I know Christians are gullible, but surely no one would pay for this service… they know they’re never actually getting raptured, right? They know their contracts are never going to be needed… right?!

To date, they have collected 200 contracts…

*Hemant does mental math*

Damn…

You know, I’m in a bit of a dilemma here. Maybe because I like Bart. The last time I posted about his site, it was soaking in publicity but not much cash (as far as I knew). That’s changed now.

One reason I loathe people like John Edward is because they knowingly dupe people into giving them money for a fake “service.”

Is this any different? Centre would honor the contracts, no doubt, but he really doesn’t have to because the Rapture will never happen. He knew that when he created the website. He knew (or hoped) that Christians who were emotionally attached to their pets could potentially give him money for the service.

So is this ethical?

Is it different from psychics or tarot card readers who know they have no real power but have no problem taking money from people who think they do?

Yesterday, he came back on the show to give updates on his life. He stands by what he said about civil unions — though he’s still undecided about gay marriage:

… I agree with what I said then and I agree with it now. What’s changed since then — even over the last year — according to a poll released just this week by Public Religion Research Institute, is that a majority of evangelicals — not just younger evangelicals — say that they agree either with same-sex marriage or civil unions. That’s a majority of white evangelicals in California. And evangelicals around the country are looking at this in new light and new ways and evaluating this in terms of the Constitution and in light of our Christian values. And that’s good.”

A majority of evangelicals seem to be coming to their senses. But the old white, male, Protestant guard isn’t about to let up their power so this argument will continue for years to come… unless younger Christians take them on directly.

If young Christians want to change the fact that their religion is perceived as bigoted and anti-gay, they need to be on the front lines in support of gay marriage.

Cizik is taking steps in that direction. I wish he’d take larger leaps. But it’s nice to see a Christian-in-power speaking some sense about social issues.

(Thanks to everyone for the link.)

“These aren’t just Christian laws,” he said. “Moses brought these down from the mountain. They aren’t something we came up with.”

…

He knows not everyone in the community will agree with his idea.

“If our church underwrote it then we’d probably put it on our own property. But, if it comes together by donations from throughout the community we’d like to put it on the square, if the council approves,” said Kessler.

…

“It would serve as a reminder to hundreds of people day by day. So I think it would be a good thing,” Kessler said.

A reminder of what, exactly?

That we shouldn’t worship false idols?

That we should keep the sabbath day holy?

That we shouldn’t take god’s name in vain?

Does Kessler even know what the Ten Commandments are?

At least for now, this is just one guy with a bad idea.

He’ll make a formal proposal to the Marion City Council soon, and if all goes well, they’ll quickly reject the idea, right?

Maybe not.

“I’m not interested in new litigation,” [Mayor Robert] Butler said. But, he said, in complicated and difficult times, “I think an endorsement of a religious belief is in order.”

In other words, when times get rough, government officials must promote Christianity.

(As opposed to the good times, when they’re all for following the law?)

Somewhere, there’s a lawyer just sitting and waiting for the city council to approve this statue… and I’m on that lawyer’s side.

Yesterday, she made headlines for posting the following on Facebook:

For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.

…

As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.

In other words, she’s not a “Christian.” She’s a “follower of Christ.” Don’t you feel better now…?

This isn’t really news to me.

I’m thrilled she’s not anti-gay/feminist/science/etc. But educated people like her don’t get bonus points for being tolerant and rational. That’s just to be expected.

When she tells me she’s stopped believing in God, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, and the existence of Heaven and Hell, I’ll pay more attention.

***Update***: I wrote this in the comments, but I’ll say it here, too. I don’t like it when people distance themselves from “Christianity” because many of its followers hold unpopular views.

That’s like me saying:

“I quit being an atheist. I refuse to be a dick. I refuse to treat religion with contempt. I refuse to be anti-clergy. I refuse to be anti-Republican. I am done with atheism!

Oh, and by the way, I don’t believe in god.

Anne Rice is a Christian. She’s trying not to be a jerky Christian, which is all well and good, but she comes off sounding like she’s above the fray when, really, she believes in much of the same (nonsensical) things that all other Christians believe.

I think many of the commenters are right in that the post went overboard in criticizing her when that shouldn’t have been the focus. My bad. I’ll try to do better next time.

At least that’s what I can gather from the lawsuit she plans to file against the college.

Keeton claims that she has voiced her Christian beliefs inside and outside the classroom on homosexuality and other biblical teachings. ASU faculty has ordered her to undergo a remediation plan, which would include diversity sensitivity workshops, she says.

…

“While I want to stay in the school counseling program, I know that I can’t honestly complete the remediation plan knowing that I would have to alter my beliefs,” Keeton said in a video produced by the defense fund. “I’m not willing to, and I know I can’t change my biblical views.”

No one’s asking her to alter her beliefs. She just has to damn well keep them to herself if she’s counseling a student.

Just like Creationists could theoretically get jobs as public school science teachers as long as they taught evolution properly and didn’t bring up their faith.

Just like Christians could get jobs as pharmacists as long as they didn’t prevent a woman from obtaining her birth control.

If she can’t help but evangelize, she’s in the wrong line of work. She’s basically admitting she can’t counsel an atheist or Muslim or Hindu or gay or transgendered student properly. If she’s really desperate, then she can go to a Christian college and work at a Christian school.

Public schools need counselors who have the ability to help all students, not proselytize to them during their toughest hour. Who knows, it’s possible that Keeton could graduate without comprising her beliefs — you can be an effective counselor without agreeing with what your students do or believe — but she’s chosen to fight a losing battle.

If she can’t keep her beliefs to herself, I don’t know why any public school would want to hire her. She’s a walking lawsuit waiting to happen. She’s only shooting herself in the foot by threatening the university with this unnecessary lawsuit of her own.

***Update***: If you’re in a betting mood, YouWager “is allowing people to wage money and opinions on possible outcomes of the federal lawsuit Keeton filed against Augusta State last week.”

(Thanks to Meg for the link)

…

***Update***: There was a similar case going on at Eastern Michigan University with student Julea Ward.:

Last year Ward refused to treat a suicidal gay student, telling fellow counselors that her religious views prevented her from helping him feel better about himself.

Today, thankfully, a judge dismissed her case.

This type of thing only happens when a school board is taken over by people who don’t know the law and don’t care about the education students receive. Who needs

Take a look at the statements made by the board:

Board Member David Tate quickly responded: “We let them teach evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on this School Board believe in creationism. Why can’t we get someone with religious beliefs to teach creationism?”

If Creationism was based in science, why would a religious teacher be needed…?

Fellow board member Clint Mitchell responded, “I agree … you don’t have to be afraid to point out some of the fallacies with the theory of evolution. Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom.”

Who wants to bet that Mitchell can’t name one legitimate “fallacy” of evolution?

[Board President Keith] Martin, noting that discipline of young people is constantly becoming more of a challenge for parents and teachers, agreed: “Maybe it’s time that we look at this.”

Right… teaching Creationism will simultaneously get students to turn off their cell phones in class and shut the hell up. I’m sure every teacher would agree to that one. Spoken like a man who’s never set foot in a classroom.

Part of me wants them to go forward with this. Let them teach Creationism, get sued, lose the case, and lose money. They deserve it.

But the students in the Livingston Parish schools deserve better. They need teachers who know the difference between science and faith — in other words, teachers who are more concerned about reality than the Bible.

They’re not going to get it, though. And they’re the ones who’ll suffer in college because of it.

He claims to have solved the “distant starlight problem“:

This is the issue of how starlight from the most distant galaxies is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale. Although light is incredibly fast, the most distant galaxies are incredibly far away. So, under normal circumstances we would be inclined to think that it should take billions of years for their starlight to reach us. Yet, the Bible teaches that the universe is only thousands of years old. Solutions have been proposed by creationists, but we haven’t had a definitive answer… until now.

Like I said, I’m not a science expert. But I know that science is about looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions from it. Lisle is starting with the conclusion (the earth is thousands of years old) and trying to match the evidence to it.

Bad scientist. Bad.

It gets better, though.

He hasn’t produced the paper yet and one critic faulted him for not submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal. But Lisle was ready with a comeback:

The same critic made the following comment, which I found amusing: “Jason isn’t submitting his paper to a prestigious science journal, the editors of which will send it out to be reviewed by experts of their own choosing”… But the really embarrassing thing for this critic is that, actually, I have already submitted the paper to the Answers Research Journal, and the senior editor has already sent it out to experts for peer-review. How embarrassing for the critic!

Yeah! Take that, you godless critic! He’s sending it to a journal run by Creationists. I wonder if they’ll accept it… (I also wonder: How bad would a paper have to be for that journal to reject it?)

This is even funnier when you read PZ Myers‘ post about this “discovery” from a couple weeks ago when Lisle made his initial announcement:

If he’s really made this amazing breakthrough, he ought to be sending his technical paper to more prestigious journals, like Nature and Science and Physics Review Letters and Cosmopolitan. Publishing in Answers Research Journal is an admission of failure.

I hope they do accept it. And publish it. Only because then it’ll be online for real scientists to pick apart and amuse themselves with.

For some reason, I don’t think physicists are shaking in their boots.

Take a look at what happened to 8-month-old Alayna May Wyland:

I don’t care if that makes you uncomfortable.

Keep reading:

The Wylands’ daughter, Alayna, had a small discoloration over her left eye when she was born.

The area started swelling and the fast-growing mass of blood vessels, known as a hemangioma, eventually caused her eye to shut, pushed the eyeball down and outward, and affected the eye socket, said Dr. Thomas Valvano, a pediatrician at Doernbecher Children’s Hospital at Oregon Health & Science University.

“This was medical neglect,” said Valvano, who testified at the hearing. Alayna could lose vision in her left eye and probably will need surgery, he said.

The worst part is that this may have been preventable had Alayna seen doctors.

But even if it was absolutely preventable, her parents, Timothy and Rebecca Wyland, wouldn’t have cared.

The Wylands said they never considered getting medical attention for the growth and would not have if DHS had not intervened.

Attorneys for the Wylands said the couple weren’t given a chance to obtain medical care after DHS got involved in the case late last month and have been largely excluded from medical appointments.

[Deputy district attorney Colleen] Gilmartin asked Rebecca Wyland why she didn’t take Alayna to a doctor.

“Because I believe in God and put my faith in him,” she replied.

“If DHS never came into your lives … at what point would you have accessed medical care,” Gilmartin asked Timothy Wyland.

He did not answer the question directly and said he puts his faith in God. If his daughter did not improve, “that’s his will,” he said.

Why can’t it ever be God’s Will for the parents to suffer the same medical conditions as their helpless children…?

And take a wild guess where all this took place.

In Oregon, where Alayna’s parents were members of the Followers of Christ Church — home to other faith-based killers like the parents of Ava Worthington and Neil Beagley.

As Susan Nielsen of The Oregonian points out, there may be punishment in store for the parents:

Over the past three decades, more than 20 Oregon children whose parents belong to the Followers of Christ church have died of treatable illnesses, according to the state medical examiner’s office. Yet Oregon grants special leniency to faith-healing parents, singling them out favorably in state policy and protecting them from being charged with certain crimes.

In a 1999 compromise, the Oregon Legislature stripped away some of those legal protections but gave judges the authority to give lighter sentences to faith-healing parents. In recent years, Clackamas County authorities have successfully prosecuted two couples for the preventable deaths of their children. Things are moving in the right direction.

Still, Oregon remains a national outlier for its level of deference toward faith-based crime.

These parents are dangerous. They may not come to their senses until their daughter dies. And even that would be “god’s will” in their minds. That’s what their faith teaches them.

It’s not just mindless nonsense. It’s dangerous extremism.

Ugh… I hope they pay dearly for this.

The culprit? Superstition mixed with a preacher blinded by religion.

Father Valentin dunked the baby in a tank of water three times, never covering its mouth. The father explains what he saw:

“He couldn’t inhale, his face turned blue and he was foaming at the mouth. He [the priest] said we should not interrupt this… ritual,” he said.

“We couldn’t believe it that he just put his hand over his belly and over the head and submerged him three times in the water.”

Yet another example of “harmless” religious nonsense causing real damage. And why did it happen?

Because everyone involved believed that a magic man dunking the baby in water would make God happy. Or send the baby to Heaven. Or prevent it from going into Purgatory. Or whatever the hell people think a Baptism does.

It doesn’t matter what they think a baptism does, though, because they’re wrong in every case.

There’s no reason babies should be baptized. If people want to dunk themselves in water, let them do it when they’re older and in control of their own bodies. It’s still pointless, but at least they won’t die from it.

If there’s any silver lining to this story — if convicted, the priest could face three years’ worth of prison time. (Update: A lot of commenters are saying this is hardly a “silver lining.” You’re right. Poor choice of words on my part. But the three years in prison doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to me. This was an “accidental homicide” and I don’t think the priest intended to kill the baby. I’m not sure what the right amount of jailtime would be, but three years didn’t seem too out of line.)

Now, it’s happening in Aldi stores.

Reader Trace bought a carton of eggs from the grocery store and saw this on the inside:

This is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it. — Psalm 118:24

So you’re not going to lose sleep over this. But it raises this question (from Trace):

Should you stop buying/consuming “Christian” eggs (even when they are darn cheap, large and fresh)?

On a side note, they should *totally* run a contest in which one egg in some unknown carton contains a plastic Jesus inside. If you find it, you get free eggs for a whole year.

A few thoughts on why it worked — and other thoughts about the weekend — are below…

• The start time for events on Saturday and Sunday was 10:30 a.m. It was wonderful. You could go out at night, talk to other conference-goers in the dorms, and not worry about being tired/hung-over/exhausted the next day. There were lots of people in the audience for the morning speakers. That never happens. I know organizations like to pack as much as possible into a conference day, but a late start helped everyone.
• Because of the late start, a few talks had to be dropped. So our staff dropped any potentially boring speaker. Seriously. They gave the stage to the student leaders who have done amazing things at their schools and to off-campus leaders who can inspire them. They chose quality over quantity and I appreciated that.
• For the second year in a row, the SSA used the TED-talk format. Every speaker (except the Keynote and one major award recipient) had 20 minutes to present. If they were amazing, everyone in the audience was left wanting more — not a bad thing at all. If they were boring, they were done quickly — but hardly anyone bored me (and I rarely think that at a conference). Other conferences should adopt this format. It’s horrible to hear a bad speaker drone on for a full hour. When I looked at the crowd during both days, I never saw anyone nodding off to sleep. They were laughing and engaged.
• The SSA’s Executive Director, August Brunsman, gave away an apron as a prize the first night. If you’re an atheist chef, you should totally buy it:
  

• Jen McCreight‘s campus group, The Society of Nontheists at Purdue University, won the award for Best Service Project. And they got an oversized check (which is always fun):
  

• This was offered as advice for campus group leaders, but it really applies to everybody: “Sometimes you have to delegate a task to someone who won’t do as good a job as you could have. GET OVER IT.”
• As Lucy Gubbins from the University of Oregon Alliance of Happy Atheists pointed out, please don’t be this guy on your campus:
  

  It makes us all look bad.

