in the Mojave Desert since 1934 to honor World War I dead be covered — an atheist driving by was offended by the religious symbol. The Alabama Supreme Court chief justice is removed from office for defying a federal judge’s order to remove a graven Ten Commandments from his courthouse.
While the God of Abraham and Moses has been forcibly ejected from the public square, we are to be tolerant of a mosque erected as a monument to the 9/11 attack on America.
Where do you even begin with tripe like this?
The facts behind that Greek Orthodox Church can be read here. As for the rest of it…
If you want to pray, go pray.
Valedictorians can thank God in a speech, but public school officials can’t lead the audience in prayer. Kids can pray in schools and football games all they want, but teachers and coaches can’t lead students in such prayers. The law seems pretty clear on this. Individuals have a right to pray, but tax-payer funded leaders can’t coerce or force them into worship.
As for local governments, the city officials can pray all they want… privately. But they can’t use taxpayer-funded time or money to do it. This is why the 10 Commandments monument was removed from the Roy Moore‘s Alabama courthouse and why atheists are winning so many of the lawsuits against local city councils that are intent on praying at meetings.
The law dealing with church/state separation is not anti-Christian. It’s anti-one-religion-taking-over. It allows for religious freedom for everybody so we can all worship (or not) how we please.
I wrote an email to Ms. McKay yesterday pointing out some of these facts… no response yet. I’m waiting.
Why on earth would a newspaper publish something as horrible at this? It’s clearly not fact-checked and McKay provided no citations (as if she could find them if she wanted to). It’s irresponsible of the editors to let this go up on the website under the newspaper’s name.
The Center for Inquiry is opposing the building of Park51 — the (close to) Ground Zero Mosque (and Community Center). Their reasoning is rather interesting:
… it would be inappropriate to build any new house of worship in the area immediately around Ground Zero, not just mosques. “The 9/11 attacks were an example of faith-based terrorism, and any institution that privileges faith above reason is an affront to those who were killed and injured in those attacks,” observes Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of CFI.
CFI fully supports the free exercise of religion; protecting the rights of believers and nonbelievers is central to CFI’s mission. Accordingly, CFI endorses President Obama’s recent statement reminding the country that Muslim Americans enjoy the same rights as other Americans and should not be treated as second-class citizens.
…
Faith will continue to harm and kill, whether it is in Oklahoma City or New York City, until people stop basing their conduct on imaginary divine commands and accept their responsibility to reason together. To honor those killed by faith fanatics, Ground Zero and its immediate vicinity should be kept free of any newly constructed house of worship — of any religion.
There’s a lot wrong with those paragraphs. To say that any religion whatsoever is an “affront” to the victims of 9/11 is grossly exaggerated. And it seems like a very fine line between supporting the free exercise of religion while opposing any house of worship being built in that region.
CFI says it’s inappropriate to build houses of worship “in the area immediately around Ground Zero.” So at what point is it appropriate? After a three block radius? A mile? Is there a difference between placing a church or mosque a few feet before or after that magical boundary line?
What about all the churches and synagogues already in the region?
(Would a CFI office in that vicinity be ok? I wonder…)
What about areas in which Christian terrorists did something horrible? Would CFI support the right for a synagogue to be built anywhere near the area where Dr. George Tiller was killed by a Christian extremist?
CFI could’ve easily said they oppose religious thinking that places faith above reason without opposing Park51 in particular and leave it at that. They could’ve also could have done more to say they support the right of people to build religious houses, while still wishing none were built anywhere in the country.
But what was offered in the press release is confusing and makes it sound like CFI is going against its own values.
… This press release is bad enough to make me seriously reconsider whether I still wish to continue my membership in CFI or be affiliated with the national organization in any way. (I like the local organization and am sorry to see it tarred with this nonsense from the mothership.) I will wait until my anger resolves before making a decision. It may take some time, though, because this press release really did infuriate me, all the more so because it is a betrayal of the commitment to reason and critical thinking that CFI stands for. I joined CFI because I respected its commitment to critical thinking and promoting reason and secular values, admired its work, and wanted to be a part of it, even if only with financial support.
