Crackergate Down Under and Day 1 of The Global Atheist Convention

I was having breakfast with PZ Myers (me and 13 others) this morning (and for all you doubting Thomas’ there’s video evidence) at the bloggers and podcasters breakfast.  It was a little surreal for about 15 minutes and then PZ’s warmth and good nature put us all at ease, he really is a genuinely cool, easy going bloke.  I then suggested that he might try some vegemite.  He had been forewarned, and after smelling it I pretty sure he may have thought that I was part of a theist conspiracy to give him food poisoning prior to his speech.

PZ then decided to spread it on his communion wafers(the kind that everyone happens to carry).    The video is below.  I apologise for the quality, but I was trying to to film it sitting  directly beside him..

Many thanks to Drunkenmadman for uploading it on the spot.

The rest of the day was one rather long pub crawl and meeting of various twitter and blogging friends.  Although I did meet “Amy, who’s not on the internet”

The convention opened with a good speech from David Nichols and some comedy from Sue Ann Post and Catherine Deveney.  It was a harsh roasting for which they have already being criticised for.  But hey if you’re offended, really offended, bugger off it’s our convention.

Seriously, I am finding the “you should respect my beliefs, my ideas and not make fun of me”  line a little worn.  I will respect you, and your right to believe and say what you want, I might even be polite in telling you I think you are wrong and a bit foolish.

But kindly, politely even, take a long walk off a short pier if you want to shut down criticism or discussion if you expect that we will treat your individual, personal view of religion as a special case.

If you have crackpot ideas like the body of christ existing in a cracker then prepare to be laughed at and ridiculed.  If you have defined god out of reach of criticism be prepared to be called on it.

Related posts:

  1. Global Atheist Convention – Sold Out
  2. Global Atheist Convention Tickets Selling out Fast
  3. Gold passes sell out at Global Atheist Convention

Unitarian Universalist Pastor Comes to Atheists’ Defense

Remember that editorial by Wayne Laugesen of the Colorado Springs Gazette in which he said the atheist movement was on the decline because of groups like Atheist Agenda and their Smut for Smut campaign and FFRF going after the Mother Teresa stamps?

I argued that Laugesen ignored many of the bright spots within our movement and the idea that the overall trend is in our favor.

Well, there was a fantastic rebuttal.

And it was written by a pastor, Rev. Roger Butts of High Plains Unitarian Universalist Church.

Your piece equates atheism with a small student group in Texas and one foundation. You made no mention of the Ethical Cultural Society. You made no mention of the Humanist Institute. You made no mention of Buddhist atheists, Unitarian Universalist atheists, the American Humanist Association. I don’t think the editorial board would ever say that organized Christianity is represented as a whole by [Glenn] Beck and [Fred] Phelps.

You seem to suggest that atheists — or religious humanists, or religious naturalists — are somehow not involved in acts of service and compassion and justice and that they act out of spite and anger and fear. Well, you paint a picture with a broad stroke. The agnostics and atheists I know contribute plenty of money to important organizations involved in making the world more just and act in community organizing and groups like the Sierra Club, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Red Cross or other international aid organizations. And you seem to paint a picture of angry, spiteful atheists acting out of malice. There are those, certainly. And when they act out of ignorance or intolerance, it is as pathetic and pitiful as when anyone else does. Atheists are not so monolithic as you claim.

… In my experience most folks know that anytime a cynical attempt to portray any group as one thing, one mind, one collective is off-base and shallow. Your dualistic thinking is unfortunate and lacks intellectual rigor and integrity.

I don’t think Christianity should be judged by men like Ted Haggard, Fred Phelps, Glen Beck and I don’t think atheists should be judged by a group of college kids in San Antonio trying to get a little publicity.

*slow, crescendoed applause*

I’m becoming less of a fan of the interfaith approach that Butts suggests — the kind that sees value in all religions — but in this case, the reverend makes many terrific points.

On a side note, why does the picture of him on the Gazette’s website make it seem like he has horns growing out of the side of his head?

(Thanks to Raleigh for the link!)

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

God Language in our Society

Society has been so dominated by Judeo-Christian beliefs that even people who don’t believe in a god are still brainwashed into using God language. How many times have you said, “God bless you” after someone sneezes?

“God Bless you” is just one example and many non-religious people have started to use other phrases instead of this very theistic one. Why do we say anything at all when people sneeze? The idea was that back in the day people believed that an evil spirit might enter the body when someone sneezes. This is of course ridiculous. In fact this is so ridiculous that no modern Christian still believes it.

