I'm going to try to explain this very simply, because the amount of mail coming about this is staggering.

Basically, the claim is "Mark from Stone Church is also Bob and Thomas from London and I can't believe you guys can't figure this out. His accent was even obviously fake!"

Yes, the accent was horrible. Yes, it was probably Mark. So what do we do about that? We have NO caller ID. We can't prove that it's the same person. I can't know that he doesn't honestly believe what he's saying, even if he fakes an accent. I can't prove that ANYONE actually believes the shit they say on the phone.

But if the conversation is allowing us to make good points and the caller is cooperative, what reason do I have to ruin it by saying "I think you're a liar. I think you're that same 'Mark' guy..."? And what if I'm wrong?

It's simply a bad idea to go making accusations like that in the middle of the show, when I have no supporting evidence.

Curiously, people seem to hear "Mark's" voice everywhere. In addition to the three in the title there are one or two other callers who people feel are also the same guy. Sometimes I can hear the similarities, sometimes I can't.

Congratulations to those of you who can always hear it and always get it right (though I'm not sure how you know that you're right), but exactly what do you propose we do about it?

Tomorrow (later today, actually) I'll be heading down to the studio, in drag. I wanted to take a few minutes, before the show, to talk about the process of making this happen and why it's unlikely to happen again (I think you'll agree I've got good reasons). That said, this is a positive post - because the process has been educational and that's something that I tend to enjoy.

First, I'm probably not going to be very attractive (but I'm sure someone out there will certainly disagree). I'm a big guy and it was difficult to find clothes that fit, so this won't be any sort of slinky, sexy number...because my body just won't do that.

We had difficulty finding a dress in my size that didn't cost a fortune. We ended up settling on the Urban Nomad versatile skirt from Earthbound Trading Company. It's actually a pretty cool item and I think I can safely recommend it. Beth got one as well and mine won't be going to waste as I already have a good friend who would like mine after the show is over. (It's late, so I'm not linking all of these items...Google is your friend).

I wear a 48R suit jacket and we had one hell of a time finding any bra that would actually fit. We settled for a cheap 52DD bra from Walmart that we're going to stuff with socks and other things to give me the breasts I'll need to hold up the dress. We also grabbed a plus-sized camisole, which will give me a layered look. The bra and camisole probably won't find a home, so I'll box them up for future costume events that are less extravagant.

We picked up cheap jewelry at the mall, but I only had one of my ears pierced. I didn't want to take too many shortcuts, so we went ahead and got the other one pierced as well. (Actually, we re-pierced the one that had previously been pierced, as it had partially closed up.) I actually like wearing the earrings, so that will probably stick around.

Shoes just weren't going to happen. Any shoes in my size were a ridiculous expense for what is, most likely, a one-time event. We settled on some cheap, but stylish, orange flip-flops and Beth hot-glued some sunflowers on them.

Saturday morning, I went to the nail salon for a full manicure, pedicure and eyebrow waxing. No, I'm not joking. I now have gorgeous red fingernails and toenails - and much less bushy, though still far-too-dark eyebrows.

This evening, we attempted to use a Nair-like product to remove hair from my legs and upper body. Absolutely no hair was removed by this cheap, dollar-store knock-off. So...as it was late, out came the clippers that I use to trim my head and beard and off came the body hair. This was followed by a couples shaving session that, I'm pretty sure, strengthened our relationship.

We didn't remove all of my body hair, though - which prompted Beth to point out that having hair from my nipples to mid-thigh gives the impression that I'm wearing a girdle of hair.

Later today, I'll get dressed, put on my wig, drive to a friend's house for the final make-up and then down to the studio.

I'll spend some time tomorrow talking about what I learned, but the past few weeks have been very informative. I have a great deal more respect for what women and drag queens and people with gender-identity issues have to go through - and I'm not just talking about the shaving and shopping (when nothing fits). More on that tomorrow.

Now for the reason this probably won't happen again: it's expensive.

I'm extremely grateful to everyone who donated to Camp Quest and I'll do almost anything for a great cause. I'm proud of our team, I'm proud of PZ, I'm proud of Camp Quest and I'm very proud of everyone who helped send kids to camp...but the money I spent on nails, makeup, outfits and other expenses will, in the future, simply be donated directly to Camp Quest (or whichever organization I'm raising money for).

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I did this and I think the money was well spent for what I learned - but I'll try to come up with cheaper incentives in the future, and just donate money directly to the charity involved.

And now, on with the show...

There seems to have been some confusion (some on my part, some on the part of people who read or skimmed my last post).