***Update 2***: Here’s is the revised press release:
CFI fully supports the free exercise of religion; protecting the rights of believers and nonbelievers is central to CFI’s mission. Accordingly, CFI endorses President Obama’s recent statement reminding the country that Muslim Americans enjoy the same rights as other Americans and should not be treated as second-class citizens. There should be no legal impediment to the placement of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero, just as there should be no legal impediment to the placement of a church, temple, or synagogue near Ground Zero.
Further, CFI laments the effort by some to turn the proposed Islamic center into a political issue. Government officials and candidates for office should not intervene in disputes over the alleged offensiveness of a place of worship. Such conduct violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Establishment Clause. Government officials should not be deciding who is a “moderate” Muslim any more than they should be deciding who is a “moderate” Christian or Jew.
A number of private individuals have protested the proposed Islamic center. The tone and substance of these protests covers a wide range. Some protesting the Islamic center have raised legitimate questions, but to the extent the objections to the Islamic center mistakenly equate all Muslims with Muslim extremists, CFI condemns them.
CFI maintains that an Islamic center, including a mosque, near Ground Zero, in and of itself, is no different than a church, temple, or synagogue. It is undeniable that the 9/11 terrorists were inspired by their understanding of Islam, and that currently there are far more Islamic terrorists in the world than terrorists of other faiths, but those facts are not relevant to the location of the Islamic center, absent evidence that terrorists are involved in this endeavor, and there is no such evidence.
CFI’s unequivocal support for the legal right of Muslims to place a community center near Ground Zero does not imply that CFI views the new center as an event to be celebrated. To the contrary, CFI is committed to the position that reason and science, not faith, are needed to address and resolve humanity’s problems. All religions share a fundamental flaw: they reflect a mistaken understanding of reality. On balance, CFI does not consider houses of worship to be beneficial to humanity, whether they are built at Ground Zero or elsewhere. [Hemant says: emphasis here is mine.]
This statement supersedes any prior statement issued by CFI regarding the Ground Zero controversy.
I think this is a far better statement than before. That said, I have no idea what the purpose of it is, other than to make amends for the confusing/harmful-to-itself release that was put out a couple days ago. That aside, what’s the point of it?
The same press release could just as easily been written like this:
We at CFI will not be celebrating the building of Park51.
That is all.
…
Meanwhile, Pat Condell still seems over the top on the whole issue:
I don’t know why I read letters-to-the-editor written by people who have no idea what they’re talking about.
But I came across this one and it just pissed me off:
I just want to say how tired I am of atheists complaining about their rights.
Now, if it weren’t for Christian-based food kitchens, homes for the abused, shelters for the homeless, etc., where would tens of thousands be? I have never seen an atheist help center.
If they choose not to believe in God, that’s their right, but should they force their nonbelief on a nation founded on godly principles?
So, the next time we have a tragedy and need consolation or help, should we call an atheist? Or would a Christian be better?
If they have no belief in God, why are they so upset?
CHARLES D. BOWER
That was published in The Ledger, which is based out of Lakeland, Florida, where the local city council is pushing to pray before meetings.
How *dare* atheists try to keep Christianity from taking over the council. The Atheist of Florida are fighting for separation for church and state. That benefits everybody, not just atheists.
Members of SECULAR Center USA volunteer their time constantly, as do many members of many local atheist groups. The group in Austin, TX has done several food giveaways to the homeless with no strings attached.
Atheists donate blood, give to non-profits, and do what we can to make the world a better place because we know there’s no afterlife that will make things better.
You should try contacting some of the atheists running these charity groups. They’re people who know you don’t need a god to be good.
The rest of Bower’s letter makes no sense either. When have atheists ever “forced our non-belief” onto the nation? And, of course, our nation was never founded on “godly” principles. He asks: why are we so upset? For a lot of reasons. And because people like you don’t do their homework before writing letters disparaging an entire community of good people.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