“Oh my God,” I still say that phrase when something surprising or unfortunate happens. It is an unthinking reaction yet I still say it even though don’t believe in a god. Even “holy shit,” “God damn it” and “Jesus Christ” are used by most atheists today.

But the number one religious language holdover has got to be “goodbye.” Most people have no idea where this term comes from. It is short for the phrase, “May God be with you on your quest.” Of course, now goodbye has lost the religious component and has become a more generic farewell so I don’t really feel bad about continuing to use it. But the other terms and phrases that retain their obvious religious wording is a little embarrassing.

How should a non-theist deal with such things? Should we create and use more secular terminology and train ourselves into using different terms and phrases? Or should be just claim that those terms and phrases no longer have religious meaning to us and move on?

One thing is certain, even after the vast majority of people abandon religious superstitions and ridiculous beliefs, we are still going to be stuck with a lot of reminders of how these ridiculous beliefs have dominated the world.

Bookmark and Share

Another Day, Another Gay Political Scandal

This time, not only does it come from my home state of New York, but it involves a Democrat! Representative Eric Massa is stepping down over allegations he harassed a male staffer. To be honest, I hadn’t really been aware of this. Gothamist covered it, so it came up in my RSS feed, but I must have skipped right past it. It doesn’t help that we in the city generally ignore Albany politics; the only state politics anyone here seems interested in lately is the Paterson debacle.

Truthfully, it’s a pretty unexciting story, but worth talking about because of a few odd twists. The basics are old hat: married politician harasses and gropes male staffer, denies any wrongdoing, then realizes he’s fighting a losing battle and steps down.

It seems that from the beginning Massa knew his political career was over. He announced last week that he would not be seeking a second term, but blamed cancer (he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma in the ’90s but has supposedly been “fully cured”). Of course, once the House ethics committee said it would be launching a probe, everything changed and he stepped down immediately. But there was someone else to blame this time: the Democrats! Yes, even a Democrat finds a way to deflect and blame it on the Democrats. This time it’s because Massa, who was a Republican but switched parties due to his opposition to the war in Iraq, opposes health care reform and this is a vast Democratic conspiracy to shove him out.

So that should be that, right? But the story only gets weirder. See, his behavior wasn’t like Ashburn going out to a gay club or Larry “wide stance” Craig trying to get some in an airport bathroom. These are things we expect from our closeted politicians. The Massa situation, on the other hand, lacks any confirmed sexual inappropriateness and is instead full of innuendo, locker-room gay subtext, and… tickle fights?

The first bits of this to come to light centered around his behavior and language at a New Year’s Eve wedding party. As Gothamist reports, Massa cleared the air about the incident on his weekly radio address:

I sat down at the table where my whole staff was, all of them by the way bachelors … One of them looked at me and as they would do after, I don’t know, 15 gin and tonics, and goodness only knows how many bottles of champagne, a staff member made an intonation to me that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid and his points were clear and his words were far more colorful than that.

And I grabbed the staff member sitting next to me and said, “Well, what I really ought to be doing is fracking you.” And then [I] tossled the guy’s hair and left, went to my room, because I knew the party was getting to a point where it wasn’t right for me to be there. Now was that inappropriate of me? Absolutely. Am I guilty? Yes.

Battlestar Galactica references aside, it seems like an odd thing to say to your staffer while tousling his hair. Massa admits it was inappropriate, did not think the staffer found the situation uncomfortable, and asserts that it was another aide who complained. If all of that was the case, I would probably have to side with Massa. Of course it’s inappropriate, but I don’t think that comment alone should be considered enough to end someone’s career. He got a little drunk and let his homo side come out. I personally don’t think this is an earth-shattering violation of his staff. Maybe I’m wrong. But either way, it doesn’t stop there!

Now it’s being reported that Massa groped three staff members, an allegation Massa doesn’t exactly deny, but says was not sexual in nature. Because this involves a Democrat allegedly being forced out due to his opposition to health care reform, the conservative press is naturally turning him into a martyr. In turn, he’s been making the circuit on Fox News, explaining what happened to Glenn Beck:

Now they are saying I groped a male staffer. Yeah, I did. Not only did I grope him. I tickled him until he couldn’t breathe, and then four guys jumped on top of me. It was my 50th birthday. It was kill the old guy. You can take anything out of context.

So he didn’t grope anyone, it was just some innocent, manly wrestling and tickling! See, it really just depends on how you define groping. Oh, and this party took place at the townhouse Massa shared with his staff.

Wait, what?

Yes, my friends, the self-described “salty old sailor” was sharing a townhouse with five male staffers. To avoid D.C. rent, of course! Is it just me or is this thing starting to sound like Dude Dorm: Capitol Hill? His chief of staff was understandably livid and told Massa that the living situation was “not congressional.” Massa has admitted it was a mistake, and that he’d never been able to shake his Navy mentality.