• Debbie Goddard pointed out the fact that we have a problem with diversity in our movement. Not too surprising, right? But it really hit home when she showed this picture of a Skeptics Society conference from a few years ago:
  

  Notice anything… umm… manly and white about it? It happens at many atheist/skeptic conferences, too. It’s not that groups purposely ignore women and minorities, but we need to make special efforts to reach out to those groups so we can really be more inclusive.

• After hearing Cassy Byrne from Northwestern university talk about how her group drew stick figure Muhammads on their campus, I’m more convinced than ever that Draw Muhammad Day was a positive and necessary event:
  

• As JT Eberhard noted, there are many ways that you can support free speech on your campus. This is one of the ways his group in Missouri received some attention while having fun in the process:
  

  Without more context, that may seem offensive, but I found it anything but. It raised an important point: Words aren’t bad. It’s the context that matters.

• Everything at the conference was taped and the SSA will be putting the videos up on YouTube soon. I can’t wait to post them…

The one downside to the weekend: my car internally exploded on the drive to Columbus. It sat in an auto shop for a day before it was fixed back to normal. And then, magically, everything in my wallet disappeared.

If anyone would like to buy me a new car, that’d be terrific

“I just thought it might be time to tell that story,” Rushdie said. “I always for a long time didn’t want to tell it. First of all I was in it and that was not likeable. Then I got out of it and I thought the last thing I want to do is put myself back in it and think about it for the next few years. Of course there were people telling me I should write it but I just thought, ‘Don’t want to. I want to get back the day job and write novels, stories etc’.”

…

“There was a point at which I thought the only way to get rid of this bulls*** is to tell the story,” he said at the Granta event. “I suddenly just literally woke up and thought maybe I’m ready. And I think I am. I have spent a lot of this year exhuming the material.

After having to live the last couple decades fearing that some radical Muslim, offended by his writing, would try to kill him, Rushdie has overcome the fatwa on him. I can’t wait to hear his side of the story.

Oh, wait! I get it. It’s Upside-Down (Baby) Cake.

In that case, someone cut me a slice.

(Thanks to Elyse for the link!)

It’s not like churches pay attention to lyrics, anyway… that’s how they end up with bland, boring songs that mention Jesus 32845492 times.

(Thanks to Todd for the link!)

(via Epicute — Thanks to Gemma for the link!)

Unfortunately for him, it was a Sunday and the restaurant was closed. Life can be so cruel…

Read the full comic here.

(via @MykDowling)

(via The Religion Virus)

(via Sepia Mutiny)

His group chalked the campus that day with the understanding that “religion does not deserve any special protection from criticism.”

What happened as a result?

I will never forget that night — scrawling the words of Richard Dawkins in front of the music building, quoting Deuteronomy in front of the campanile, and drawing stick figures of Muhammad on the way to the business building. The response was immediate. Curious onlookers approached, many of them engaging us in conversation. Shortly after came the defacing.

My phone started ringing off the hook. People all over campus were defacing our chalking. Some were walking around with water bottles, washing out what they could. Others were spitting on it or scratching it out with their feet. Still more were chalking back.

…

We started riding down a sidewalk and saw derogatory messages written in response to ours. Next to Thomas Jefferson’s “Question with boldness even the existence of a god” was the less elegant “Imagine my cock in your eye socket, fun times you cunts.” At the end of the sidewalk, hunched down by another of our chalkings, was the author of that sentiment. We raced to him and snapped some pictures, inquiring as to what he was doing. “Don’t worry,” he protested, “we’re fixing it.” We explained that we were the ones who originally did the chalking. He was rendered motionless by the realization. Then he lunged at my camera, managing only to graze it before sprinting away.

This is why Blasphemy Day is so important and why I’m now such a strong supporter of it.

It’s not about mocking religion or calling a believer names.

It’s about the freedom of speech and the idea that religion (along with other strongly-held beliefs) should be open to criticism.

No one should be able to silence you because they don’t like what you say.

Incidentally, the Center For Inquiry has launched their Campaign for Free Expression Video Contest. Make a video explaining why free expression is so important and you could win $2,000!

I had a chance to ask the pastor of that church, Dr. Terry D. Jones, a few questions and he gave me the following responses. Feel free to discuss his answers in the comments.

I am posting them here unedited:

Who is the audience for your event?

We hope to reach Moslems and Non-Moslems to awake and awareness that the Koran is a book of lies and that the only true salvation is in Jesus Christ.

Do you think Muslims will turn to Christ as a result of this?

This is our prayer and desire that they would seriously reexamine their religion. They will then come to the conclusion that Islam is of the devil and Christianity is the only true religion.

While you may feel “Islam is a lie” (as it says on your website), do you think this is a smart thing to do strategically?

Yes, we believe it is a smart thing because it will get the attention of thousands of people hopefully causing them to reexamine their relationship with God.

Do you worry about being accused of spreading hate? Is any publicity good publicity?

No, we are not worried about spreading hate because we are spreading the truth. Truth is love and the hope of salvation.

Do you fear any backlash from the Muslim community?

Of course we do becaue Islam has proven itself to be a violent religion and Muhammed promoted violence in the Koran.

Have any of the media reports of this event portrayed you unfairly or inaccurately? Would you like to set the record straight on any particular issue?

We have been accused of being racist. We are not attacking a race. In other words, we are not attacking the Moslem. We love the Moslems and hope that they would come to true salvation. What we are attacking is Islam, the religion, and Sharia law, the political system.

It’s called an “International” event, but is any group/church outside of yours planning on joining you?

We have gotten responses from all around the world. Yes, we are expecting hundreds to attend.

Would you support a Muslim (or atheist) group that felt Christianity was a problem and made plans to burn copies of the Bible?

We, of course, would not support them, but we would support their first amendment rights of freedom of expression

How do you respond to Christians who feel this does more harm than good for spreading the faith?

This is the way that we have chosen to do it. To those Christians who disagree, we would encourage them to choose their own method of spreading the gospel and do so.

… Our goal is to encourage the best young minds within the secular community to work within the Washington, D.C. political system and establish a presence where federal policy is formed. Our Scholars take on unpaid internships with U.S. Congressional offices, and they are sponsored by the Secular Coalition for America through stipends that help to defray the costs of living during their internships.

By doing this important work, our scholarship winners gain invaluable experience in public policy at the heart of American government, while showing to the political world the best of what the secular community has to offer.

I can’t wait to see this program expand. It’s something conservative Christians have perfected over the years and we need to catch up quickly.

The SCA is also offering college students in the D.C. area a chance to serve in the Secular Coalition Policy Leadership Program this fall.

Anyone else wish you had these opportunities available to you when you were in college?

I’m totally jealous.

Looking back, that was harmless teasing.

This, however, is just frightening.

Breast ironing… it’s exactly what you think it is and it’s happening at a startling rate in Cameroon.

Girls as young as 9 have their breasts ironed as soon as they start to develop, which is happening earlier and earlier as nutrition improves. According to CurrentTV, half of young girls under age 9 who develop early suffer from the practice. Not surprisingly, breast ironing causes numerous health problems, such as burns and abscesses — to say nothing of the psychological damage it must do.

The purpose is to make young girls who develop early less attractive to men.

If you’re able to stomach it, watch this (NSFW) video:

Ironically, while breast ironing is all too common in Cameroon, female genital mutilation is rare there.

Horrified much?

(via Pharyngula)

Writer Lauri Lebo wrote an article last month about the “social cost of atheism” — and there’s something to that. We’re distrusted, virtually unelectable, automatically accused of being immoral, etc.

After reading that post, a family member asked her to write a piece about the social cost of being a Christian. Lebo wasn’t sure what to do:

When I asked this person to identify how she feels Christians are stigmatized in this country, she couldn’t articulate beyond the fact that sometimes she and her fellow Christians hold back from witnessing to people because they’re not sure how they’ll be received. I pointed out to her that she’s confusing rude behavior with stigma.

I’m sure it’s not always easy to say out loud you’re a Bible-believing Christian.

Frankly, I don’t mind. If there’s stigma associated with being a Christian, it’s because Christians brought it upon themselves. Their anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-science, hypocritical ways ought to bring shame to Christians, including even the small percentage of them who don’t act that way.

I assure you it’d be easier being a Christian if more of them stood on the right side of the issues.

And, of course, Christians dominate all levels of government and attend tax-free churches. They have their own TV channels, bookstores, and genre of music. I still say that writing “I volunteer with my church youth group” would look good on a job application while “I was president of my campus atheist group” would hurt you.

Lebo asks — and I want to ask it, too — “Do Christians face social stigma in America today?”

That looks all sorts of awesome. Massive congrats to Phil on this — can you imagine a viewing block of this + Mythbusters? Nerdgasms will erupt everywhere.

(via Skepchick)

Even if you’re not registered, the Saturday evening sessions are free and open to the public. That includes the acceptance of the Freethought Backbone Award by Dr. Ellery Schempp and the Keynote Address from Greta Christina on “What Atheists Can Learn from the LGBT Movement.”

I’ll be back on Tuesday. The blog’s on autopost until then!

All the details about how to listen, how to call in with a question, and how to chat with others during the episode can be found here. The show lasts for two hours and you know you love the subject matter

…

My friend and fellow activist Todd Stiefel recently appeared on the Ethics Matters radio show in North Carolina with host James Coley.

You can download the episode here (but only for the next few days).

One of the reasons Todd was on the show was to promote The Stiefel Freethought Foundation. While his foundation is notable for giving large donations to several national atheist/Humanist organizations, he may be even more commended for sponsoring the Second Chance Prom for Constance McMillen.

It’s nice to hear a conversation with someone who has made freethought activism his full-time passion and find out what makes him tick.

To mark the anniversary of September 11^th this year, the non-denominational Dove World Outreach Center church in Florida will host an “International Burn A Koran Day.”

Pastor Terry Jones says he got the idea from “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” and that since the announcement was made, people have been sending him copies of the Koran for the event.

According to the Facebook Event page, the purpose of this event is:

To bring to awareness to the dangers of Islam and that the Koran is leading people to hell. Eternal fire is the only destination the Koran can lead people to so we want to put the Koran in it’s place — the fire!

They call it an “international” event but as far as I know, they’re the only ones doing it…

(Jones has a website for his book, Islam Is Of the Devil, by the way, that’s just full of Christian love.)

It’s amazing: I don’t care for the Koran. I think people have the right to burn their own books. Yet you put it all together like this, and I feel disgusted.

I’ve contacted Jones with a few questions and I’ll post his responses in full if I hear from him…

(via Religion Clause)

The amendment bill would punish “proselytizing” that “uses coercion or other forms of inducement” –- vaguely enough worded, Christians fear, that vigilantes could use it to jail them for following the commands of Christ to feed, clothe and otherwise care for the poor.

“Now, under section 463 [of the Penal Code of Bhutan], a defendant shall be guilty of the offense of proselytization if the defendant uses coercion or other forms of inducement to cause the conversion of a person from one religion or faith to another,” reported the government-run Kuensel newspaper on July 9.

…

… the National Council had proposed that offenses under the proposal be classified as misdemeanors, punishable by one to less than three years in prison.

They don’t specifically call out Christianity in the law, but that’s the underlying subtext. It’s not like Buddhists are knocking on your door.

But since attempting to convert other people is a requirement of their faith, some Christians are rightly worried that this is really just a law to crack down on their freedom of religion. Even helping the poor may be seen as an underhanded way to spread the faith.

What qualifies as proselytizing, anyway?

Bhutan: *sneeze*
Christian: Bless you.
Bhutan: YOU’RE GOING TO JAIL!

For what it’s worth, Christians make up under 1% of the population in Bhutan and don’t have any churches in the country — this proposed law would just be another in a long line of rulings to hamper the practice of Christianity.

Here’s the kicker:

The constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but the government has not officially recognized the presence of Christians, whose practice of faith remains confined to their homes.

One government official tried to explain how this anti-conversion law would be justified given the whole “freedom of religion” thing:

Home and Culture Minister Lyonpo Minjur Dorji told Compass that Bhutan’s government had “no problems” with Christianity or any other faith.

“But Bhutan is a small country, with a little more than 600,000 people, and a majority of them are Buddhist,” Dorji said. “We have Hindus, also mainly in southern parts. So why do we need more religions?”

You don’t. No one does. But everyone has a right to practice whatever faith they want, and the Christian demands are relatively harmless.

This is ridiculous and completely hypocritical. I’m an atheist who finds Christian proselytizing annoying as hell. But I defend their right to annoy the crap out of me. Here’s hoping all of you do, too.

(Thanks to Edward for the link)

Critical thinking skills and the ability to use rational thought are vital to the survival of the species. We saw that break down this week as every politician (right, left, and center) and every news outlet (right, left, and center) took the word of a single person and ran with it. There was no verification of facts, no burden of proof, no skepticism, no questioning of the source, etc. The accumulation of logical fallacies was like watching an algae bloom in the Gulf of Mexico: spreading its devastating effects the bigger it gets.

Well put, don’t you think?

And here’s the big question right now: Should Muslim women be allowed to wear burkas, niqabs, and hijabs?

It’s possible your answer is Yes — Muslim women have the right to choose what they wear. No one should take that right away from them.

It’s possible your answer is No — This clothing is oppressive and subjugates women. In the words of French Parliamentarian Andre Gerin, the veil may be a marginal issue but “behind the iceberg is a black tide of fundamentalism which is happening in certain parts of our country.” It doesn’t matter if Muslim women want to wear it. In places like airports where security is important, cameras should be able to get a glimpse of your face and the veil becomes a security hazard. Not to mention it’s necessary in schools and business to have face-to-face communication and eye contact. Headscarves have no place in a secular world in which women are supposed to be equal to men.

It’s possible you go both ways — In public places, women should have the freedom to choose what they wear, but private institutions like schools and restaurants should have permission to ban them.

There’s a long, controversial history of “Burka Bans” in Western Europe. For examples, Turkey currently bans all headscarves in universities. Last week, the lower house of parliament in France completely banned the niqab and burka — the Senate will vote on the issue in a couple months.

Most recently, Syria banned women from wearing the niqab at all universities, public and private. (Wearing a hijab is still ok, though.)

“We have given directives to all universities to ban niqab-wearing women from registering,” said an anonymous government official in an Associated Press report.

The ban is intended to secure Syria’s identity as a secular nation. Bassam Qadhi, a Syrian women’s rights activist, said that while many describe the choice to wear a niqab as a “personal freedom,” she believes the religious practice of requiring women to wear niqabs is oppressive.

I’m personally not sure how I feel about this. Right now, I side more with the civil liberty people — the symbolic meaning behind the headscarves be damned. Despite all the horrible things that burka stands for, we have no right telling women what they cannot wear.