The first error was mine. The post from David Silverman was a blog post and not an American Atheists press release, as I had represented. That said, it was a public statement on the subject from the President of the organization and I think it carries similar weight...but perhaps not.

Some people have mistakenly assumed that AA was planning legal action over this. They're not. I never thought they were and I thought I was clear about that when I wrote:

American Atheists does a great job of making sure that they only take legal battles that they're likely to win and they've been critical of Michael Newdow, and others, who risk setting bad legal precedent by challenging things we aren't likely to win. I'm not in complete agreement on every decision about which cases we take and which we don't, but I recognize that we have to be careful.

I really wish, though, that the same sort of careful thinking went into decisions about which issues to challenge in the court of public opinion.

Evidently, that wasn't clear enough and I apologize. There is no legal action being taken here, it was simply an editorial piece.

Additionally, some people, rather ironically, took this opportunity to over-react and beat up on David or American Atheists or whatever...

That's a mistake. David is a friend and while there may be one or two fine points on which we disagree, that's true for all of my friends including ACA members, co-hosts on the shows and even Beth. I'm encouraged by the changes he's made to American Atheists. I'm also supportive, optimistic and eager to work with him and AA on almost any project that my schedule allows for.

This was about one very fine point of disagreement. What I should have done was also link to comments and statements by other people that I disagree with (CFI NY was on Fox news, evidently, essentially agreeing with the AA blog post). That would have helped to ensure that this didn't turn into a "beat up on Dave and AA" theme...because that's a bigger mistake than the post I objected to.

Suffice it to say, I'll take a slightly different approach in the future to avoid confusion. My opinion on this subject hasn't changed - but discussing these differences benefits all of us. Or at least I'd hope it does.

Atheists aren't always going to agree. That's just an undeniable truth. I am, perhaps, a bit abnormal because I actually like the fact that we often disagree. Among my atheist friends, it's often the ones I disagree with that I most value and the disagreements often help us all more than we realize.

For example, I like and value David Silverman and American Atheists. In general, I support what they're doing...but there are going to be times when we don't completely see eye-to-eye and today is one of those days.

Here's the AA press release...go ahead and read it, I'll wait.


American Atheists does a great job of making sure that they only take legal battles that they're likely to win and they've been critical of Michael Newdow, and others, who risk setting bad legal precedent by challenging things we aren't likely to win. I'm not in complete agreement on every decision about which cases we take and which we don't, but I recognize that we have to be careful.

I really wish, though, that the same sort of careful thinking went into decisions about which issues to challenge in the court of public opinion. Today's press release is just a monumentally bad idea.

First of all, heaven isn't a strictly Christian concept. Many people who don't adhere to any religion hold to this concept in a cultural fashion that is probably more strongly tied to our fear of death and our desire to think and say nice things about the dead than to any specific religious doctrine. Plenty of other religions have heavens and heavenly concepts and plenty of non-religious people will use heaven in a metaphoric or poetic sense.

Second, many Christians would point out that admission into heaven, according to their doctrine, isn't tied in any way to the heroic actions of those firefighters or the quality of their character. There are many Christians who would point out that, according to their beliefs, the overwhelming majority of those firefighters left the fires of the twin towers and proceeded directly to the fires of hell. Though few would make this claim with the glee of the members of the Westboro Baptist Chruch, it's still part of their doctrine and they'd also note that the conventional concept of heaven being a place for 'good' people is a cultural convention that is only loosely tied to Christianity by way of misunderstanding.

On those grounds, it's just factually incorrect to repeatedly assert that this reference to heaven is an explicit linkage of Christianity to these individuals. (I'm not denying that it will be viewed that way by some Christians, I'm simply pointing out that it's the sort of statement that is sufficiently nebulous that it will automatically mesh with the internal concepts of each individual reader...which is why, I suppose, Dave and other atheists are instinctively objecting; their concept places it firmly in the realm of "legitimizing Christianity".)

More importantly, this is a recipe for being viewed as reactionary curmudgeons. We're talking about something meant to honor the heroic sacrifice of firefighters during the 9/11 attacks. Even a blatant violation of the constitution might be viewed negatively, but this is going to be viewed very negatively and the constitutional issues are hardly clear, if they even exist. There is no real upside to this - especially if we're making statements that demonstrate we don't really understand that there are some cultural references that aren't an explicit endorsement of any religion.

It's a bit like objecting to Christmas trees by claiming that they're explicitly Christian when they most definitely aren't.

I'm a pretty confrontational guy. I'm an advocate of challenging first amendment violations and religious stupidity and harm at almost every opportunity. I generally support the direct, confrontational direction that Dave and American Atheists have been taking. I mostly liked most of the billboards. I've gone after the accomodationist buffons on a regular basis... but this is just a bad idea.