So that’s about it. Seems like this guy has some tendencies he doesn’t quite want to deal with (and that extend back to his days in the Navy), was actually smart enough not to seek a random hookup, but lacked the common sense to not live with his staff and engage in homoerotic frat play. If you ask me, there’s got to be more to this story. I find it hard to believe that this would have blown up into what it has if, as Massa claims, “nothing sexual” ever happened. Beck asked him if more damning information, such as phone calls or text messages, was likely to come out. Massa said “sure there are text messages because we bantered back and forth all the time,” but of course claims they are harmless, not sexual in nature, and just “guy stuff” (my words). Even so, I’m having a hard time reaching the same level of indignation and schadenfreude I usually find in these situations. The whole story is just so sad and weird. It’s pretty obvious to me that he’s trying to avoid the muckraking that would have not only ended his political career, but quite possibly his marriage as well. When Larry King asked him if he’s gay, Massa wouldn’t answer, saying the question “insults every gay American.” (on a side note, what is it with tri-state politicians and this “gay American” line? Are we different from other gays?)

And now even his friends on the Republican side are kicking him to the curb. Beck declared Massa had “wasted America’s time” when he wouldn’t say he was forced out of office by the dirty Democrats, but had made a mistake and was leaving of his own accord.

There’s one more tidbit here that I feel is worth mentioning, if only because it’s so ridiculous. Massa hates Rahm Emanuel. Hates him. Has called him “son of the devil’s spawn.” He related the story of a confrontation he had with Emanuel in the House gym over Massa’s refusal to support Obama’s budget proposal:

“I am sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel,” Mr. Massa said, adding that Mr. Emanuel poked “his finger in my chest, yelling at me at me because I wasn’t going to vote for the president’s budget.”

“You know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man?” he continued.

hmmmm… that sounds almost exactly like the dream I had last night…

Of course, White House officials deny it ever happened and yadda yadda yadda.

The whole saga is just so bizarre. Reading through everything: the shared townhouse, the tickle fights, the fracking, the snorkeling, the excuses from cancer to health care to “salty” language, the naked chief of staff, the appearance on Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh blowing it up and promising to make it a “national story,” I honestly felt like I was reading the plot treatment for a new Christopher Buckley book.

So there you have it. The same old story with a few strange twists. I don’t know. Like I said, I’m having a hard time getting angry and self-righteous about this. The gay angle doesn’t even seem to be what everyone’s talking about. And now we’ll either have a special election or wait until November, when a Republican will probably take his place. What a strange world we all live in.

And You Thought Christian Guilt Was Limited to Sex!

My youngest brother posted on his Facebook wall last night, “I’m having a bad day.” That’s it. No whining, just a statement of fact. Did you know, though, that someone’s eternal salvation rests on his never saying he is having a bad day? Check out this comment:

you choose the kind of day you have.your attitude determines how you will meet the victories and the challenges of the day. You actively choose how you react to what happens. Remember Paul and Silas singing in prison stocks! When you choose to rejoice in adversity you impact eternity for good! You release miracle power called JOY! A poor jailor and his whole household are rejoicing in heaven today while we chat on FB because all those years ago Paul and Silas CHOSE to sing and rejoice instead of posting: I’m having a bad day. My stocks are too tight and my wrists are bleeding, my back is raw and bloody and there are cockroaches and flies everywhere. Poor me I’m having a bad day!!!

Rejoice you have power to choose what kind of day you have, and as a Christian you have a responsability to ChooseJoy!!!—someones watching to see if you’ll crash and burn or if you’ll rise and rejoice and shine!!!
REJOICE!!!!!!!

And people wonder why others leave the church or call other church members “fake”… Quote is from a member of my home church, folks! Also was copied and pasted directly–I didn’t mess with the grammar or spelling at all. But I guess you don’t need good grammar or spelling to get into HEAVEN, no?

Humanists Decry Court Ruling ‘Under God’ Acceptable Government Speech

the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that the governmental use of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

Christians say the Darndest things…and then some.


Intro:

Andrea had a great idea.   It's easy pick out the stupid.  But she also recommended that I give a shout out to the level headed.  I agreed.  So let's hop to it.  Here's a couple laughable tidbits and an honorable one.

The morons:

James Hale says (link):

But why has man held to a seven day week? The only reason is the creation story.  It points to the story in the Bible.  But does Man listen? [emphasis mine]

Only...

Shotgun says (link):

I (as a Christian apologist) will not let you, or Richard Carrier, get away with alluding to other people without first proving that other people exist.