Reader Matthew agreed and put it this way:

I would just as soon see fewer face veils myself, but I don’t agree with restricting a person’s freedom of expression in this way.

Are we on the wrong side of this issue?

Should all veils (in any form) be banned, only certain ones, or none at all?

I don’t know whether to laugh or weep.

Anyone who still remains in the Catholic Church should have to explain why they belong to this awful organization and why they accept this (misguided at best, horrific at worst) treatment of women and children.

(via Humanist Network News)

Where: Jenny’s SteakHouse (20 Kansas Street Frankfort, IL 60423)
When: Friday, August 13^th, 6:00-11:00 p.m.

You can just show up, but it’d be great if people could sign up on Facebook or Atheist Nexus.

(Thanks to William for the link)

You may be asking: Why?

Are you kidding?! If these people would spend even some of the energy that they spend on these comic books, reading the Bible, well no high hopes here. They have turned comic book characters into idols, and worship them they do! Isaiah 2:8 Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made: 9 And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not. It is time to put away the silly vanities and turn to God like you mean it. The destruction of this nation is imminent — so start calling on Batman and Superman now, see if they can pull you from the mess that you have created with all your silly idolatry.

Right…

There will be some counter-picketers there and it’d be great to add more to that crowd.

If you go, remember to be funny and clever if you bring signs. Don’t give them any ammo.

And if you’re there, remember to take pictures and send them to me

(Thanks to Tyler for the link!)

…

***Update***: Reader Mark took this great pic (click to enlarge):

[Insert your own joke about how that means the Church will simply ignore it.]

But think about that one: Ordaining a woman is now in the same category as raping a little boy.

Phil Ferguson has written a brief but straight-forward letter to the women who remain in the Catholic Church.

You must now realize that you will never hold the same status as men; you will never be seen as an equal. It is time for you to stand up for yourself. It is time to take your money from the people that are holding you down. It is time for you to show your strength. It is time to use your feet and walk away from the Catholic Church. It is time to take your family, your spouse, your children and leave. If not for you, then do it for your daughters and sons. It is time for you to stand up and break the cycle.

I’m with Phil.

I really want to know why any self-respecting women would remain in a Church that treats them so poorly.

Believe it or not, some council members weren’t happy about it…

Council member Sue Schlapp later blessed the meeting since the invocation didn’t. And people who oppose prayers during city business meetings and council members debated the issue during the public comment period a few minutes later.

…

“We do open the invocation up to all,” Council member Lavonta Williams said. “I don’t think it’s just for us that we’re asking for in the prayers. I think that we’re asking that this day be blessed as well. I for one would like to continue to be blessed before our meeting.”

…

Council member Paul Gray said all societies have religion and that it has a place in public life. As he spoke, Sandell Stangl approached the podium to respond. Gray preempted that, saying: “And, ma’am, this is not an open debate.”

Gray’s right: It’s not an open debate. It’s settled law. There can be no government endorsement of religion.

It’s a tough order to vote them all out of office, but in the meantime, The Wichita Eagle has a poll for you to crash. And since PZ is on strike, we should take charge:

As I write this, the Yes and No votes are virtually the same.

Go make me proud!

(Thanks to Jon for the link!)

Who needs a crib, anyway?

(via Cynical-C Blog)

First, we had the horrible, embarrassing, people-should-be-fired-if-they-think-this-is-journalism piece on Nightline.

And last night, Diane Sawyer discussed the “One Nation Indivisible” billboards in Asheville, North Carolina.

Strangely, there was no mention of the billboard vandalism. Or (not that it’s closely related) the fact that one of Asheville’s city council members, Cecil Bothwell, is an open “post-theist” — though Bothwell was mentioned in the article posted on ABC’s website.

But this was at least a fair piece. There was good background about the fact that “Under God” was never originally in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Jennifer Lovejoy of the North Carolina Secular Association came off pleasant, smart, and likeable:

“I don’t believe in God and I don’t believe that our country was founded on Christianity or any religion,” she said. “I’m not taking away anyone’s belief in God. Many of our forefathers feared God, but I think they feared religion more — and what it could do to the country if any one religion was allowed to be in control.”

Meanwhile, Pastor Ralph Sexton (who put up a competing billboard) came off as condescending and just plain foolish.

“It’s political correctness gone amok. Silliness,” he said.

…

“We are a people of faith. We are a nation that is built on Christian principles and we need to make sure our children, our grandchildren, our teenagers, our young adults, know what we’re really all about,” he said.

“We” are not a people of faith.

“You” might be.

How arrogant must he be to think everyone shares his superstitious beliefs?

The billboard campaign worked. It got media attention, it got people talking about the “real” version of the Pledge, and it made right-wing Christians so angry they decided to put up billboards of their own.

I’m still not happy with ABC News. This segment doesn’t wash out the awful one from Nightline. But it’s a step in the right direction.

[The Itawamba County School District] agreed to implement a policy banning discrimination or harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, the first policy to do so at a public school in the state of Mississippi. The school also agreed to pay McMillen $35,000 in damages and pay for McMillen’s attorneys’ fees.

Wow. Go ACLU!

I hope Constance uses whatever money is left over after lawyers’ fees and uses it to get the hell out of that backwards state. If I thought her presence could help change the way GLBT students are seen by others, I’d encourage her to stay, but that’s not the case at the moment.

For that perception to change, it would take Christians changing their churches from the inside. In other words, it’s probably not going to happen. Where were the Christians during all this? Nowhere. Most of them are too cowardly to stand up against their church doctrine when it comes to homosexuality. (But if I’m wrong and you know a Christian trying to make a difference within his/her church in that state, please let me know.)

It shouldn’t take a lawsuit for a public school district to acknowledge they shouldn’t be discriminating against their own students due to sexual orientation.

At least we have a strong precedent for the future; hopefully, no other gay or lesbian student in Mississippi will have to deal with similar problems.

Constance took this all in stride:

“I’m so glad this is all over. I won’t ever get my prom back, but it’s worth it if it changes things at my school,” said McMillen, who was harassed so badly by students blaming her for the prom cancellation that she had to transfer to another high school to finish her senior year. “I hope this means that in the future students at my school will be treated fairly. I know there are students and teachers who want to start a gay-straight alliance club, and they should be able to do that without being treated like I was by the school.”

This is a fantastic lesson in what can happen when you stay true to yourself and face the bigots head-on.

I think the American Humanist Association deserves some love for throwing her the prom her school refused to give her.

And the ACLU deserves massive credit for their court victory. If you’re not already a member of the ACLU, show them your support.

(via @antiheroine)

Neil deGrasse Tyson elaborates:

That was an excerpt from a longer talk Tyson gave at Google in 2009. You can see the full lecture here.

(How are there so few people in the audience?! When a prophet speaks, everyone is supposed to listen!)

And remember:

God loves you

Picture taken by Lori Ann Cook-Neisler of The Pantagraph

I love it when churches hold these kinds of events — it’s incredible to me that so many Christians would be willing to hear what an atheist has to say about their faith and (for the most part) tell me how much they appreciated it afterwards. When you think of church services, how often does that kind of event come to mind?

(There were a handful of atheists in the audience, too, which was fantastic.)

There were a few questions that I knew would be asked beforehand, but the bulk of the time was spent answering questions from the audience — they texted the pastor if they wanted to ask something or wrote their questions down on notecards and passed them along to an usher, who filtered out the crazier ones. If anything, I feel like the audience agreed with me on many of the things I said about my problems with religion.

There’s audio of the entire event available if you subscribe to the church’s free podcast. (There may be video available soon, but I’m not sure about that.) You can judge for yourself how useful you thought the event was.

In the meantime, there was also a nice story about the dialogue in today’s local paper, The Pantagraph:

Miley, along with Mehta and Daly, wanted to break away from a debate style because they said they felt it does not strengthen relationships between opposing ideas.

“I hope that if anything there are some stereotypes of atheists that can be displaced,” said Mehta.

He said he lives by the Golden Rule — treat others as you would like to be treated — and does not feel the necessity to use religion as a reason to do good. Daly had other advice for living your life.

“The world would be a better place if we all lived like Christ did,” said Daly.

Here’s hoping other churches are courageous enough to hold more dialogues like this one.

The first story is that Indonesian Muslims have been praying in the wrong direction.

Muslims are supposed to face the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia during prayer and the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) issued an edict in March stipulating westward was the correct direction from the world’s most populous Muslim country.

“But it has been decided that actually the mosques are facing Somalia or Kenya, so we are now suggesting people shift the direction slightly to the north-west,” the head of the MUI, Cholil Ridwan, told Reuters. “There’s no need to knock down mosques, just shift your direction slightly during prayer.”

Right. Because, as we all know, prayers shouldn’t be bending along the way…

The second story — the one that’s not making headlines — is this one:

Ridwan said Muslims need not fear that their prayers have been wasted because they were facing the wrong way.

“Their prayers will still be heard by Allah,” he said.

So, to recap:

An Islamic leader has admitted that facing Mecca while you pray doesn’t make a damn bit of difference.

For what it’s worth, praying at all doesn’t make a difference since no one’s actually listening to you… but to throw in more superstitious nonsense on top of already superstitious nonsense is just plain ridiculous.

I’ve met plenty of Muslims who go out of their way to make sure they’re facing “the right direction” during prayer — are they going to stop worrying about that now? Doubtful. They’ll cling to the myth that facing Mecca matters.

That means you’ll be seeing this kind of image for a long time to come:

At least one Islamic worker seems to think you don’t need to do that:

“I don’t really worry about the praying direction,” said Riza Irwansyah, an office worker in Jakarta. “The important thing is I prayed to Allah and I believe He will listen, no matter which way I’m facing.”

Well, Allah’s not listening. But it’s nice to hear someone say the direction he faces has never concerned him.

(Thanks to Hector for the link)

HH: Now Christopher, since we last spoke, your illness you disclosed on the web, and people will want to know off the bat how you are doing, and how your treatment is going.

CH: Oh well, I have, in case people are just tuning in, I have cancer in my esophagus, which has I think spread a little to my lymph nodes as well. And I’m two weeks into the chemotherapy course. So I feel pretty weak, and my voice isn’t what it was, but that’s supposed to be a good sign in that the amount of poison I’m taking is presumably working on the bad stuff as well as the good stuff. And this morning, I found that my hair was beginning to come out in the shower, which is a bit demoralizing, I have to say, even though it’s the least of it.

…

HH: And the audience would love to know, what are you going to work on next during your treatment, and how are you going to conduct yourself in the course of a long sort of chemotherapy?

CH: Well, I’m just hoping I won’t be as exhausted in the next phase as I am now. It’s been very nice talking to you. I hope I haven’t sounded too weary, and, by the way, it’s been less of an effort than I feared, but it’s quite an effort now even for me to read anything very demanding. So I’m going to have to husband what I’ve got for a bit, and perhaps not make any too grand claims about what I intend to do.

It’s good to see his mind is still as strong as ever even if his health is declining.

You can read the much longer full interview here.

I’m purposely not mentioning others details from the email, but I think the questions can stand alone, and I’m especially curious how atheists would respond to 2, 4 and 5.

1. What role does forgiveness play in your work with employees?

2. How would you extend favor to an employee who is encountering difficulties?

3. What is your view of the importance of an applicant’s sexual orientation?

4. If your company has a bonus structure or profit sharing plan, how generous are you with your employees when it comes to profit sharing?

5. To whom do you attribute the success you’ve had in your business?

(Thanks to Amy for the link!)

The commenters there are not too happy with it.

I get the underlying message of the picture: The lightbulb won’t turn on until you ditch faith.

Yep. That’s gotta be it. Do you have a better explanation?

Side note: I’m amused by the name of the Gizmodo contributor who posted that.

(Thanks to Travis for the link!)

How does it work?

You give them non-perishable foods (which will be donated), and they’ll give you a banned book!

How can you help?

Donate money to the cause.

Donate books for the cause.

The event takes place at the Auraria Campus in Denver, and it’s a win/win for everyone involved, so please consider being a part of it!

Last week, another pastor, Kevin J. Gray, was found to have embezzled over $1,000,000 from his church to pay for, among other things, male prostitutes.

Jones wrote a piece for The Daily Beast where he answers the question of Why Priests Hire Male Prostitutes:

During the 1990s, when I worked as an escort in Denver, Colorado, I estimate at least 15 percent of my clientele were clergy or connected with the church in some way. There were one-timers and there were guys who came back again and again and again, and they were all the same: positively giddy when the encounter began, unable to look you in the eye as they left. The excitement that initially animated them was wholly overshadowed by the despondency and guilt that would overcome them as soon as it was over.

I can’t imagine the guilt they were feeling. Not only were they having sex with another man –- a sin punishable by God, in their minds — but I believe many of them were doing exactly what Father Gray did: stealing from their own churches. Maybe not a million bucks, maybe not even so much that anyone would notice. But more than once I was paid for my services with a handful of crinkled ones and fives. I would think to myself, how could they take from their own church’s collection plate? The answer is simple and sad: addicts will do whatever they need to do to support their habit.

You have to wonder how many pastors are still doing this but haven’t been caught yet…

(Thanks to Joe for the link!)

They didn’t disappoint.

They just took their favorite part of the segment and sensationalized it in the headline:

Anyone surprised?

R. Joseph Hoffmann didn’t like the Nightline segment, either:

My complaint? Bad religion needs better satire. Unbelief needs better spokesmen. The cultic aspects of the New Atheism become more evident every day. Because only in cults does everyone laugh at the same jokes, applaud at the same cues, gasp at the same surprising revelation. Last time I looked, cultic unanimity was the opposite of freethought.

…

The atheist crusaders may have the best of reasons for organizing their atheism as a campaign to belittle, insult and demean… but they are driving reasonable men and women — wishers, seekers, explorers, and the merely confused — away in droves.

I think that’s taking it to an extreme. The debaptism was a one-off event done in good fun. It’s not something we do at every (or even many) gatherings. If atheists wanted to insult and demean religious people, there would be far easier ways to do it.

Anyone think there will be real fallout from this piece beyond just our community? Maybe no one watched it at all…

The Frisco Atheists occasionally meet with local pastors to help them to become aware that some of their neighbors are atheists and to give local atheists a chance to be completely honest about their beliefs in a non-threatening environment.

We call the events “Meet-the-Pastor” and we usually have a 50-50 mix of believers to atheists.

Their next meeting will be on Thursday, July ²⁹ at 7:30 p.m.

The group will meet with Jim Lugar, from Life Journey Church, at the Irish Rover Pub.

Sounds like a really interesting conversation. if you’re in the area and want more information, you can contact Mark here.

…

The National Organization for Marriage has been touring the country in a bus, peddling its anti-gay agenda.

As one blogger points out, though, NOM couldn’t even find any families to pose for those bus images.

They had to resort to stock photos.

Here’s hoping someone in those photos is gay…

(via Joe. My. God.)