In this case, I'd have opted for no press release, but if I'd done one, I'd have made sure that it was one that was structured in such a way that those who complained about the release would look foolish. Some statements that might work a bit better:

"While atheists don't share the religious optimism of heavenly afterlives, and we think that something like "Seven Heroes Way" would have been a less contentious and more accurate representation of the fallen, we are pleased to see the memory of these heroic individuals honored.

These firefighters, through training and dedication, overcame our natural, human instincts for self-preservation and charged directly into a deadly situation in an attempt to assist others.

On a day when the divisive conflict between religious ideals resulted in the death of thousands, these individuals focused on the value we place on human life irrespective of religious views and other divisive constructs.

As they moved into harm's way, there was no consideration of whether the individuals they were saving were Christian, Muslim or atheists. There was no consideration of whether those individuals were gay, straight or transgendered. There was no consideration of whether those individuals shared their personal political views...there were simply people, in need of assistance. We should honor them on those same terms.

In the chaotic aftermath of the ruthless and shameful attacks of 9/11, the character of these individuals truly represented those traits that define heorism and the sort of character that we should all hope to instill in future generations.

Seven, of many, heroes...have shown us the way."

So, CampQuest has announced that the The Stiefel Freethought Foundation has pledged a matching offer of up to $5,000 per team!

At this point, only CampQuest can really "win". PZ has played the "heads I win, tails they lose gambit" and it looks like I'll be doing a show in drag. (That'll be a great opportunity to make a few points that I've wanted to make for quite some time.)

If you haven't donated, now is the perfect time. If you have donated, thank you very much and don't hesitate to maximize your happiness by donating again!

And luck...I'm sticking the widgets right here!

The billboard, like the people who paid for it, were still there on Sunday...

Continuing on with Saturday's speakers...

Ashley Paramore from the Secular Student Alliance did a great job educating us on how to better connect with campus groups. As it turns out, not only do they enjoy pizza (preferably free) they might also be a bit tired of lectures (who knew?) and there are other events that might be more to their liking. In all seriousness, the ACA has worked with campus groups at UT, Austin and many of the things that Ashley said (which should almost be common sense but, sadly, are not) will be helpful to our group and to many others that want to help support campus secular groups. I won't be advocating the exact model that Campus Crusade for Christ uses, but there are good lessons to be learned there.

Lewis Marshall, President of the Atheists, Humanists and Agnostics at Stanford University spoke about freethought activism and working with interfaith groups. (There were some unfortunate audio problems during his talk and I missed part of it.)

Keith Lowell Jensen offered highlights from his stand-up comedy routine. Legitimately entertaining and funny, he's been doing atheist-themed comedy for a while. He was kind enough to give me one of his CD's and I planned to listen to it on the flight home, but I couldn't find the CD-drawer on my iPod, so I'm going to rip the audio off later and listen to it tomorrow...or at least before the next scheduled rapture.

David Eller, Assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Colorado, Denver gave the first of two talks (I want his agent...or maybe any agent) for the weekend. He's the author of several books and the latest is Cruel Creeds, Virtuous Violence: Religious Violence Across Culture and History.

The first talk covered some of the content of the book, focusing on religious violence and cultural perceptions of violence. It's not a talk I can fairly summarize, but I definitely enjoyed it and I'm looking forward to spending more time talking to David in the future. He said a number of things that made me reconsider the way I look at things and that's something that I really appreciate.

There was a dinner break at this point and I did a few interviews with local news stations. As it turns out, I was on one station for about 3 seconds and...they pretty much gave me the last word. That's great and fairly unheard of! It's almost enough to make me move to California. I had spent a few moments during my talk mentioning how religious figures always seem to get the last word on every atheist news story and no one had ever given me the last word on a religious story. I'll have to change my talk, but I'm glad to do so!

As dinner was wrapping up, Brian Dalton (Mr. Deity) appeared, as if by magic and almost precisely timed with the countdown to the rapture (SPOILER: nothing happened). Some of the speakers got together to pose for various rapture photos:

...that they weren't reasoned into.

Bull.

I'm so sick of this little nugget of nonsense. (This nugget of nonsense is, by the way, on par with the sort of arrogance and surrender we see from atheists who claim that, while they no longer need religion, the "little people" are simply incapable of behaving without it. But that's a different post...)

I saw it on a Facebook post this morning and it was mentioned by David Eller at the Rapture RAM in Oakland less than 24 hours after my talk which focused on, among other things, changing the minds of atheists who think that reasoned arguments simply aren't going to convince people. Evidently, I failed to achieve my goal...sort of.