Yes, proving Richard Carrier exists is impossible.   But assuming God exists...priceless....


The sensible:

Freddy Davis says (link):

All I meant was that most people who want to pick a fight with Christians are not going to come to this site if they are not prepared to deal with people who are going to give them good answers. Your answers are not "wrong" based on a Christian worldview, but you are not dealing with someone who accepts a Christian worldview. My only point is that there are other ways to give an answer which makes sense to someone who is attacking from a different worldview perspective.

So wait...regurgitating endless bible verses isn't the surefire way to convince atheists?  No wai...

Outro:

Fun?  Goood....

Ben

Christians say the Darnedest things…and then some.


Intro:

Andrea had a great idea.   It's easy pick out the stupid.  But she also recommended that I give a shout out to the level headed.  I agreed.  So let's hop to it.  Here's a couple laughable tidbits and an honorable one.

The morons:

James Hale says (link):

But why has man held to a seven day week? The only reason is the creation story.  It points to the story in the Bible.  But does Man listen? [emphasis mine]

Only...

Shotgun says (link):

I (as a Christian apologist) will not let you, or Richard Carrier, get away with alluding to other people without first proving that other people exist.

Yes, proving Richard Carrier exists is impossible.   But assuming God exists...priceless....


The sensible:

Freddy Davis says (link):

All I meant was that most people who want to pick a fight with Christians are not going to come to this site if they are not prepared to deal with people who are going to give them good answers. Your answers are not "wrong" based on a Christian worldview, but you are not dealing with someone who accepts a Christian worldview. My only point is that there are other ways to give an answer which makes sense to someone who is attacking from a different worldview perspective.

So wait...regurgitating endless bible verses isn't the surefire way to convince atheists?  No wai...

Outro:

Fun?  Goood....

Ben

A Consistent Schedule for Spring!

Alright, so, I'm feeling very optimistic today.  It took my basically the entire day to clean the living room and the front bedroom yesterday, but I did it.  I think that's why I ended up oversleeping on my naps.  When Boyfriend returned home from class in the evening, he seemed quite pleased--although, he returned a little earlier than I expected, so that threw a bit of a monkey wrench into the surprise.

So, on the itinerary for today:

  • Change graduation date.
  • Continue Outline for SciFi Novel
  • and make website
  • Nap 10:00-10:30 AM
  • Take out more recycling
  • Wash dishes
  • Begin cleaning back bedroom
    • perhaps finish?

    What Would Yoda Do?

    Some time ago I wrote an article for this blog discussing my take on the issue of who, “really”, is a Christian.  This comes up when you are told, as we all have been at one time or another, that you never really were a Christian in the first place – because if you de-convert, it somehow proves the alleged falseness or insincerity of your prior belief. 

    My basic argument was that there is no answer to the question.  The reason is that “Christian” is an arbitrary human group designation that is used with different (implicit) definitions by different groups.  Since none of those groups has accepted authority to establish a (or the) correct definition, and since “Christian” does not (as we used to believe) refer to anything divine or supernatural, it follows that there can be no final, ultimate, “correct” definition.  There is no right answer to whether “I was a Christian” is true or not, independent of context and a pre-chosen definition.

    I still think my answer is substantially correct.  But its not exactly punchy.  It takes a bit of explaining, and that won’t always do in the heat of an argument.  When faced with confrontation and criticism from friends, former friends, and others who challenge us, it helps to have an answer at the ready that doesn’t depend on delving into philosophical issues of “natural kinds” vs “nominal kinds”.  I wanted something more memorable – compact & colorful, more visual and less abstract.

    So after continuing to chew on this, I think I’ve come up with one.  So, let me share it here and you all can tell me what you think.

    Here’s the setting: you are telling a friend, coworker, or stranger on the web that you used to be a Christian, but you deconverted.  She scoffingly replies that that means you never were one in the first place; true Christians remain faithful and never leave.  (Or, as a variant, as was said to me once, that you cannot lose your salvation, so you are still a Christian whether you think you are or not.)

    I think I will call this Kenobi’s Fallacy.   Here goes:

    Imagine that you once believed yourself to be a Jedi.  I mean, seriously.  You really, truly, honestly, in your heart of hearts believed in the Force, and that you, as a Jedi, were studying to master it.  You dedicated many years of your life to this with the singular passion of a Sith. Then, gradually, after many years of often painful reflection and study, you came to lose your belief.  You came to realize that there really was no Force, and there never had been.  You used to feel so sure – you once believed you felt it, flowing through you, controlling your actions but also obeying your commands – but now, you realize you were mistaken.