Since we “opened shop” at the beginning of 2010, we’ve raised over $38,000. It’s really incredible the amount of support we’ve received from the Humanist community.

This quarter, we asked ourselves a question: Would atheists be willing to donate money to a Peace advocacy group if that group was religious in nature?

The religion is Quakerism — about as liberal a group as you will find in the religious world — and the organization is Quaker Peace and Social Witness.

Why bother doing this at all? Dale McGowan, the Executive Director of Foundation Beyond Belief, explains:

… the first reason to do it is to show that it is indeed possible for nontheists to see good work being done in a religious context and to support and encourage it. Far from a contradiction, I think that’s humanism at its very best.

The second reason is that many of our members agree with that assessment. And since the Foundation exists to allow individual humanists a means of expressing their worldview positively and doing good in the name of that worldview, it seems fitting to occasionally feature a carefully-screened, non-dogmatic, non-proselytizing, effective organization based in a sane and progressive denomination as one of our choices.

Again, they would not be proselytizing. The money would be going toward efforts that Humanists (in general) would likely support if it were a secular group.

As a board, we discussed the possibility that people might be hesitant (or worse) about giving to any religious group. But we hoped for the best. Ultimately, we wanted to know if atheists would see beyond the faith label and give to the group because of their actions.

A bit of background: Normally, people decide how they want to divvy up their donations. For example, I give equally to all categories, but if I wanted to, I could give more money to the Human Rights charity and less to the Environment one. Would people shift their donations away from Peace and into another category if we supported the Quakers? Would the opposite happen? Would there be no real change at all?

Dale now has an update on how this experiment is going.

I’m happy to say the result is exactly what we hoped for (emphasis mine):

… In the two weeks since we announced the decision, two members have closed their accounts (neither mentioning the Quaker choice) and 24 have joined.

The weakness of the arguments against our choice has reassured me, and the majority of responses I’ve heard have been strongly supportive of the decision. “I’m so proud to be a part of this,” said one member. “Honestly, it’s like the free thought movement is growing up all at once. Thank you for showing vision beyond the usual sounding of alarms and building of barricades.”

This is what separates us from many religious groups. How often do you hear of churchgoers supporting secular organizations that are fighting for church/state separation? Or atheist groups that are doing community service projects? It happens, but it’s certainly not common in my experience.

While we’re opposed to any group that uses donations to proselytize their faith, that’s not what’s going on here. The money is going to the right places, and because of that, I don’t really care which group is making that happen. The deed matters more than the creed.

He starts off with a plain old mistake when he explains the London Atheist Bus Campaign:

… a friend informed me that the driving force behind the London bus ads was none other than the dean of the so-called “new atheists” — Darwin’s Rottweiler, himself — Richard Dawkins. If you are wondering what an esteemed evolutionary biologist and respected Oxford University professor is doing placing billboards around London proselytizing atheism, you are not alone.

Dawkins wasn’t the driving force. Columnist Ariane Sherine was. Blogger Jon Worth was. The British Humanist Association was.

Dawkins gave some seed money toward it and supported the campaign, but he wasn’t the mastermind.

Aslan didn’t do his research.

And that’s just the first paragraph.

Let’s continue:

The new atheists have their own special interest groups and ad campaigns. They even have their own holiday (International Blasphemy Day).

We have our own holiday?!

More like we have a popular Facebook group.

It’s not like we’re taking a day off work to get together and say, “Fuck Allah.”

Here’s the worst part:

It is no exaggeration to describe the movement popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens as a new and particularly zealous form of fundamentalism — an atheist fundamentalism. The parallels with religious fundamentalism are obvious and startling: the conviction that they are in sole possession of truth (scientific or otherwise), the troubling lack of tolerance for the views of their critics (Dawkins has compared creationists to Holocaust deniers), the insistence on a literalist reading of scripture (more literalist, in fact, than one finds among most religious fundamentalists), the simplistic reductionism of the religious phenomenon, and, perhaps most bizarrely, their overwhelming sense of siege: the belief that they have been oppressed and marginalized by Western societies and are just not going to take it anymore.

Oh boy… the “atheist fundamentalist” argument. As soon as someone uses that phrase (in a serious way), you should tune them out immediately because nothing they say afterwards will be credible.

I’ve said variations of this before but here you go:

When I think of Muslim fundamentalists, violent images come to mind.

When I think of Christian fundamentalists, I think of ignorant people who cling to literal interpretations of their Bibles instead of opening their eyes to reality.

When I think of “atheist fundamentalists,” I think of books.

There’s no comparison.

We’re not in “sole possession of truth” but we do think science is the best method to discover it. Does Aslan think truth is found in a holy book?

Are we lacking tolerance? Of course not. You don’t see us blowing up churches or beating up Muslims. We’re vocal about our opposition to irrational thinking. That is all.

Dawkins compares Creationists to Holocaust deniers because both groups deny an obvious reality. That has nothing to do with tolerance.

Are we insistent “on a literalist reading of scripture”? If so, it’s because the churches stress it. Nearly half of our country believes that men and women were created in our present form less than 10,000 years ago. That’s appalling and idiotic.

We’re thankful that many Christians don’t take their scripture literally. Yet even they will insist that there’s literal truth in the stories of Jesus’ life.

Do we feel “oppressed and marginalized”? Damn right, we do. We’re the most distrusted, least electable group of people in the country.

Aslan then spends 500 words complaining that we atheists just don’t understand religion. From what I can tell, he’s more interested in our religious literacy than he is with any sense of whether or not there’s any truth to what different faiths believe.

I think there’s value in both religious literacy and pointing out that these faiths are misguided and dangerous. There’s a reason to learn about Greek mythology because it gives us insight into how those people thought about the world. There’s a reason to study Christianity because it’s the lens through which so many people (incorrectly) view the world.

But no New Atheist is against that. We’re against the notion that we should take their mythologies as truth. We’re against people taking those faulty beliefs and transforming them into public policy. They’re made up stories and we want people to acknowledge that.

The new atheists will say that religion is not just wrong but evil, as if religion has a monopoly on radicalism and violence; if one is to blame religion for acts of violence carried out in religion’s name then one must also blame nationalism for fascism, socialism for Nazism, communism for Stalinism, even science for eugenics. The new atheists claim that people of faith are not just misguided but stupid–the stock response of any absolutist.

*facepalm*

The practice of science is not to blame for the promotion of eugenics. Communism isn’t to blame for Stalinism. Individuals distort ideas into their own agendas all the time.

But some holy books directly call for the slaughter of dissenters. There are people who take those writings seriously. That should be frightening to every single person.

As Dawkins has said before, religion isn’t the root of all evil, but it’s to blame for quite a bit of it.

This is an irresponsible piece written by a person who knows nothing about the subject he’s writing about.

Refute him, ignore him, but don’t take him seriously anymore.

Now, they’re doing a piece on American Atheists’ former legal director Edwin Kagin. Edwin grows on you over time and he may come off brash at first, so I’m worried how this will go. They posted an article about the segment earlier today.

The show begins with a teaser that makes Edwin look like a cult leader who’s indoctrinating people into atheism — he’s nothing of the sort. He’s just having fun with atheists who are attending the annual American Atheists convention.

They showcase the “War On Religion” that’s apparently waged by some atheists and show Kagin performing a “Debaptism” — they don’t explain why they’re doing it. They just like the terminology:

… [Kagin's] referred to Mary Magdalene as a deranged hooker and he’s called the Holy Eucharist “Swallow the Leader.”

There’s no mention of the fact that many atheists were forced to be baptized at an age when they didn’t really know what was happening and that this is a purely symbolic, humorous way to “reverse” that.

Nightline also showed a clip of women singing “Back in Their Burkas Again.”

Cambridge Boxterman, one of the women singing the song, had the best soundbyte of the piece — and I’m paraphrasing — We’re doing this for fun. It’s the religious people who are taking it seriously.

The rest of the piece doesn’t get much better.

They seem to think it’s a big deal that Edwin’s son is a fundamentalist minister, but Edwin brushes that aside:

When asked if he is pained by their opposing views on this issue, Kagin chuckled. “Oh, one wonders where they went wrong,” he said. He and his son, Steven, have an excellent relationship, Kagin said, but they do have their limits.

“We just understand there are certain things we really can’t, at this point, talk about,” he said.

And they focus on why Edwin makes fun of religion:

Kagin has said he doesn’t particularly care who he’s offending with his actions, and that he is acting completely within his rights. “You can mock anything you want because you have the right to,” he said. “Humor is humor and what types of humor are you going to outlaw?” he said.

He conceded that although it may not be good manners to continually take a mocking stance toward religion, “in many cases, it is the only real response.”

Kagin said he thought some people might get overly offended by his poking fun at religion. “If someone is so secure in their faith, why are they the least bit concerned about some little atheist mocking them?” he asked. “I think the reason they are worried and concerned is the very deep fear that if everyone doesn’t believe it, maybe it isn’t so.”

I don’t disagree with Edwin that you have a right to mock faith.

But it’s a source if debate within our community. Should we mock religion or not? There are good arguments on both sides and we’re certainly not monolithic in that regard.

***Update***: And here’s the segment

…

Now that it’s over, here’s why this bothered me.

The American Atheists convention this year (which I didn’t attend) seemed to be a very positive one.

Check out the schedule. There were talks by Dan Barker, who left his faith, and Paul Kurtz, who advocates reaching out to religious people in very civil ways. Students were given scholarships. Sean Faircloth spoke about the future of atheism and politics. There were philosophical talks and serious speeches.

And one relatively brief debaptism ceremony to lighten the mood and have some fun.

Nightline ignored all the positive, important events that took place at the conference and focused on the anomaly.

While I like the debaptisms, they’re not a common occurrence. They’ve taken place only a handful of times in different parts of the country. Yet, Nightline acted as if Edwin was doing these ceremonies as part of some traveling roadshow and presented it as if this is what all atheists are doing.

And when the camera went back on the host, she referred to the “distinction between free speech and poor taste.”

Without more context as to what was going on, that’s not a fair statement. There’s a very important message in those Debaptism ceremonies that the show simply ignored.

***Update***: Paul Fidalgo didn’t like the segment, either:

But I didn’t know how bad it could get. Dan Harris and those responsible for his report on Edwin Kagan, in-your-face atheism and “de-baptism” should be ashamed. The entire piece is a seven-minute finger wagging at those mean atheists. The questions to Kagan pretty much never move beyond variations on “don’t you think you’re being really rude?” Kagan and those with him at the de-baptism ceremony are portrayed as nasty, callous jerks who are out to hurt feelings for the sheer joy of it. Plus, they drag out the subject of Kagan’s fundamentalist son, I suppose to serve as some kind of foil, as if you say, “How come your son is a man of God and you’re such a jerk?” Harris even pulls the “what about Stalin” canard.

See? I *told* you Buddhism was woo.

I had planned to transcribe it, but there’s so much interesting stuff Phil discussed — ranging from his “super secret project” to PepsiGate to not being a dick — that it was much easier to upload the audio and just put it out there.

(Speaking of not being a dick, here’s a a decent transcript of Phil’s TAM8 talk.)

You can listen to the interview here.

(This is the image he refers to in the interview.)

And now you know why I don’t do a podcast

Today, I read a response to this story from Rachel Held Evans — she’s a Christian who recently published the book Evolving in Monkey Town, about her upbringing in Dayton, Tennessee, home of the Scopes Monkey Trial.

She saw that clip and this ABC News report and wrote the following (emphasis hers):

But what brought me to tears was the fact that, according to the report, there were “no public comments in favor of the mosque.”

None.

No one spoke up for their neighbors.

No one stood up for the oppressed.

No one was willing to face the inevitable disdain that would have followed had they done the right thing.

…

The Muslim community, however, often suffers in silence. And around here, I get the sense that the hatred runs deep. It amazes me that the same folks who so loudly champion their rights to guns and free speech guaranteed by the constitution seem to think freedom of religion is negotiable.

As Christians, we must speak up, for it is no coincidence that when Jesus was asked, Who is my neighbor? he chose the most hated religious-ethnic group of the day — Samaritans — to tell his story.

Yes! That’s the type of response more Christians ought to be giving. If they’re going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow, standing up for minorities is a good lesson to get behind. Many pastors talk about this in church, but how rarely do we see Christians actually following through on it? Certainly not the ones opposing the mosque.

(For what it’s worth, speaking up for the rights of others isn’t limited to Christians — it’s just a decent, human thing to do and atheists do it all the time — but if her faith makes her do something positive, fantastic.)

I don’t really want to see any more mosques being built. Or any more churches, for that matter. But if religious people want to build worship houses with their own money, they have that right.

Why is the First Amendment so difficult for so many Christians to grasp?

I want to see more Christians speaking out in favor of these mosques… and against any fellow Christians who disagree. It’s easy to do and it shows you’re not afraid to stand up to the crazier people in your faith. They’re wrong. You’re right. Don’t be afraid to say so.

Mark Dow created a tessellation featuring the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

Wow. Colorful and gorgeous. The enlarged version looks even better.

If you really want to geek out, here’s the math behind how he created it.

When I buy a house, I know how I’m tiling my floors now.

(via Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster)

That’s what you would expect in a country that requires its citizens to be Sunni Muslims.

That man, Mohamed Nazim, eventually recanted. Of course, he was still a Muslim.

That’s what it took to stay alive.

Ismail Mohamed Didi couldn’t deal with that. In an email, he had written that he was an atheist. A news website got ahold of it and published it.

He said his colleagues had spread word of his apostasy and that his closest friends would no longer meet him.

He was afraid for his life and knew no-one in the country who could help him, he added.

The website said his employer at the airport had launched an investigation into his lack of belief and referred him to the Ministry of Islamic Affairs.

He couldn’t deal with the stress anymore… and so, on Tuesday, he went to work and killed himself.

He was found on Tuesday hanging at his workplace — the air traffic control tower at the international airport in the capital, Male.

It’s horrible. Depressing. Maddening. This is is direct result of what happens in a theocracy. You’re not allowed to think for yourself.

I don’t know if there’s a way to fix it, but if there was, it would start with Muslim groups publicly denouncing this country’s practices. They need to openly state that freedom of religious belief is vital to any nation, and it’s perfectly ok for people not to be Muslims.

I’m waiting…

Feminism certainly addressed problems that needed to be addressed. Before the late 1960s, when the women’s movement came into full force, women were treated like sex objects, and there was not equal pay for equal work. There’s now a level of respect for women that was not as evident, say, 50 years ago.

I’ll admit it: it surprised me.

But then he dug himself right back into the hole.

You explained some of the stereotypes of young girls — they love flowers and are more easily wounded than boys. Are there stereotypes you think are harmful that shouldn’t be reinforced?

