When sticking to talking points is good

   I've been away from the blog machine for some time, but I had to make some comments on this video below.



   Sometimes I am really annoyed when people stick to their talking points and don't actually answer the interview questions — though, the interviewer wasn't really asking a lot of questions but was instead making statements looking for a response. As Ed Brayton describes it, she was "using the 'some people say (insert something idiotic and crazy)' technique."

   The first incident was when she said, "Some Christians might argue that, because such groups are in high schools, you're sort of indoctrinating young people in a time when it is not proper because they are not old enough to really handle questions like that." Jesse actually had a good response pointing out that, first, they're not actively recruiting students; those who want to join come to them, and, second, there are often Christian groups at these schools, too. I myself would have wanted to be more brutal about that...

   ...I mean, seriously?!? Even if it were true that atheists were out to indoctrinate children, has anyone ever heard of a church that doesn't allow in children because "they are not old enough to really handle questions like that"? If there are any, I'd bet there are damn few. And I really hate that sort of hypocrisy. I had a Christian acquaintance from a few years back that accused me of wanting to convert people to my worldview...or some shit like that. Of course, she made it out to be a bad thing that I should feel ashamed about. Yet, did she share these same concerns about Christian missionaries? Probably not (though I would have expected her to lie and claim otherwise if I would have cornered her on this).

   All this is about is Christians being upset that they are getting some competition. And they are losing ground to that competition rather quickly.

   It should also be expected that when Christians are essentially called out on their hypocrisy and they don't deny this, they then have to try to find some justification for why it is OK for churches to indoctrinate children. This reporter does just that in her second try when she says, "They say that's dangerous because most religions...help people in their life; it's not a bad thing." Again, Jesse actually responds quite well. He directly avoids addressing the reporter's comments about religion being a good thing and instead focuses on the positives of secular groups.

   The truth, though, is that religion, overall, is a bad thing. Sure, it has it's positives. And that is, of course, what defenders of religion like to focus on. But it has lots of negatives. On that, the defenders of religion try to blame it on bad people misrepresenting religion. I fucking hate that bullshit, too.

   Still, way to go, Jesse, for not taking the bait!

Penn Jillette when his is right.

   I wrote an earlier post where I was not pleased with a quote attributed to Penn Jillette. Now I have to turn the tables and post something from Penn that I find to be really great. Below is the video message he presented to the Reason Rally back in March. I'll highlight some of the great parts below.

It's about time we grabbed the moral high-ground. Many people who are religious—they are sometimes doing their good deeds: their charity, their kindness. Sometimes comes from reward and punishment—going toward reward and away from punishment. I can make the argument—and I have—that the only ones with true morality are us, the atheists. We are doing good because it is good and we are doing right because it is right and not for reward or punishment.

(snip)

We are the people who believe in this life. We are the people who believe in morality. If you are doing something for reward or punishment, you do not have morality. Morality must come from inside you—from your mind and from your heart. You can't say "Don't hit your sister and I'll give you an ice cream sandwhich;" "You must not hit your sister because it's wrong to hit your sister."

   My only thought is this is a bit contradictory to that quote from that earlier post. That quote implied getting "moral credit" and "great joy" from helping people. But aren't these rewards, especially the moral credit? The great joy is something internal, but could I not call that a self-reward? It would seem that either Penn did not say that quote or he is holding contradictory ideas. From my writings, it should be clear that the Penn in the video above is the Penn I agree with.

---

UPDATE: I found the source of the quote from my earlier post. It appears to be a response to his interview with Piers Morgan back around August of last year, which is actually the interview from which I based some of my thoughts of Penn in that post, particularly with how he used anecdotal evidence during that interview. (I actually posted the first part of that interview on this blog. The video I embedded is apparently no longer available, but the links to other videos still work.)

I wonder if they'd accept my design?

   So, the State of Iowa is allowing license plates with a pro-life message. I'm not sure it's best for the government to allow a politically charged issue to be on the plates, but then that would mean the government should either not allow any activism/specialty plates or they would have to declare what is and is not a politically charged issue. I would also be against the later. This means the state should either allow all or none. (For those who don't live in Iowa, we have many types of activism/specialty plates, including one for bicyclists.)

   I see that Iowa also has a "God Bless America" plate, too. I think it's time to turn things around in the correct direction. But I wonder how they'd react to this idea:

Doing My Part for the Godless Future - Money

This post is in part a response to Hank Fox's Doing My Part for the Godless Future.

   One thing I have decided to start doing is crossing out "IN GOD WE TRUST" on paper money. In the past, I thought the idea was a bit childish. It not only seemed silly to do so, but I feared other people might feel the same way, turning people against atheists. Particularly, my immediate family are the people I tended to think about. They are not very religious, yet they don't seem to be fond—for whatever reason—of atheist activists. I figure marking money will further that divide between me and my family. But then I will see dumb comments like this:

If you feel so strong about being an atheist,you should not use money,after all it does say in God we trust on it

Such comments demonstrate why having "IN GOD WE TRUST" is a problem. It is a problem I wish to help fix.