    It was a very wrenching process for you.  You dedicated your life to this craft, and now, sadly, you see that Han was right: there really is no substitute for a good blaster at your side.

    Now, though, your former Master comes to you, and says:  You never really were a Jedi in the first place.

    I feel I hardly need to explain any more.  Do you see the silliness in having a debate with this person about whether you “really” were a Jedi?  Now that you have de-converted, you can see that the word “Jedi” doesn’t refer to anything except this:  people who believe themselves to be masters of the Force.  It has no supernatural, extradimensional, mystical (or whatever) aspects to it at all. 

    Of course, your former master believes it does refer to something.  He thinks it refers to “someone who actually is a master of the Force”, just like you used to.  But from where you sit now, it cannot mean that – or, rather, it could, but if so then no one is a Jedi, because there is no such thing as the Force.  And since it would seem weird, and needlessly confusing, to claim there were no Jedi when the whole galaxy was full of people running around claiming to be Jedi, it makes much more sense to retain the term but change its referent. 

    But how can you answer this person, who says that you never really were a Jedi – in his sense of the term Jedi… i.e., master of a real, literal Force?  By arguing that yes, you “really” were? No, that’s not true – you don’t believe that.  There is no Force.  But its also not strictly accurate that you “really” weren’t a Jedi either, in his sense of the term Jedi, because that still implies there is an actual Force to be a master of. And that’s the point: it cannot be answered whether someone has satisfied his definition of “Jedi” or not, because it assumes a nonexistent entity. His criterion for what qualifies as a Jedi is nonsensical.

    So, back to this galaxy, the analog is clear: when someone uses the word “Christian” to mean something like “one whose soul has been saved by Jesus” , it becomes absurd to argue whether or not you ever “really” met that criteria. The only criteria that can really mean anything has to do with mundane and arbitrary group membership, membership that is not based on anything external, in any precise way.  “Christian” can only mean something like “one who considers herslef to be a follower of Jesus.”  “Christian”, thus, is actually more like “soccer fan.” There’s no real right answer as to whether someone is or not.

    What I think I like about this analogy – if it holds – is that, in actual use (and I haven’t beta tested it), I don’t think you would need to explain as much as I did here.  Just replying to your critic, “That’s kind of like if, say, you used to think you were a Jedi, but now you don’t, and then I came to you and said ‘you never really were a Jedi’”, and let the implications slowly sink in, would probably be enough.

    And if you like, you could reshape this analogy into anything you like: you used to think you were a wizard.  Or a dragonrider.  Or a unicorn-tamer.  Or a Romulan spy.

    So ,what do you think of my analogy, my fellow Padawans?  Useful it is, hmm?


    Filed under: 809334

    Pareidolia – or prank?

    FRESH from his appearance on the inside of a Marmite jar, Jesus Christ’s latest cunning stunt was to appear as burnt bacon residue on a frying pan.

    Toby Elles and his Jesus Crust pan

    Yes folks, yet another example of pareidolia – except that in this case the image appears to have been deliberately created by 22-year-old Toby Elles, a bank worker from Salford in Lancashire.

    Certainly, even Daily Mail readers aren’t buying Elles’ story that the messiah “miraculously” appeared when he fell asleep after tossing some bacon rashers in the pan – and tossing back some beers.

    The tosser claims he woke up in a smoke filled lounge, and on checking the pan saw a face staring back at him.

    What? No smoke detectors?  Stupid boy!

    Said the Halifax bank cashier:

    It’s some kind of miracle. If it wasn’t for the smoke it could have been a very bad situation, perhaps someone’s looking over me.

    • Miracle – or one man’s efforts with a blowtorch on an old frying pan?

    • People shouldn’t poke fun, its clear to me that he obviously has learning difficulties, no wonder why some banks are in trouble :)

    • Definitely not Jesus, no halo. I reckon its Che Guevara or Cat Stevens.

    • I’m sorry, but I dont believe this. I think he’s a liar and decided to get a little creativity with his frying pan.

    Jesus in a Marmite lid

    Marmite Jesus appeared last year in Ystrad, Rhondda, according to the Allen family.

    Exclaimed Gatheth Allen, 37:

    When I first looked at it I wasn’t sure, but when I moved it away from me it started coming out. I thought yeah, she’s right – that’s the image of Jesus.

    Mrs Allen added:

    People might think I’m nuts, but I like to think it’s Jesus looking out for us.

    Hat Tip: BarrieJohn

     

    The Beliefs of the Founding Fathers

    In defending its decision that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional, the majority claims that it is relevant that the founding fathers believed that our inalienable rights were granted by a Creator.