Yes. In recent years — this is perhaps a product of the feminist movement — girls feel the need to emulate boys, even predatory boys. They are tough, rough, crude, profane, and sexually aggressive. Girls are often the ones to make advances toward boys, which takes away their need to be the initiators. That grows out of this empowerment movement that is related to some feminist ideals that are harmful to girls. Girls are more vulnerable, more easily wounded, and more sensitive in many ways. That is why it’s so important for the parents to affirm them, build their understanding of their identity, and help them cope with the culture.

Got it, ladies?

If you make the first move on a man, or you swear, you have to give up your Woman Card. (Ditto if you don’t like flowers?)

Glad he could settle that for us.

I swear, all these problems would stop if local mayors just did away with pre-meeting prayers… but they won’t. They get off on pushing their personal faith.

It’s one thing when only atheists oppose them. But when you have a minister against them, shouldn’t that be a sign you’re doing something wrong?

That’s what’s happening in Spartanburg, South Carolina (home of anti-gay ranter Linda Dogan).

Their prayers have gotten out of control:

Prayer in the public square has been under increased scrutiny since March, when Councilman O’Neal Mintz — filling in for Chaplain Jerry Clevenger — opened a council meeting with a prayer condemning abortion and same-sex marriage. Clevenger, a Sheriff’s Office employee, typically gives the opening prayer and uses less controversial language. But he does close his prayers “in Jesus’s name.”

See? Inclusive of everyone. Except Hindus, Muslims, atheists, Jews… but, really, who cares about them in Spartanburg.

Don Rollins is a minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spartanburg and he wants to put a stop to all this.

In May, he formally asked council to reconsider its policy on prayer — “to signal to persons outside the dominant religious paradigm that they are welcome at the council’s theological table.”

Rollins acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue and said he had seen clashes in other areas between established cultural traditions and an influx of people with different world views. But, he said, Spartanburg has “thousands of spiritual seekers who look at their elected county officials and see no acknowledgment of their equally cherished traditions.”

…

Rollins stated his intention is not to attack Christianity; rather, to promote “fair prayer.” He said he’s contacted 15 area clergy and asked them to join him in silent protest at council meetings.

So far, two have responded, he said.

I don’t know how successful he will be. But it’s good to see him raising the issue. If the council doesn’t stop with the blatant Jesus-ing, lawsuits may be forthcoming.

A lot of people who advocate pre-meeting prayers say that it’s not about proselytizing. It’s not about advocating Christianity. It’s about setting the right tone for the meeting — it’s an interdenominational prayer, after all, and what’s so bad about that?

With that in mind, you have to admire this Freudian slip from the council chairman Jeff Horton:

“Clevenger does not condemn anyone,” said Horton, who identifies himself as a Christian. “He prays for all council members and everyone in Spartanburg, and always includes our fire personnel and police officers and our military personnel. He doesn’t try to convert anybody to Christianity in our service, I mean our, um, meeting. He doesn’t disparage anyone. He prays for County Council to do the right thing. And I’ll tell you, we need all the prayers we can get, because we are in some very difficult times in Spartanburg.”

I have an idea. Instead of praying, focus on solving the problems.

You’re welcome, South Carolina.

…

But that’s not all.

In the city of Woodruff (Hey, look! Same state!), Mayor Brad Burnett says the pre-council meeting prayers will go on.

Mayor Burnett then very passionately stated that “as long as I am here and I think as long as these people who are elected sitting in front of you”, referring to city council members, “we’re going to open every meeting with prayer”. As amens were heard from citizens around the room and council members James Smith, Tony Kennedy and Toni Sloan, Mayor Burnett continued… “It doesn’t make any difference if you appreciate that or you don’t appreciate that we’re going to open our meetings with prayer”

…

In the absence of the preacher who was scheduled to give the opening prayer, Pastor Clarence Thomas of the Cedar Grove Baptist Church, Mayor Burnett filled in with a 70-second prayer that remembered our soldiers as we approach Independence Day. Before he prayed, the Mayor stated, “I’m going to pray and when I end praying I’m going to end my prayer in the name of Jesus. So, if you are offended by that, I just want to make sure you know, where I stand”.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has already sent them a warning letter (PDF).

The warning letter isn’t only about the prayers.

Take a look at the city’s seal:

It has the word “church” right in it.

They’re just asking for a lawsuit.

Why do these people get elected when they’re dragging their cities into losing lawsuits and wasting taxpayer money in the process?

Incidentally, the American Center for Law and Justice (unofficial motto: “Justice for all… but only if you’re Christian”) sent a response letter to the FFRF’s… note that they make no point of spelling out legal precedents in their favor. Because they’d be grasping at straws.

Their only case is that the FFRF people are meanies:

Sadly, this organization mocks religious people. A quick review of their online store tells the story: CD’s with songs titled “Nothing Fails Like Prayer.” They also sell “Bible Warning” labels, and bumper stickers that read: “The Bible: A Grim Fairly Tale.” The fact is that the FFRF is focused on attacking and demeaning religion — specifically the Christian religion.

Mockery is always allowed in America.

A local government promoting a particular faith is not.

…

But that’s not all.

The Atheists of Florida are filing a lawsuit against the city of Lakeland. The atheists want the invocations to end.

The organization, which filed the suit Monday, suggests in the lawsuit that the city could hold a moment of silence, in which those attending could remain seated. This would allow attendees to pray, while also providing relief to those not wanting to participate in the formal invocation.

“That way no one is uncomfortable,” said EllenBeth Wachs, director of the Lakeland chapter for the Atheists of Florida. “It’s not government’s business to tell me what to do in my religious life.”

…

In the lawsuit, Atheists of Florida contends that the people who are chosen have a bent toward Christianity and regularly invoke the name of Jesus Christ, which the organization believes is insensitive to other beliefs and inappropriate in government.

…

But that’s not all.

The American Humanist Association sent a letter to Harrisburg (Pennsylvania) Mayor Linda Thompson requesting that she stop prayers during city council meetings. Their letter is far more, well, humanistic, than one which is a threat of a lawsuit:

While other organizations speaking out on this issue have raised Establishment Clause and church-state separation arguments (which indeed are valid), the AHA would like to call your attention to another aspect of this matter that apparently has gone unnoticed by you. In conducting a group prayer in the course of your employment in a workplace setting, no matter how voluntary you may feel the prayer is, you are inevitably creating an environment that marginalizes secular humanists and anyone else whose religious views would prohibit them from participating in the prayer.

Obviously, as mayor of the city and chief executive officer of city government, you are the person all other employees must respect and, ultimately, please. By suggesting that you feel it is important to start meetings with a group prayer, you are sending a message of exclusion to any employees who do not participate in that endeavor with you. Such employees no doubt would be concerned about being seen as outsiders, thereby causing them to worry about their status with you.

…

If these city council leaders care more about prayer than running a city, they can go run a church.

If the people in their cities were smarter, they’d vote them out of office.

In the meantime, they should keep in mind their tax dollars are being wasted over these unnecessary lawsuits.

On Saturday, I’ll be in Des Moines speaking at the Iowa Secularists Conference. There will be entertainment. And there will be Math.

You’ve been warned.

On Sunday night, I’ll be at the Evangelical Free Church in Bloomington, IL to do an atheist/Christian dialogue alongside Dr. Todd Daly, professor at Urbana Theological Seminary. That event is still open to the public and tickets are $4 for adults ($2 for students).

If you’re in the areas, hope to see you there!

For more videos and illusions like this, check out Rex’s YouTube page!

So the Humanists decided to take action.

We were armed with pamphlets from Ottawa Skeptics entitled “How To Be A Psychic” (PDF here). Inside, it gives basic instructions on standard techniques such as cold-reading and the Barnum (also known as the Forer) Effect. These are methods a psychic can use to convince an audience that he knows things about them that, by rights, he couldn’t know — ergo, he must be getting that information by magical means! The idea behind the pamphlet is that it doesn’t directly label the psychic as a fraud — but does make people aware about the ways they might be getting manipulated, and perhaps leads them to question whether the claimed supernatural phenomenon might, in fact, have a completely prosaic explanation in applied psychology.

(That PDF is great, by the way.)

They stood near the venue, passed out the pamphlets… and Stapley’s people called the police on them.

You can read the whole account here.

Thankfully, no one was arrested/tased — It sounds like the Humanists were following all the proper protocols so they likely wouldn’t have been arrested, anyway. But you have to wonder what Stapley was so worried about. It’s not like the audience was running away after being given the pamphlets. If Stapley had real powers, you would think he’d welcome the opposition and convince them of his powers.

Unless he’s a fraud, in which case, the Humanists were giving away his trade secrets and they had to be stopped.

I’m going with that option.

Having just come back from The Amazing Meeting, I have to mention that Stapley could always submit himself to testing and win $1,000,000.

But he won’t. He doesn’t have the guts to do it. He’d rather just con gullible people.

(Thanks to Tony for the link!)

He was one of the lead authors of America (The Book): A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction and the sole author of What to Expect When You’re Expected: A Fetus’s Guide to the First Three Trimesters.

Thursday was his last day on the job. He’s now pursuing other opportunities in Hollywood.

We spoke about working on The Daily Show, the response to the Jezebel hitpiece, and the state of the media in general.

…

On the Jezebel situation (in which The Daily Show was accused of being a sexist workplace — the female staffers at the show responded with a message of their own):

I, in some ways, wish we hadn’t even responded to them… the women of the show were so offended by the article, personally — I, obviously, was not — that I think they felt obliged to respond on a personal level.

On the research that goes on behind the scenes at The Daily Show:

It is research that any news organization could be doing more efficiently and better than us. They just don’t want to. They just don’t do it. It’s a matter of their failure and not our success.

What are the researchers doing at The Daily Show that makes it work so well?

They’re good and they’re passionate. And they know the techniques of how to research. But, again, there’s nothing inherently comic about the idea of going back and finding hypocritical soundbytes. That’s not a comic template. That’s a journalistic template that we’ve co-opted and they have abandoned. I don’t know why that is.

Will that change anytime soon?

No.

Does anyone in the mainstream media do a good job?

Probably a handful. But less and less… I think they’re part of the establishment at this point.

What can we do to fix that?

Nothing… realistically, it’s not going to happen. Also, realistically, I don’t think things are any worse than they’ve ever been. I think human nature is human nature. I think the phenomenon of journalism getting co-opted, or the equivalent thereof, has been happening for thousands and thousands of years. I don’t think it’s any worse than usual. It’s human nature…

The acclaim we’ve gotten has been due to our happening to fill that void in a way that’s almost accidental because it’s not really what we are out to do. We’re… out to do a comedy show that’s funny and that gives us some satisfaction when we go home at night.

Jon Stewart is often criticized for not being a more hard-lined journalist or for not asking tougher questions. His response is usually that it’s a comedy show, not a news show. Is there any obligation for The Daily Show to act as a news program?

We get that a lot. I don’t know if we have an obligation journalistically. I do know there are times when Jon has felt disappointed in himself in the way an interview has gone. But I wouldn’t use the adverb ‘journalistically.’ I just think kind of personally, he feels disappointed that he wasn’t tougher in a certain way…

We [have] all been approached by outsiders with a lot of moral questions about the nature of what we do, and whether it’s journalism or moral or whatever. When you’re in the middle of a bubble, you don’t really think of it that way. You just think of it as doing your job and trying to do stuff with as much comedic integrity… as you can muster on any given day.

What do you think about polls in which Jon Stewart is named “America’s Most Trusted Newscaster“?

I think he and I would both agree that that’s a pathetic commentary… on the news media. He would happily accept anything to the effect of how funny he is. I think that’s what he thinks of himself as — that’s what we all do…

It’s like when an alcoholic has no alcohol in the house and he has to drink the shampoo. We’re like shampoo. There oughta be some 12-year-old scotch somewhere. But there ain’t, so apparently, we’re the shampoo.

What’s the future of the The Daily Show? Will it continue to be successful?

It doesn’t matter that I’m leaving. We’ve been around for 11 years. I think we have a pretty good track record. I think everybody’s collective equilibrium is very set, pretty settled… As long as Jon and the staff bring the level of passion and craft and comedy and camaraderie every day, as they have for the last 11 years, I think the show will be fine. It’s certainly settled into what it is. It’s no longer in its wild adolescence. It’s now in its middle age. We’ll probably retire before we get old.

Can the show succeed without Jon Stewart?

No. Not in the form that it is now. Some other form of it could exist, but the show is him and he is the show at this point. The network might try something — I wouldn’t blame them — but he and the show are inseparable.

What’s the relationship like between The Daily Show and The Colbert Report?

Oh, it’s like brothers. We’re the older brother and we helped create the younger brother. It’s been a hell of an hour. I think now people think of us as a team. Jon and Stephen are great friends and they’re both wonderful people and it’s been a good relationship. I’ve done some work with Stephen as well… and it’s great. It’s very rare that you get to have a spinoff that is so harmonious with the original.

What’s you favorite memory now that you have left the show?

I couldn’t pick just one. I have so many memories — they’re so formative in my creative life. It set the template… I hope, for the rest of my life, in terms of not only how to approach comedy, but just how to approach other human beings in a workplace environment, how to collaborate with people, how to analyze facts critically, which obviously is [relevant] to this convention… it’s not just one memory. At this point, It’s a whole foundational experience for me.

Are the current projects you’re working on related to politics/journalism?

Not necessarily, no. Everybody at the show, with almost no exceptions, is a comedy person, not a political person. Political people would not have gotten to the show…

Hopefully, there’s a sensibility [with my current work] that’s different. I’m leaving the show to do things that have more my voice on them, because I spent 11 years very happily contributing to a larger voice; I’m now ready to do my own stuff. I think there’s a similarity of sensibility, I hope.

I’m looking forward to not having to spend the first half hour of my work morning every morning watching Fox & Friends. Just that. That’s the thing I’ll miss the least. I don’t need to watch that anymore. I don’t need to wallow in that filth. I mean, the guys who do that all day for us, they’re like the sewer workers in Mexico who don full body costumes to go into the sewers to clean the shit out of the pipes. I don’t know how they do it. They’re heroes… It’s really hard. I mean, it really is. It’s really hard. It never got easier for me to watch. It got harder for me. I never got acclimated to it.

Is it any easier watching news shows when they’re more similar to you, ideologically?

Once in a while, when you see something that’s not bad, you think there’s a glimmer of hope. But then you’re quickly corrected.

What’s your forthcoming book Earth all about?

This book is subtitled “A Visitor’s Guide to the Human Race” and it’s the book we’re leaving behind for the aliens when they come upon our planet so we can explain what happened and what we think went wrong.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Presents Earth (The Book): A Visitor’s Guide to the Human Race will be published in September. You can (and should!) pre-order your copy now.

After our conversation, Javerbaum spoke to the 1300+ attendees at The Amazing Meeting. You can read about his talk here.)

The issue is that Dr. Kenneth Howell, a professor at the University of Illinois, taught a class on Catholicism. He’s Catholic himself, but that’s irrelevant.

He sent out an email to students in his class that referenced his own personal beliefs about homosexuality being immoral.