David is an anthropologist and he said a number of things that really challenged the way I'll think about these issues in the future (I'm hoping to write a trip report soon). The talk was enlightening and educational in many areas but he also said a number of things that were, as far as I can tell, flatly wrong or dependent upon very different usages of words like "belief" than I'm used to.

To be fair, when Greta Christina challenged him on the fact that he seemed to be strongly advocating an end to reasoned debate, David immediately noted that this wasn't his intended message and that those who are skilled at doing so should absolutely continue. That was encouraging, but there were so many points in his talk that directly implied the opposite that it left us a little divided at the end. (There were other issues, but for today, I'm focusing on this one.)
[Edit: There's been an apology on that issue and I'm encouraged, because David had a lot of great things to say and I hate to only focus on sloppy sexist comments or fine-points where we disagree. He's someone I'd love to spend more time talking to.]

So, what's wrong with this particular saying?

Well, if we're being very literal, every position someone holds is the product of reasoning. Believing a proposition is the result of being convinced. You can be convinced for good reasons or bad reasons, but as long as the brain is involved (and how could it not be?), reason is involved. In that scope, the statement is wrong because the premise is false. They were, in fact, reasoned into their belief.

Also, in a more colloquial sense, it refers to people whose beliefs were spawned by indoctrination, emotional appeals, socialization/inculturation and other things that aren't normally in the realm of 'pure reason' - and in this scope, the statement becomes a claim that you're just not going to be able to convince them of their error by using strict logical reasoning.

This saying is, at best, a deepity, though I'm convinced it's just false.

As noted during my talk, I'm walking, talking proof that it's false. My religious beliefs were not the result of critical thinking and skepticism, but my freedom from those beliefs most definitely is. (If my data set of 1 is unimpressive, I've got about 6 years worth of e-mails from people with nearly identical stories...and I'm betting there will be several "me too"s in the comments to this post.)

The problem, though, isn't just that this statement is wrong, it's that it's a white flag. It implies that efforts to free people from religious thinking, via reason, are futile.

There may be some people who are forever beyond the reach of reason, but this isn't true of everyone and I haven't seen any data to support the idea that it's even true for most people.

In fact, I think we have evidence to the contrary. People, even if they don't realize it, value reason and evidence. We're thinking creatures and critical thinking represents the "best practices" of human thought.

The trick, if that's a fair word, is to get them to realize how much they value the principles of sound thought and get them to apply that to beliefs that have previously been protected from such scrutiny.

I'm not implying that it's always (or ever) easy to accomplish this, but the statement in question implies that it's simply impossible - and nothing could be farther from the truth.

Skepticism, critical thinking, logical reasoning, science - however you prefer to label the most consistently reliable tools we have for discerning reality - are ubiquitously recognized as valuable though not universally applied. We must continue to try to convince people of the value of applying these principles to every claim.

People often become convinced of things for bad reasons and are remarkably good at protecting those beliefs from critical examination - especially if those beliefs have been long-held, publicly professed and are shared by many others in that person's social network. But that doesn't mean that they are forever incapable of recognizing that they've accepted something for bad reasons. People can, and do, understand the value of having good reasons for their beliefs - it's the reason why there are so many attempts to provide apologetic arguments for those beliefs.

Finally, this statement is often accompanied by claims that the failure of reason implies that we need to use other methods. I'm open to many different approaches, but too often the suggested alternatives really equate to saying, "If we can't convince them with good reasons, let's use bad ones!" (Ironically, this call to religious mimicry is often immediately preceded by a call to stop using religious language when addressing religious claims...)

This is, I think, an absolutely stupid idea.

The very reason we're able to change minds is because religious beliefs have such flawed foundations. Why would you want to build someone's atheistic house on that same unstable sand? This is the very reason I've railed against the bad arguments (Pi=3, astro-theology/zeitgeist) I've seen from atheists: it creates non-believers who, when they encounter a believer who can expose these bad reasons, are left confused, defenseless and prone to falling back into religious thinking.

Garbage in, garbage out.

You can, in fact, reason a person out of almost any belief - it just won't work if the person doesn't see the value of holding reasonable beliefs. The good news is that many, if not most, of the people who don't currently see that value can learn to see it and most already think they do, which is why the Socratic method is so darn useful.

It may sound insightful and it may accurately represent the frustrations of dealing with the most skeptically-challenged, fundamentalists - but it's simply not true in any useful sense and it's time for this sentiment to drift off into Bad Idea land...