    Ninth Circuit upholds Pledge of Allegiance in public schools

    The Founders did not see these two ideas - that individuals possessed certain God-given rights which no government can take away, and that we do not want our nation to establish a religion - as being in conflict

    Let's grant this, for the sake of argument.

    And let us also ignore the fact that a substantial protion of them did not see a conflict between the claim that individuals possessed certain God-given rights and slavery.

    And let us also ignore the fact that they believed that, literally, all men were created equal while women were created inferior to men.

    There is also no conflict between the belief that God granted us certain inalienable rights and, at the same time, it is wrong for the government to push this notion on its citizens.

    Seriously look at what the majority is telling us in this opinion. They are telling us that, if you believe that our rights come from God, and if you believe that the government should not establish a religion, then you must believe that a patriotic exercise claiming that atheists are not patriotic is not an exercise in establishing a religion.

    They are claiming that there must be a conflict in those two beliefs and the belief that such an exercise is unconstitutional.

    Yet, a great many Americans today - and the majority opinion provides no evidence against the claim that a great many of the founding fathers - hold or held that:

    (1) Our rights come from God.

    (2) Governments should not establish a religion.

    (3) A political exercise in which the Government says and in particular insists on teaching young children that those who do not believe in God are not patriots is a violation of those God-given rights.

    The majority opinion is not only telling us that 1 and 2 are not in conflict.

    They are telling us that (1), (2) and (3) ARE in conflict.

    Because that is what they need to establish to support their claim that this proves the constitutionality of 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance.

    Furthermore, they can very much be in conflict even thought the founding fathers failed to see and appreciate that fact.

    They failed to properly appreciate the fact that their doctrine of God-given rights condemned slavery. They were very keen to blind themselves to that particular contradiction - because it profited them to do so. It also profited the men blind themselves to the fact that there was a conflict between the arguments that established the equality of men and that which established the equality of men and women.

    If you accept that everything the founding fathers believed can be the grounds for a court decision, then you must either believe that the founding fathers held no contradictory or inconsistent beliefs, or that there is no opinion that cannot be argued from the foundation of what the founding fathers believed.

    Because, logic tells us, from a contradiction, all conclusions are possible.

    Which, I suspect, is exactly why some justices like to begin their arguments with a foundation that is inherently contradictory such as the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, because that then allows them to draw their preferred conclusion from whatever side of that contradiction is useful to the at the moment.

    There is absolutely nothing in the fact that many founding fathers believed that our rights came from a creator that implies either the constitutionality or the unconstitutionality of declaring that the government may teach the people, and particularly its children, that those who do not support a nation under God are not patriots.

    Standard talking points…

    The people over at ABC’s religion website have a blog running to cover the Atheist Convention called Questions of Faith. If I’m too scary, bigoted and angry for your tastes, you can head over there and talk shop with the nice people.

    There was a post by one Chris Mulherin that got up my nose somewhat, over here. Here’s something I posted in the comments thread (albeit corrected for a couple of mistakes I’m slapping myself for at the moment).

    Chris, before you start throwing the ‘New Atheism’ term around, you may just wish to know that the term first gained prominence in 1986 (hardly new), and was like now, used to smear atheists who spoke out of turn, alleging intolerance (where none was demonstrated), declaring dubious, totalitarian motives and so on. The author of the book first publicising the term, ‘The New Atheism’, Robert A. Morey, went on to brag about his advice to the Bush administration that they should nuke Mecca and Medina – and he was serious.

    The contemporary usage of the term doesn’t seem to vary much in recent times either, as Tina Beattie’s ‘The New Atheists’ (2007) demonstrates – Just read the claim she makes about Daniel Dennett trying to keep the religious out of discussion of religion – by way of misquoting the opening chapters of his book ‘Breaking The Spell’. (Ostentatious in that properly quoted, she’d be forced to admit the contrary – that Dennett is engaging and encouraging religious people to participate in an exploration of religion as a natural phenomena). At least she isn’t asking anyone to nuke people, which I guess is something.

    Madeleine Bunting used the term in a controversial article in The Guardian, where she used Sam Harris as an example of a ‘New Atheist’, misquoting his ethical speculations on torture and ethnic profiling to make it look like he supported torture and ethnic profiling. This rubbish is par for the course with critics of the so-called ‘New Atheism’.

    And Chris, Dawkins is skeptical of the term ‘New Atheist’ himself, calling it ’so-called’ on several occasions. He did not, as you wrongly claim, use it to deliberately do anything – it’s not his device at all.