How did U of I officials respond?

According to Ann Mester, associate dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, “‘the e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us.’”

As PZ says, Howell’s speech wasn’t hate speech. It was stupid speech. But as long as he wasn’t penalizing students for disagreeing — and he stated he wasn’t — then who cares.

The Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers at the University of Illinois are on his side:

Full disclosure: Dr. Howell is in my reckoning, a friend and ally of AAF. It is thanks to him we were able to put on a major debate last spring and hoped to do the same in the coming year. In spite of all our differences Dr. Howell and AAF are both committed to the open and free discussion of all topics of merit. We are equally committed to freedom of speech and to the virtue of public debate. We each see the university has a special place a nation should set aside for the free exchange of all ideas — offensive to some or otherwise. A campus is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, not an exercise in authoritarian squelching of unpopular voices.

What is happening here is not an isolated incident. This is the same university which only a couple years ago fired two editors of its supposedly protected free-speech paper after they reprinted cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. This is the same school that only months ago accused AAF of intolerance for protesting Islamic extremism. This is not just about the fate of Dr. Howell, but the degree to which we will allow any one ideology to control what we can say. What’s happening here, now is wrong. It is not too late.

AAF has a list of people you should contact on their site.

I hope people do write in to defend him. We as atheists ought to support freedom of speech even if it’s speech we find abhorrent.

The Illinois Family Institute is on Howell’s side, too. As usual, though, they can’t seem to write a press release that deals with homosexuality without comparing it to incest and polyamory.

If professor A were to express her belief that adult consensual incest is immoral, would she be fired because her belief constitutes hatred of those involved in incest and therefore violate the university’s Orwellian policy of inclusivity?

If professor B were to express his belief that polyamory is immoral, would he be fired because his belief constitutes — in the university’s omniscient, omnipotent mind — hatred of polyamorists and therefore violates its standards of inclusivity?

Have U of I’s standards of “inclusivity” become the de facto arbiter of morality for the entire faculty, determining which moral beliefs about behaviors are acceptable and which are not? It might behoove the university to spell out which beliefs are included under their policy of inclusivity — and which are excluded — because some employees might foolishly assume that the university’s standards of inclusivity would include Catholics.

Give them credit. They left pedophilia off the list. It’s like they’re slowly learning…

But even IFI is right that U of I is making the wrong decision.

Howell doesn’t deserve to lose his job over this.

1. [Stand] up for what’s right
2. Identify openly
3. Talk about the concept of religious identity
4. Join a national group
5. Join or start a local group
6. Remember your secularism when it comes time for ceremonies
7. Question friends who “drift back” insincerely
8. Defend all secular identities
9. Speak up and take action
10. Learn about secular issues and be prepared to discuss them

I know the Secular Student Alliance pushes for just about all of these things when we interact with our affiliates. #7 may be the toughest — confronting a friend who slides back into religion for the wrong reasons — but it may also be the most important. There was a time when meeting a middle-aged atheist was hard to find because getting married, having children, and joining a church were often intertwined. But that’s no longer the case. You don’t need religion in those areas of life and there are plenty of secular alternatives.

Dave closes with this optimistic vision of the future:

My prediction is that some of today’s secular students will someday follow Congressman Pete Stark of California as openly atheistic and humanistic national legislators. They will also be community leaders, business leaders, diplomats, engineers, lawyers, and doctors. And they will be openly secular in their world view, joined by many others in their communities and around the country.

It’ll take some time, but I think we’re heading in the right direction.

Here’s the gist of it:

Phil says (and I agree) most of us believed in something ridiculous at one point or another — whether it was homeopathy or horoscopes or god or psychics. Eventually, we got over it. Was it because someone called us mean names? Was it because someone mocked us? Doubtful.

[Insert your own cliché about "catching more flies with honey than vinegar" here.]

But there’s another side that says you can and should mock religious/pseudoscientific beliefs (and in some cases, people) or be extremely blunt when regarding them because, well, they’re pretty damn silly.

There was a time when I was strictly in the “friendly” camp. There’s a reason I picked “Friendly Atheist” as this site’s name a few years ago. But — as so many of you have told me since then — I’m moving away from that.

Not a lot. But enough that the site’s name admittedly doesn’t always describe me accurately. As I’ve told some people, when you get links and stories, day after day, about the horrible effects that religion has in society, you begin to wonder what redeeming qualities faith still has. You wonder whether it’s possible to build a bridge with religious believers. And if it is possible, do you really even want to?

I think it’s possible to reach out to certain segments of the religious population. I’m still trying to do that in a number of ways. There are some issues where I have no problem being blunt about how I feel and others where I don’t mind if the other person sticks to their faith.

For example, with the recent post about Christian apologies to the GLBT community, I like those Christians. I don’t care if they’re Christian. I don’t even care if they think homosexuality is immoral if they agree with me that homosexuals deserve equal rights, including the right to marry.

This weekend, I’ll be doing a Christian/atheist dialogue at a church in Bloomington, Illinois where we’ll discuss our beliefs in front of the congregation. I love these events. Every time I’ve done one of these dialogues, Christians have told me how much they appreciated hearing a different perspective. I’m not there to mock them and I have to desire to do that. I’m there to tell them what it’s like to be an atheist, how we feel about Christians, and which stereotypes about atheists are completely untrue. Will it change their minds? Probably not. Will it offer them a perspective they may not have heard before? I hope so.

But when it comes to issues like religion in politics or people doing awful things in the name of their faith, I’m not sympathetic at all. I don’t care if I mock them or call them jerks or if I offend anyone in the process.

So where does that put me on the Atheist Spectrum?

Not every atheist is a dick or an accommodationist — or as Phil put it in his talk, a warrior or a diplomat. Most of us are somewhere closer to the middle.

For what it’s worth, I think PZ Myers is closer to Phil’s side than a lot of people give him credit for. For that matter, so is Richard Dawkins.

It can get easily muddled, though. I don’t think we should give credit to religion where none is due. Like atheists who insist that religion and science are compatible. They’re not. I don’t care that some scientists are religious — they’re lying to themselves or compartmentalizing to the point that even they don’t see the problem.

I don’t care where you lie on the spectrum. I think there’s room for all types. I’ve gotten enough emails from once-religious readers to know that being civil and willing to engage with believers has its benefits. But a lot of atheist bloggers get those emails, even if they’re more critical of religious believers. Different believers will respond positively to different kinds of atheists.

It would be great if logical thinking was enough to convince people their absurd beliefs were wrong, but that just doesn’t happen in real life. PZ writes that slow and steady reasoning with believers-in-the-supernatural isn’t the only option:

… shock also works. Ultimately, people hold their religious beliefs for emotional reasons; deep down, fear and comfort, disgust and empathy are the tools religion uses to manipulate natural human desires. We would be idiots to shun emotional appeals, and it would also play into the ridiculous Spock stereotype of atheists as cold dead soulless people who substitute math for passion.

Sometimes you can reason people out of deeply held beliefs. But it helps if first you stir their discontent with those beliefs, if you wake them up to the fact that they look ridiculous…and that yes, there is a whole group of people who are laughing at them.

On a side note, I love that we’re having this discussion. It’s good to hear atheists willing to criticize other atheists. It’s healthy to have this debate.

David Hayward is referring to something very different, but I think his cartoon could apply here:

It’s not always a bad thing to go after each other. It makes all of us stronger when we can get through it, and better able to tackle the other side.

Do you consider yourself a “warrior” or “diplomat” or something else entirely?

Has God gotten nicer? Of course not. Hell, Christians today still think you’re going to burn in hell eternally if you don’t buy into their mythology.

The first panel mixes fiction with fear.

The second panel is honest.

Nothing happens when you lose your faith. God doesn’t smite you. The outside world doesn’t change. Your mindset shifts and you look at the world differently (more accurately, atheists would argue).

My only gripe: Why is the guy in the second panel so sad? He lost his faith! That’s a great day in my book

(via nakedpastor)

My favorite in the bunch was Charisma because I *facepalmed* through every issue. It was free entertainment. It would have been more fun if I didn’t know that actual subscribers actually agreed with what was in it. That was (and still is) frightening.

For example, their most recent issue is all about Heaven and Hell… they’re dedicating an issue to a subject no one can possibly know anything about because you would only know about it after you die and you wouldn’t be in a position to tell anyone ab—oh, forget it. You all know what I’m saying.

But that’s not going to stop them. They have “experts” weighing in on what goes on in Heaven.

(Spoiler: You’ll have a job after you die!)

I have a lot of problems with Christianity.

One of them is that Christians act like they “know” things when, really, they have no clue about them.

Does anything happen when we die?

Accurate answer: If you’re buried, your body will soon rot.

Christian answer: If you were faithful and accepted Jesus into your heart, you will go to Heaven. If you rejected Jesus, you’ll burn in hell for all eternity.

How did the universe begin?

Accurate answer: Evidence suggests there was a “Big Bang“… what happened before that? We may never know.

Christian answer: God created it.

Does God exist?

Accurate answer: Is it possible that a god exists? Perhaps — even many atheists will refrain from saying “God absolutely does not exist.” But there’s never been any verifiable evidence that a god exists.

Christian answer: I know God exists and I know what he wants for my life and he listens to my prayers and we have conversations.

…

I prefer the truth, even if that means I don’t have all the answers to the “big questions.” That’s why I’m an atheist.

What Charisma is doing? That’s pure dishonesty. And you’ll never see their readers calling them out on it.

Keep that in mind as you look at the menu that reader Allison and her husband saw at a restaurant during their recent vacation there

… we ate at this little restaurant with terrible service, but we had to forgive them once we found out they serve Baby Burgers!

And only $6. What a deal! I’m paying at least $19 in Chicago.

Because the program was associated to a church, it was significantly less expensive than other programs. It was also NAEYC accredited (National Association for the Education of Young Children). The teachers were experienced and had years of teaching pre-school either at the school or at other locations. Some teachers/staff were religious, but some of them attended other churches than the one associated with the pre-school (i.e., Roman Catholic). No one seemed to care which church anyone else was affiliated with. We were invited as a family to attend church at the church, but our kids didn’t seem to be disadvantaged in any way because we weren’t members. In fact, most of the students at the pre-school were not members of that congregation.

…

Time will tell how wise this decision was. For us, it was the right decision for our family. I respect that people disagree and have made other choices for themselves or their own families. It would have been nice to have a pre-school that reflected the beliefs that I have, and have all the other stuff too. It would have been nice to find a reputable inexpensive program that wasn’t religious. But as it was, I don’t regret our decision at all.

For those of you atheist parents with children, would you ever consider sending your kids to a religious school?

If the answer is yes, how would you deal with the discrepancy between what is taught in school and your own beliefs?

(Thanks to Julie for the link!)

Thanks to @UAJamie for the great pictures!

You can read previous sessions here, here, here, here, and here.

…

It’s so early… but I’m up for you! So many questions this morning…

• Were there cats at the Skepchick party last night? Because I can’t breathe.
• Why is one of my roommates missing?
• Why is there a tiger and baby in my hotel room?

Anyway, the first paper presentation this morning is by Brian Hart on the topic The Independent Investigations Group vs. the California Board of Registered Nurses: Ending State-sponsored Quackery in California.

He mentions that he was once sent an ad for Clearsight, a group promoting healing touch (and other fake “therapies”). The ad said it was worth Continuing Education Units for nurses enrolled in the program. Nurses in the state need a certain number of CEUs every couple years to stay registered.

The person running the program didn’t seem to have any actual training. Her bio lists her degrees as:

She holds a Bachelor of Arts from Antioch College and Ministerial Degrees from the Church of the Divine Within and the Church of Divine Man.

Instead of complaining, they got even. They began their own alternative medicine program to see if the state would certify them.

And it worked!

The program was called the California Foundation for Institutional Care — get it? “CFI Care”

Not only that, they had courses.

Vapor and Reflective Surfaces. (Smoke and mirrors)

Chinese Shéyóu. (Snake Oil)

Canupiary Flexibility. (This is just made up. At the time, Google didn’t have a single listing for it.)

Anthropomancy. (Divining the future by using living human entrails.)

(This is hilarious. Too bad most of the audience is missing due to hangovers, sleeping in, and who-knows-what-else.)

They got approved by the state. I repeat: Their fake attempt to giving out nursing credits was approved!

It took a while before they were discovered and their license was revoked. But when that happened, Clearsight was still allowed to give out CEUs!

Eventually, they won out. Governor Schwarzenegger fired most of the CBRN staff. Victory!

…

Next up: William London, a professor of Health Science at California State University, talking about Fallacies and Falsehoods at the 2009 Cancer Control Society Convention.

He brings up the 37^th Annual Cancer Convention sponsored by the Cancer Control Society — it promoted all sorts of alternative medicines. You can see the website here and the program for this year’s convention here. Lots of bullshit all over the place.

One important point: London says we should never use the phrase “alternative medicine.” There is only medicine that has been scientifically tested and medicine that has not. Don’t let practitioners gets away with dubious doublespeak.

London attended the convention to see what they were up to. One of the speakers hyped a book that suggested if you stopped eating protein after 1:00 p.m., 83 percent of cancer would be eliminated. What the deuce…?

He then ran through a litany of examples of the exhibits and the falsehoods they propagated.

One speaker said “Optimists can clear cancer better than pessimists.”

Another: “[The] FDA doesn’t want to cure cancer.” (Actually, the FDA is a regulatory agency. They don’t cure anything.)

There are a lot of problems from all this: It wastes time and money. People are diverted away from methods that could potentially help them to methods that will not. Some of the treatments proposed at this conference can actually hurt people.

There’s really nothing redeeming here. The Cancer Control Society still exists. It’s conferences still go on. People are still getting duped.

Another question: Why do doctors get “certified” in false medicine? Are they just quacks looking to make money? Do they genuinely think they’re helping? Were they not smart enough to get into a *real* medical school? Who knows…

…

Next up: Jen McCreight, talking about “Skepticism, Humor, and Going Viral: What We Can Learn From Boobquake.”

There are more people in the conference hall now. It must be the mention of the word “Boob” in the title.

Phil Plait, introducing her: “If you don’t know her… what’s wrong with you?”

I don’t think I need to explain to readers here what Boobquake was, but if you haven’t heard the story, watch this video now!

After talking about what Boobquake was, why she did it, and what happened as a result, Jen brings up a more serious point about the public image of female skeptics.

For example, when mentioning Ariane Sherine‘s book to her mom, her mom saw the picture on the back and said, “She’s so young and cute! — she’s not a cranky old lady at all.” Can’t fault her for saying it. That’s the image a lot of people have about skeptics/atheists — we’re angry, bitter people. But that’s not the case at all. We’re a subset of the general population.

How can we improve our image though? No doubt having more women and more young people speaking out against religion and other foolish ideas helps. Jen’s a perfect example of that.

Considering she had only about 15 minutes to speak, the presentation went great. Lots of cameras taking pictures all over the place.

…

Next up: a panel discussion on Global Climate Change and the Responsibility of the Skeptics Movement, moderated by Massimo Pigliucci and featuring (left to right) Daniel Loxton, James McGaha, Michael Shermer, and Donald Prothero.

As one tweeter writes, this is a perfect issue for us. “When the proof is shown, a true skeptic will change his opinion.”

Yet, there’s still dissension in the ranks and several skeptics still deny that global warming occurs.

McGaha claimed that the need for money — funding, tenure, etc. — helps drive bias in the science community. Prothero says that’s not true at all of the scientists he knows. They follow the evidence, wherever it leads.

Shermer says there’s indeed a lot of money in climate skepticism — I think this is similar to Intelligent Design/Creation proponents. They get crazy money from the Templeton Foundation or the Discovery Institute and it’s all dependent on their saying that religion and science can mix, even when the evidence says otherwise.

Pigliucci asks what makes global warming skeptics confident in making their judgments. Shermer says their arguments are no different than the kinds you’d see in Ben Stein‘s Expelled. There’s the science and then there’s politics.

What is the skeptical movement about? Pigliucci asks. Loxton says there’s as many versions of skepticism as there are skeptics. McGaha says skeptics should be careful about critiquing things they’re not experts in — I don’t buy that. I’m no biology expert, but I know evolution works and I know Creationism is wrong. It’s not ideology; it’s trust in the method that leads to those conclusions. He goes back to the money argument — saying that people like Al Gore are making money from promoting cap and trade, etc. Prothero says (rightly, I believe) Gore was arguing for this stuff decades ago, when there was no money to be had.

Now, we have some drama. Say what you will about McGaha or the panel — it’s nice to finally have a panel with real disagreement. And I’m curious to see what the reaction will be at a skeptic’s conference to someone who is arguing against what most of the rest of us accept.

Now, questions from the audience.

As someone asks a question I don’t care much about, I’m going on a tangent.

I’ve been watching two different audiences this weekend. The ones reacting to what’s happening onstage, and the ones reacting to it on Twitter. I love the instantaneous feedback. As the speakers are saying something, the Twitterati are quick to point out when someone is right, wrong, arrogant, a bad speaker, wonderful, and a new hero.

This is the advantage to a conference of this size (~1300 people). Enough people are reacting that you get a range of debates stemming from what’s said on stage. Phil Plait versus PZ? Global Warming scientists versus skeptics? What else do we need to know that’s not being said? Did a speaker say something we need more information on? Did a speaker make a mistake? I had most of the answers to those questions within a minute or so of it being said onstage. It’s an incredible tool.

You want to know why you should join Twitter? This conference is an argument in favor of it.

Back to the panel.

More questions. More answers that boil down to, “Let’s follow the science and not let that journey get polluted by money or special interests.” Meh. I’m zoning out here.

Jen here. I’m supposed to be summarizing the closing remarks, but I’m also zoning out. Three hours of sleep + preparing for talk + McGaha speaking = snooze time.

…

After a brief break so everyone could micronap, Barbara Drescher is speaking on skepticism as a gateway to scientific literacy. She starts with an example of teaching her son about skepticism. While they were in a sporting goods store, they found products called Phiten wristbands that claimed to promote “energy flow” with Aqua-Titanium. So, yeah, homeopathic sportswear.

Her son decided to turn it into a science fair project. He took a normal wristband and the Phiten bands and through a series of test, found there was no difference between the two. He won the science fair, but more importantly he increased his scientific literacy and learned to be skeptical.

The problem with a lot of modern science education is that it focuses on facts rather than learning to be scientifically literate. For example, doing a science fair project where you make a potato clock or look at how much water makes a tomato plant grow best isn’t learning anything new. It makes children just memorize procedures and facts, and they’re later unable to do original research.

Random side note. I like these paper talks a lot since they’re mostly on tangible things people have done and results, which contrasts to the more speculative or opinion-oriented talks from the main sessions. It’s a bit of a shame all the papers are on the last day though, since everyone is either super tired or still in bed. I partially blame the Skepchicks and their magical refilling beer cups.

…

And it’s Hemant again.

Brian Dunning of the Skeptoid podcast is giving a talk on the Virgin of Guadalupe: A Positive Tale.

Here’s a quick background of the Virgin:

The Virgin of Guadalupe is basically Mexico’s version of the Shroud of Turin. Both are pieces of fabric, hundreds of years old, on which appears an image said to be miraculous. Both are considered sacred objects. But the Virgin of Guadalupe is a much more powerful icon to many Mexicans. There’s hardly anywhere you can go in Mexico and not find a reproduction of the image. Its importance as a religious and cultural symbol cannot be understated, for it came from the very hands of The Most Holy Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Queen of Mexico and Empress of the Americas.

In fact, the rest of Brian’s talk is summed up on his own site.

…

Steve Cuno, the chairman of RESPONSE Agency, Inc., is next — his talk is Confessions of a Skeptical Advertising Man.

Subtitle: “Yeah, what Phil Plait and Carol Tavris said.”

Cuno says there’s an ethical kind of selling — you sell your trust/reputation. If your client accepts it, they will buy your stuff. Win/win.

Then, there’s the used-car salesperson…

Side note: Cuno’s PowerPoint is great. Lots of pictures, short phrases (if any), quick transitions. That alone sets him apart from other speakers.

Cuno offers three tips to ethical selling:

1) [Image of a baseball bat] This is not a light switch. (In other words, don’t be a dick.)

2) [Image of ketchup bottle] We’re not selling ketchup. (When we sell something small, like ketchup, we can ask: do you want Hunts or Heinz? We assume they want it. When it’s something big, we have to go in increments. When it comes to critical thinking. it might take a long time to convince someone they want your product.)

3) Leave big/sacred things for later, and explain small/harmless things first. Example? How lemmings don’t jump off cliffs. Or Acupuncture and Sylvia Browne. And later, that red cars don’t get more speeding tickets than other cars. If your sale ends up taking six months or a year, that’s ok! Ten/Fifteen years? That’s ok.

Some people like to tell it like it is, though. (*cough* PZ *cough*) Cuno says he’s not here to tell you which option is right or wrong. He’s here to tell you what works — you don’t want a waterfall to come down on someone holding a Dixie Cup.

…

Next up: Kevin M. Folta on Frankenfoods: Cornerstones of the Next Green Revolution. In other words, genetically engineered foods.

There are some people very opposed to these kinds of products — they say they’re not natural or they’re bad for you.

Folta responds:

“I don’t convince people by beating them with science. I do it with the velvet fist of reason.”

He adds that we’ve been modifying food for thousands of years — everything we eat is genetically modified!

Growing food is tough, he says. It depends on successful growth of plants. But there’s a problem with that. Loss of arable land, water restrictions, etc.

What’s the difference between Traditional Breeding vs. Genetic Engineering? (Sorry for the low quality pic)

Gotta love this bit: the banana is completely modified. Ray Comfort would be so sad to learn this… which is why he’ll just ignore the fact that the banana is not a god’s work at all.

It’s easier to scare people than to educate them. That’s why people are so afraid of genetically modified food.

There are places around the world that don’t have the resources to grow their own food. Genetic engineering of food can help alleviate that problem. We need to spread the word that these foods are not harmful to eat so that people aren’t posing an obstacle to the solution.

…

Last talk of TAM8: Ryan Schaffer, a PhD candidate in History at Stony Brook University. His talk: A Case Study of Researching a Psychic: Examining Sylvia Browne’s History.

Ryan’s research shows that Browne was wrong in several cases in which she made predictions. Obviously. She is repeatedly wrong on police investigations in which she makes predictions. He can back this up with citations and research.

“I have yet to see one case she was correct about.”

Ryan wrote a piece for Skeptical Inquirer about all this (emphasis mine):

When Sylvia Browne was a weekly guest on The Montel Williams Show, she performed supposed feats ranging from ghost detecting to offering details about missing persons and murder cases. Among the things Browne failed to predict was the availability of those transcripts on the Internet through databases such as LexisNexis. The authors, as well as several members of the James Randi Educational Foundation forum and StopSylvia.com, closely examined each transcript to track Browne’s accuracy. According to Browne, “my accuracy rate is somewhere between 87 and 90 percent, if I’m recalling correctly.” This article disputes that statistic by examining the criminal cases for which Browne has performed readings. The research demonstrates that in 115 cases (all of the available readings), Browne’s confirmable accuracy was 0 percent.

I’m sure this is all well-documented, but it’s not telling this audience anything we don’t already know. I’m not sure what the point of this is, other than to tell us what we already know: the facts show that there are no such things as psychics.

More importantly, if someone believes in Browne’s “powers,” scientific case studies on her failure aren’t going to convert them, are they?

Actually, I take that back: One really cool thing to see was a video Ryan showed of an appearance by Browne on Montel. She made some predictions (“You’re going to have a healthy baby boy”) , and in a later episode, when Montel did an update, the woman receiving the predictions said that she had a daughter who died five months prematurely.

This could be powerful if it became popular on YouTube (or something like that).

Browne herself has said you’re only as good as your last prediction. Her own records suggests she’s a fraud and a con artist.

…

Annnnnnnnnnnd we’re done.

And now I’m going to take a nap before an afternoon workshop.

Thanks for reading these. Thanks to Jen and Jamie for their help again! If I made any mistakes with the transcripts, please let me know in the comments and I’ll try to fix it as soon as I can.

Now back to your regularly scheduled blogging.

Thanks to @UAJamie for the great pictures!

You can read previous sessions here, here, here, and here.

…

First up: David Javerbaum, the (now-departed-to-pursue-wonderful-other-career-options) Executive Producer and head writer of The Daily Show.

Between him and emcee Hal Bidlack, they have an average of 5.5 Emmys. Hal has zero. You do the math.

I’m so excited for this

David begins with a silent prayer. We laugh. He moves on.

“You know, as I was being rational at 3:30 last night at the blackjack table… drinking logic juice…”

He says (and I paraphrase):

Holding TAM in Las Vegas makes more sense than the Vatican because the architecture is less gaudy and the illegal sex is consensual.

There are about a million soundbytes I wish I could share with you and I just can’t type them fast enough.

When one female asked about the Jezebel debacle, David responded (I paraphrase):

The issue of whether we are anti-feminist often is asked, especially by chicks like you. (Laughter) Uppity chicks like yourself.

Hilarious

He spends some time debunking the entire Jezebel article, explaining where their sources came from — that is to say they weren’t credible at all. (The female staffers of TDS responded in their own way.)

A question is asked about what “mainstream” news shows could learn from TDS. Without giving a specific answer, David says they’ve had years to do it, and they haven’t changed, so why think they’d do it now?

FOX News Channel and MSNBC are all pretty bad about straight, impartial news. And CNN?

“CNN has no fucking idea what they want.”

Question: Should we watch TDS or The Colbert Report? Why choose?!:

“Jon voices the irony and Stephen is the irony.”

Question: You have had many conservatives on your show.. Do all the ones you ask come on?

We’ve asked Bush. We’ve asked Cheney. They said no. As well they should…

Question: Is it harder to get people to do taped interviews for the segment on TDS?

“People. Love. To be. On television. At the expense of their dignity, shame, intelligence. People in the modern world… feel they do not exist until they see their [image] on TV… We’re happy to perform that service.”

What a perfect person to have speak at TAM. The Daily Show goes after hypocrites and liars. They don’t care which party does it. Just like skeptics, they go after all sacred cows. (David acknowledged Republicans have been the butt of their jokes more often, but he added they were also in power most of the past decade.)

Incidentally, I did an interview with David before he went up on stage and I’ll be posting excerpts from it when I get back home.

…

Next up: James McGaha, a UFO investigator.

He says that more people in America believe in UFOs than accept evolution. Frightening.

He’s talking about how UFO conspiracies began and why people still believe in them.

Some interesting ideas, though I wonder whether it matters how/why the myth formed that aliens exist even though there’s no evidence in favor of that — who cares unless it’s going to help us debunk those ideas. I’m not hearing anything about how we solve this problem.

Meanwhile, the Twitter stream has slowed down considerably. Seems like people are either uninterested or just not paying attention. (For what it’s worth, David Javerbaum was a near impossible act to follow. I wouldn’t want to be in McGaha’s shoes right now.)

Jen here again. Hemant has escaped McGaha’s thrilling presentation to seek out caffeine. I have no idea what this guy is talking about since I skipped out about two minutes in like most people. I came back in thinking he was done, but he’s gone 15 minutes over. Weeeee.

The panel on Paranormal Investigations is here to save the day! It includes Julia Galef (moderator and sister of Friendly Atheist contributor Jesse Galef), James Randi, Joe Nickell, Karen Stollznow, and Ben Radford.

Randi notes that he goes in to investigate, not to debunk. Nickell explains that it would be like assuming all deaths are by suicide instead of other causes. You shouldn’t start with an agenda. Radford agrees, adding debunking should be the end result, not the process.

Galef asks why people with supernatural claims go through with tests or investigations like the Million Dollar Challenge. “Don’t they know they’re going to fail?” But plenty of these people are innocent and really believe they have special powers, even though Randi can almost instantly recognize what the special trick is since he’s seen it so many times before.

People have to come up with a rationalization with why their powers don’t work because they don’t want to admit they were wrong. They didn’t sleep well, it was a Tuesday, Jupiter was in Sagittarius, etc. When someone competes in the Million Dollar Challenge, they can reapply after a year to try again under different circumstances – but no one ever has.

Karen Stollznow: “They think using scientific tools is the scientific method. They’re not the same thing.” So true. Just because you wave a geiger counter around doesn’t mean you’re using it properly or testing anything.

Ooo, someone who is asking a question says they’re applying for the challenge. He’s a pharmacist and thinks past challenges have been ridiculous. He looks at numbness in breast cancer survivors – he claims in thirty seconds or a minute he can restore sensation without touching them at all, even over the phone. Will be interesting if he gets selected…though I kind of hope not since he’s rambling on forever. Seriously, people who use mic time and don’t ask a question should have a trap door open up underneath them.

At least he was polite and not like the rambling aggressive moon-hoax dude. (PS, I keep typing moan hoax. That sounds way more interesting)

Side note: Awesome that Karen Stollznow is included on the panel. Not so awesome that she can’t get a word in edgewise.

D’awww James Randi needs a giant stool to be tall enough to use the podium. Jeff Wagg just got a special award for all his hard work organizing TAM.

…

Hemant back. We’re getting to the end here… and Jennifer Michael Hecht is onstage. She’s the author of Doubt and The Happiness Myth.

It’s nice to hear a talk that focuses on religion after so much on homeopathy, UFOs, and the like. Let’s go after the head of the monster

Hecht gives a summary of her book:

The history of doubt is older than every faith.

There are some questions that are bound to come up within any faith tradition. What does God look like? Does he have a butt? What does he use it for? Those doubters are going to crop up quickly within any system of belief.