    Here’s a hint for your stay at the convention – people at the convention will probably tend not to like being called a ‘New Atheist’, except perhaps ironically, subversively or tongue-in-cheek by in-group members. Think of it as kind of like another ‘N’ word that you probably wouldn’t want to yell out in Harlem, except not quite so extreme.

    Furthermore, in future could you please give us some meaningful examples of where ‘…proponents of the new atheism often seem to turn to ridicule and belittling of those who they disagree with rather than respecting them’? And no, I don’t mean ridiculing ideas – a reductio ad absurdum does that necessarily, and we wouldn’t equate that with a lack of respect.

    (And I don’t mean friendly jabs either.)

    The atheist as angry, disrespectful and intolerant is a stereotype, so you’re going to have to be more specific and give specific examples if you want to come across as trustworthy, much less avoid propagating animus.

    And for pity’s sake, when you talk about being throw to the lions when you’ve been invited by a bunch of friendly people, it makes you look like the kind of person who feels guilty for crossing the street to avoid someone who’s black – something that can be avoided by throwing out prejudicial assumptions and not crossing the street in the first place.

    I’d wish you luck at the convention if I were a wish-thinker, so I’ll just hope you take some of this on-board instead.

    (Me, Over Here, 2010)

    Apparently Chris thinks that ‘New Atheism’ is a term that Richard Dawkins uses to activate and polarise the troops. Yeah, I know. Next “White Trash” will be a phrase that poor, white folk use to agitate themselves into class warfare against the fair and proper middle and upper class. Go figure.

    There are other goodies I didn’t address. There’s the whole shifting the burden of proof, atheists being believers in the same sense as believers, atheist fundamentalism and other talking points that have been put to rest long ago. 1980s apologetics tropes that were the playthings of people on alt.atheism in the 1990s. You get the idea.

    At least he didn’t call Dawkins a social Darwinist.

    They’re getting less comments on their blog than I am, which is saying something, so why don’t you go and participate. Apparently Margaret is complaining about a lot of derision at the convention – no quotes of course – so continue to play nice (as I know you already do).

    ~ Bruce


    How Should We React to Their Prayers?

    President Obama’s 2011 budget calls for a big change of course for NASA.

    As one reader, Ben, puts it:

    The new proposal has the potential to put a lot of people out of work, depending on how the budget is implemented. This would affect not just NASA employees but people working in the service and other industries around NASA if our NASA center [in Houston] down-sizes.

    One local church has chosen to deal with this situation… by praying about it.

    Clear Lake Presbyterian Church, near the Johnson Space Center in Houston, is collecting 500 prayer requests.

    (Because if they only get 499, God won’t listen…?)

    Here’s the kicker — Pastor Steve Oglesbee said this about the prayer requests:

    “We wanted to do something to help the community.”

    Prayer was an obvious choice, and gathering specific prayer requests requires congregants to reach out in a practical way.

    “We want to connect with what people’s real and specific needs are,” he said. “We want to know what people are really worried about.”

    Of course, the prayers aren’t going to get any jobs back.

    And no one is listening to the prayers.

    But it’s a nice gesture, right?

    Or does it just make you mad when you hear that’s the recourse people are taking? (Got a problem? Let’s pray about it.)

    If that didn’t do it for you, what about this?

    Christian blogger/author Jon Acuff is organizing a 24-hour prayer marathon this weekend.

    He has a list of people who will be praying each hour. (Because if you only have 3 people praying between the hours of 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., God just says, “Screw that” and goes to sleep?)

    Again, their intentions are wonderful; they want to help people dealing with all sorts of tough situations. That’s commendable.

    But their solution is to pray.

    I can’t decide whether to just let it go because that’s their coping mechanism.

    Or to laugh.

    Or to *facepalm*.

    Or to tilt my head a bit to the side with a confused look on my face as if I’m looking at an exotic animal.

    For what it’s worth, I am aware of studies that show people do indeed get better if they know people are praying for them — but it’s for the same reason that you get better if you know your loved ones are thinking about you. You feel cared for and that changes you.

    But the people doing the praying aren’t thinking that. We know that. They think a god is going to act on their prayers. That’s just silly.

    Despite my thinking that this is all just an attempt to make those who are praying feel like they’re actually making a difference (when they’re not), I have no desire to make them stop doing it.

    I don’t want to go on their websites and let them know that god isn’t listening. If I met the people praying, I wouldn’t waste my time telling them it’s all useless. They sounds like good people who (mistakenly) think they’re helping.

    What are you thinking when you hear about others’ prayer attempts?

    Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

    Kampf der Kulturen

    Der Spiegel – “Deutschland sucht den Superstar” und “Unser Star für Oslo” sind die aktuell populärsten Castingshows. Es geht um Musik, aber mehr noch um zwei Milieus, die gegeneinander antreten. Lena ist außerdem Favoritin der Castingshow “Unser Star für Oslo” (“USFO”), mit der ProSieben und das Erste zurzeit nach Gesangsnachwuchs für den Schlager-Grand-Prix suchen. In der anderen [...]

    Episode XXXVIII: Distracted in Oz

    I am remiss in my duties. The last episode of the endless thread has expanded to excessive size while I was off frolicking in the antipodes. In my defense, I have been distracted by the remarkable habits of Australians: every time my hands were empty, they would put a beer in it. I once made the mistake of having both hands briefly unoccupied, and received two beers for my trouble.

    The Pharyngufest with Chloe here in Melbourne has been captured on video, right here. Unfortunately, I don't remember my performance at all—infinite beers, remember.

    Read the comments on this post...

    Friday Cephalopod: Behold the shadow of your doooooom!

    enteroctopus_dofleini.jpeg
    Enteroctopus dofleini

    Figure from Cephalopods: A World Guide (amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), by Mark Norman.

    Read the comments on this post...

    Praying for Control

    by VorJack

    During my “dues paying” years, I worked a job as a security guard stuck in a little guard shack. In order to avoid the feeling like I was in a sensory deprivation tank, I always kept the radio on to whatever station wasn’t playing country music. That meant that I occasionally listened to the local Christian station.

    Praying to Change the World

    Pullquote: Does an omniscient God need to be told that there’s a problem?

    One thing I noticed was the constant call to prayer: pray for God to support the President, pray for God to oppose Congress, pray to protect the kids in public school who can’t pray for themselves, pray for the continued prosperity of Wal-Mart (seriously). Growing up Episcopalian, prayer was either a group ritual or a private meditation. This was something different: prayer as spellcasting.

    I can’t think of another way to describe it. It doesn’t seem to make sense, even from within the conservative Evangelical theology. Does an omniscient God need to be told that there’s a problem? If God has a will of His own, do you really think you can brow-beat Him into action? If God has a plan for us all, do you really think you can get Him to change his mind?

    Didn’t Matthew have Jesus say: “… in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” (Matt. 6:7-8)

    Random Reality

    Pullquote: Bad things happen to good people, and also to careful people.

    Last week, Daniel posted an example of victim blaming. It’s the classic “she’s asking for it” response to someone who dresses differently than you. I think victim blaming is a pretty good example of a certain kind of psychological trick that’s oddly related to this type of prayer.

    As a number of people have pointed out over the years, “she was asking for it” is often an unconscious way of saying, “that can’t happen to me.” I wouldn’t go walking in that neighborhood, I wouldn’t wear that outfit, I’d never go out at night alone. Blaming the victim is a way of placing the cause of the harm on the victim shoulders, which implies that the victim could have avoided their fate. By extension, the speaker can avoid suffering that same fate with just a little common sense.

    So the victim blaming is actually a psychological trick unconsciously used be the speaker to avoid facing one of the central facts of human existence: shit happens. Yes, you can take certain precautions that lower the probability that you might suffer calamity. But sometimes those precautions are not possible, and sometimes the dice are against you no matter how much you’ve done to improve your odds. Bad things happen to good people, and also to careful people.

    Taking Control

    Pullquote: Medieval Catholics prayed in order to feel that they had some control over death. Modern Christians pray in order to feel that they have some control over life.

    I think its the randomness that really bothers us. The thought that all that separates us from a long stay in the hospital are the random firings of neurons in a drunk driver’s brain can be horrifying. Accompanying that is the horror of powerlessness: if that drunk swerves into us, there’s nothing we can do. Psychologists have shown that we always feel better we believe we have some control.

    The above sort of prayer is another way to deal with that feeling of horror. It’s a trick that helps us feel like we’re doing something and that somehow we’re in control. Whenever we’re in a situation where we are powerless – when a friend is in the hospital, when bad things are happenings in far-off Washington, when the huge national economy is out of control, or just when we’re facing all the randomness that’s part of human life – at least we can pray and feel like we’re taking some control over the situation.

    This kind of prayer still seems silly to me. Since I grew up in a liturgical church, it probably always will. But at least I think I can understand it now. Prayer of this type lets you do something, when there’s nothing really that you can do.

    One thing puzzles me though. This isn’t a million miles away from the medieval Christian habit of praying for the dead to reduce the time spent in purgatory. Medieval Catholics prayed in order to feel that they had some control over death. Modern Christians pray in order to feel that they have some control over life. Do we now find life more horrifying than death?