Hecht says she tried to keep her own beliefs out of the question when she wrote her book. In fact, she says she gained respect for religion at the end of it, partly because so many brilliant minds had believed.

But is doubt enough? Not at all.

It’s not enough to come out of the closet. You have to eventually leave the house.

Love that quotation. Be active. Be vocal. Get others to see the truth.

The first atheists, by the way? They can be documented back to India. (You’re welcome, world. I take full credit for that.)

Hecht mentions: English poet Percy Bysshe Shelley got kicked out of Oxford for writing “The Necessity of Atheism” and spreading it around.

I didn’t hear the full context for this, but it sounds quite poetic:

“A wave is the universe waving, an apple is the universe appling, and you are the universe youing.”

Beautiful. Feel free to analyze and write essays on that.

A questioner just corrected a myth that we’re the end product of evolution by correctly saying we’re the current product of evolution. I think Hecht just said we’re not evolving because there’s no mechanism for it. Say what? Weird… and inaccurate. I’ll try to get clarification.

…

Actor and filmmaker Paul Provenza is next. He’s the man behind The Aristocrats and his new show The Green Room with Paul Provenza.

The show is described like this:

THE GREEN ROOM WITH PAUL PROVENZA offers comedy fans the chance to see the world’s greatest comedians in a roundtable setting, speaking off-the-cuff and uncensored in front of a studio audience. No rules, no agenda, no censors… just some of the funniest people around, riffing on and ripping each other apart.

It’s been about a minute and already there are some choice quotations:

“TAM is like a dog park and I just want to sniff everybody’s ass.”

…

“I can now say I’ve opened for Richard Fucking Dawkins.”

Provenza is amazed that there’s a difference between skeptics and atheists. He asks: If you’re a skeptic, how can you not be an atheist? Frankly, I agree with him. God may be one of the toughest sacred cows to take down, but not believing in the supernatural means not believing in god, too.

Provenza also says being a “devout atheist” is as silly as being a “devout Christian” — He doesn’t define what a “devout atheist” means. I assume he’s referring to a person who says God absolutely does not exist as if they know that for a fact.

He’s reading passages from his book ¡Satiristas!: Comedians, Contrarians, Raconteurs & Vulgarians — it has a number of passages about atheism.

He quotes comedian Dana Gould who doesn’t embrace the term “atheist” but certainly accepts our ideas:

Provenza cites a number of comedians who are bent against religion (or used religion in their act) and have gotten shit over their religion jokes. Lewis Black, Robin Williams, Margaret Cho, Stephen Colbert, the Smothers Brothers, etc.

Every passage he reads is getting huge laughter from the crowd. It’s very intriguing to hear comedians analyzing and explaining how religion plays a role in their acts and where the laughter has come from.

One lesson to come from all this: Comedians are perfect people to shatter the glass house religious people like to isolate themselves within. They can poke fun at the major faiths, raise your awareness about the irrational things you believe in, and make you feel guilty for agreeing with religious leaders. And somehow, you’ll still pay to see them.

One great anecdote — there was an MTV show that wanted to make fun of religion. The censors at the network told them the following:

“You can make fun of God because he doesn’t exist, but you can’t make fun of Jesus because he’s God’s son.”

Wow. This book sounds awesome.

…

Finally tonight, we have JREF President D.J. Grothe interviewing Richard Dawkins.

I’ll try to quickly recap the Q&A:

Question: Is it more important to be a Skeptic or an Atheist?

Answer: It’s hard to be a skeptic without investigating testable claims of theism — performs miracles, answers prayers, speaks from burning bushes. Those should be fair game for skeptics. The only reason not to investigate religious claims? Fundraising

(Hemant says: How many theistic skeptics are in the audience? I’d love to know how they justify that. I’ve heard some arguments but I still don’t get it.)

Question: What about atheists who are not skeptics in any other way? The ones who talk about UFOs or Chakras or anti-vaccination types like Bill Maher or Joe Rogan?

Answer: Maher is a eloquent spokesperson for atheism, regardless of his other views. But that’s a separate issue. It’s a fact about humans that we can hold incompatible (or “curiously compatible”) beliefs.

Question: Is there a hierarchy of woo?

Answer: God is the “big one,” isn’t it? Compared to something like Bigfoot… If someone discovered a “Bigfoot” somewhere, that would be fascinating and it wouldn’t shake my worldview. “It’s not a big deal. It’s not like God.” But there are also “intermediates” like psychic powers.

Question: What about alien life in the cosmos?

Answer: Statistically, it’s plausible there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. To say otherwise is to say that this planet, of the billions and billions of planets out there, is so improbable that it only happened once. That’s suggesting that any chemist who bothers to speculate about the origin of life is wasting her time. I don’t believe that.

Question: In the light of evolution, wouldn’t possible alien life forms appear like “God” to us?

Answer: When you look at the age of the universe compared to the age of the earth, there are two more life cycles of our developmental age that could have occurred. They would not “be gods” though, because they would have developed via evolution (or something like it).

Question: Are fairy tales, science fictions, or fantasy books like a “gateway drug” into religion?

Answer: Well, if you believe a frog can turn into a prince, it’s not a stretch to say water could turn into wine. But I don’t want to go so far as to say fiction is harmful. I read and enjoyed those stories as a child. We want the imaginations of children to float free. I’m more ok with science fiction than fantasy fiction.

(Hemant: Dawkins says he’s never read the Harry Potter books. I’m shocked by this… you know… all things considered.)

Question: How did you end up becoming “Richard Dawkins” with that “liability” of believing in magic or fairy tales as a child?

Answer: “I just grew up.”

Question: In one case I know of, a younger family with kids came to a meeting of an older atheist group. The boy in the family was scolded by an atheist because he was holding a Harry Potter book — as if reading that would make the kid not a good skeptic.

Answer: That’s ridiculous.

(Hemant says: Atheists shouldn’t read fiction? Who thinks that? I’ve never heard that argument before… and I’ve never known it to be true.)

Question: You new book (to be published in 2011) is called The Magic of Reality.

Answer: It’s my first children’s book and it’s rather difficult to write. I hope my language is accessible… I’m assuming my reader is not allergic to dictionaries. If there’s a word I think my readers ought to know, I’m not afraid of using it. Each chapter is stand-alone: Who was the first man? What is day and night? What’s an earthquake? The chapters open with the myths and then comes the science — what’s actually happening. My hope is that the science will be even more colorful and appealing and magical than the myths are.

…

And with that, the day is over. *Phew*

Thanks again to Jamie and Jen for helping out! And special thanks to Bryan for getting me a cord that I needed!

See you all tomorrow morning for the paper presentations — Jen will be speaking about Boobquake early in the day!

Thanks to @UAJamie for the great pictures!

You can read previous sessions here, here, and here.

…

Massimo Pigliucci is the first speaker this morning. He’s introduced as a man who has three PhDs… (Take *that*, all of you working on your first.)

He’s talking about the limits of skepticism.

What happens when people who know a lot about science are not only wrong, but spectacularly wrong?

Then, unlike some of the previous speakers, he starts naming names… this should be good

Massimo takes on Penn & Teller’s Bullshit!. In one episode on the environment, they interviewed one “expert” — and the person was an expert in economics, not climate change. What gives?

Bill Maher is no better. He’s quoted as saying, “People who get flu shots are idiots” and “I would never get a swine flu vaccine or any vaccine. I don’t trust the government, especially with my health.”

James Randi isn’t spared at his own conference — Last year, he wrote a post denying climate change.

Michael Shermer is brought up as an example of someone who was once openly a climate change denier, but after weighing the evidence, he changed his mind.

Massimo brings up the problem of hubris in our community:

• Most skeptics do not have technical scientific expertise
• To reject a scientific notion withou proper expertise is a form of anti-intellectualism

We all know people who engage in anti-intellectualism. We don’t want to stoop to their level. The root problem, Massimo says, is ideology.

No one rejects evolution for scientific reasons — it’s religious ideology.

Why deny climate change? It’s tough to say because of science. It’s because of political ideology.

There’s something about a man with an accent that makes it all the more humorous when he says (quoting XKCD):

“But you know what? Science works, bitches!”

Here’s a trend occurring at TAM: Speakers criticizing our own community for the mistakes we make. Phil Plait and Carol Tavris both did this yesterday. Massimo’s doing it now. It’s always a good sign when you’re able to take a reflective look at yourself, and these talks are no exception.

…

Next up, a Grassroots Panel, featuring (from left to right) Michael Feldman (moderator), Skeptics in the Pub (London) organizer Sid Rodrigues, pediatrician Dr. Jen Newport, magician Jamy Ian Swiss, statistician Chip Denman, and Australian skeptic Richard Saunders.

What counts as grassroots activism? Local groups, podcasts, blogs, etc.

Question: Is the distinction between local groups and national groups still relevant?

Dr. Jen points out that a lot of local groups have no national group to “latch on to,” which makes them all the more necessary.

Sid agrees — the local groups also tend to have fresh ideas, such as the 10:23 campaign against homeopathy.

Hemant just ran off, so now you’re stuck with me again (Jen from Blag Hag, or how I’m better known at the conference, “that boobquake girl”).

One concern many local groups have of getting help from national groups is that the national group may take over. Feldman comments that while local groups have a lot of passion, they may not be coordinated enough to take on huge projects suggested by organizations like JREF, especially since there’s risk involved (getting sued).

Here’s a really great suggestion — media training. As someone who has run a non-theist organization for three years, this can be essential. You don’t want to stick your foot in your mouth and look the whole organization look bad.

Now Feldman asks about the virtual side — what about individual bloggers or tweeters (or as Jamy suggests, “twats”)? Dr. Jen points out that blogs are often the opinions of individuals, so you have to take them with a grain of salt because you don’t know how thoroughly investigated they are. They can be used for both good and evil (speaking of evil bloggers, it is so tempting to post silly things while I have access to Hemant’s blog. Being good).

Will virtual communities replace local or national groups? Probably not. “People will be people, and people will still want to drink and get in hot tubs.” I think this pretty accurately sums up TAM so far.

Jamy: “The most important purpose of local groups is the social side.” So true. It doesn’t have to be about activism — sometimes keeping each other sane is reason enough to meet.

But Chip makes a good point — it’s rewarding to feel like you’ve accomplished something, so don’t just do social activities. Even small opportunities are worthwhile.

Woot, and now a shout out for campus groups! As someone who started a college group, I definitely agree that it’s important to organize students. We’re some of the most passionate people out there.

An audience member asked about how hard it is to start their own local group. While it can take a lot of time, it’s not too bad if you can get others to volunteer. And getting a group running is such a rewarding experience that it’s usually not too hard to find someone else to help — it’s worth it in the long run.

…

It’s Hemant again. Back from the most exciting interview *ever*… really, I got nervous. Richard Dawkins no longer makes me nervous. I saw Adam Savage the other night and I felt nothing — nothing. But this interview? I was all stuttering and trying to impress the person. More on that soon…

Next up: Bruce Hood, the author of Supersense. (I reviewed the book last year.)

His talk is on the origins of secular supernatural beliefs — me or memes? (Or he suggested the alternate title: “Why People Believe in Weird Shit.”)

He asks us a few questions — I love these, by the way — to see what the reaction of skeptics would be:

• Would you willingly wear Jeffrey Dahmer’s clothing?
• Could you stab a photograph of a loved one?
• Would you accept a heart transplant from a murderer?
• Would you exchange a sentimental object for an identical duplicate?

Why do skeptics hesitate on these questions?

In fact, why do we still cling to our childhood toys/blankets when we don’t really need them anymore? The answer may have to do with “Essentialism” (Google it).

(Side note: Tweeter @SatansParakeet makes an amusing point: Hood “seems determined to undermine the bidding on” Adam Savage’s hat, which is up for bid in a silent auction.)

After showing us an auditory illusion, Hood makes his point:

“You don’t have any direct privileged access to reality.”

We’re not that much better than everyone else, but hopefully, we’re smart enough to question even our own thinking.

(Side note: Hood is an excellent speaker. How do I know this? He stepped away from the podium. Simple thing to do, but very effective.)

Hood notes that when we’re primed, we can *think* we’re hearing (or seeing) anything — it’s how pareidolia works.

For example, this video:

We’re not all as clear cut as believers versus non-believers, says Hood. He then makes three main points about how/why skeptics can still hold silly beliefs:

– Individuals operate with two reasoning systems — intuitive and analytical. People switch between then.

– Supernatural beliefs may decline but may never truly disappear.

– Stress/illness/aging can re=instate intuitive errors.

We need to focus on why some people believe what they do. Perhaps we’re wired to believe in woo.

…

Finally, this session, we have a panel on Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Chiropractic, and other dubious health care systems. Steve Novella is moderating, and he’s joined by Rachael Dunlop, Harriet Hall, Ginger Campbell, David Gorski, and Simon Singh. (Left to right in pic below.)

The topics of this session as referred to as the “unsinkable rubber ducks” (in the words of Randi).

Hall points out that “licensing” is a problem in getting rid of this woo — anybody can be licensed. Including psychics. What good does that do?

Campbell takes exception to criticism of massage therapy. It’s not woo; it’s “in the grey zone.”

Singh says regulation could help, because it might protect patients, but it could also lead to a slippery slope. (Would we ever have to teach this woo in a classroom?)

Singh points out that if he wanted to set up shop as a homeopath, he could do so immediately and start seeing patients. But in order to treat animals, you need real qualifications. Crazy, no?

The panel mentions “homeopathic hospitals” — those things exist? I had no idea. One Tweeter writes:

So what is a homeopathic hospital? An Olympic swimming pool someone’s dropped a brick in?

Gorski says that he’s spoken to medical students about homeopathy. If they don’t know the term, he explains it. And they’re amazed that anyone could believe in that bullshit.

That’s homeopathy for you. The companies who create homeopathic drugs care nothing about patients. They care about money. It’s not like “regular” drug companies care about you, either, but at least they pay scientists to create drugs that work (or face the risk of lawsuits).

Campbell adds: If you want to actually do something useful, “get the homeopathic stuff out of Wal-Mart!”

Hall tells a story about how she wrote an article speaking out against acupuncture. Someone wrote to her to complain about it and she urged him to do his own research. He later told her he couldn’t find any and stopped believing in it.

(Interesting to note that she didn’t demonize him for believing in it, but politely suggested he do his own research. She could have also pointed him in the right direction. It’s all part of a theme at #TAM8 to be civil and courteous when dealing with someone who disagrees with you, instead of calling them names.)

There are rotten people out there who seek to take advantage of gullible people who may be sick and looking for any “medicine” to get better. Singh has a term for people like that who are nasty no matter which way you look at them: “Spherical bastards.”

Your goal for today is to use that term in a sentence.

…

Lunch time. The afternoon session has The Daily Show‘s David Javerbaum, Paul Provenza, and Jennifer Michael Hecht! Be back in a couple hours.