   Stories about atheists in religious communities thinking they are alone have also encouraged me. Perhaps there are atheists out there that will feel some relief from knowing other atheists exist if they get a hold on one of my "marked bills." As for my family...screw them! They'll probably never be my allies, but they'll probably never be an enemy, either. Much the same goes for other people who are sitting more in the middle...people who I might call "accommodationists." If an atheist crossing out "IN GOD WE TRUST" frustrates you more than all the horrible things religious people do, then fuck you! I would rather mark money if it helps motivate atheists than to not in order to pander to people with such horrible moral priorities.

---

UPDATE (08-May-2012): I saw something disturbing on PZ Myers' blog this weekend. Emanuel Cleaver, a U.S. representative from the state of Missouri, said the following recently in an interview:

Actually, I don’t believe that there is such thing as an atheist because no respectable atheist would walk around with something in his pocket that said ‘In God We Trust.’

   Well, I have no paper money that says such a thing (I have not attempted to remove it from coins...that would just be too much work). Suck it, Cleaver! Oh...and thanks for demonstrating my point.

Oh, gotta love those FOX News fallacies!

   Or not. Someone named Larry Alex Taunton put together a doozie of an opinion piece on the Reason Rally. Let's break the worst of it down!

But there is something not quite right about all of this. Christianity, whatever the faults of its adherents, has a rich intellectual tradition that has a comprehensive view of life.

Reason Rally Ahead!!!

   Soooooo busy lately with warm weather (product of global warming? probably at least in part) bringing about an early gardening season and preparation for the Reason Rally! As a result, I have not had a lot of time to blog, though I have much to blog about!

   Speaking of the Reason Rally, if you found this blog site via the QR code on my T-shirt, welcome fellow freethinker! Here on The Midwest Atheist, I blog quite a bit about general religious topics. I try to comment on the latest political news when I have the time and I also have goals to blog on feminist issues, though I have not gotten around to those much. Additionally, I have been posting my responses to the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist."

   I hope you will consider subscribing to my blog and I will try to pick up on posting come April. In the meantime, I am posting the 7 finalist videos from the Ten Point Vision challenge. The videos are below the fold.

It's Tim motherfucking Minchin!!!

   In my last post, I complained about misogynist atheists discouraging me from going to the Reason Rally. Well, I had decided to go anyway, but then I saw this: "Tim Minchin Will Perform at the Reason Rally!" Does one require any other reason to go?

   If you've never heard of Minchin before, below is some of his work, including "Pope Song" which should give you an idea why I didn't censor this post title!

Mother f&%$ing atheists!!!

   There are a lot of misogynists in the atheists community. They are so awful I had second thoughts about going to the Reason Rally in March (ad is on the right side of this blog).

   The first big incident in the past year occurred in June. The incident was dubbed "elevatorgate," though some people have been calling it "the incident that shall not be named" as of late. It was something that I didn't feel like talking about on this blog, not because it wasn't important to discuss, but because so many atheist blogs had covered it that I felt smothered by the topic as it was. In fact, I am still not going to really talk about it myself. I will instead quote bloggers who have.

Labeling - Why is it such a big deal?

   Recently, the Seattle Atheists have launched an ad campaign promoting the idea that 1 in 4 Washingtonians is an atheist. The group has received some slack over the claim, but they have defended their numbers by pointing out the main consideration when counting atheists: many atheists do not self-identify as atheists. (I personally know at least five people who are atheists who do not self-identify, two of whom have even explicitly rejected the term as being an appropriate label.) The one area where I do have issue is they themselves say that only 1 in 5 statewide is an atheist; the 1 in 4 concept is for the Seattle area only, which is where the ads appear. So...slightly misleading.

   But it's not the slightly misleading statement that I am here to write about. My complaint is with the response to this from Ask an Atheist, a Seattle-area radio show. The following is part of their response to the ad campaign:

Labeling people as atheists when they intentionally avoid the phrase is a misstep. While the wider discussion we have on atheism here on the show would include many of these people, we believe people reserve the right to label themselves.

I find this statement a bit frustrating in part given the fact that the hosts of this show, even in the same episode in which they presented this statement, recognize that there is a social stigma around declaring non-belief in a deity. This is frustrating because I recognize, as I suspect the hosts of the show do as well, that these stigmas will not go away unless more people who are atheists are open about it.

   The other part that I find frustrating is the idea of considering "atheist" to be nothing more than a label in the sense of branding someone as part of a group. This is the type of labeling one will see when stereotyping, which is what I think is the real problem here. People don't want to be part of group A because then people will incorrectly attribute characteristics X, Y, and Z to them. So this frustrates me for two main reasons: (1) By refusing to be labeled, people are avoiding having to address the real problem of stereotyping. It should go without saying that a problem typically does not go away when avoided. (2) Labeling should be seen as descriptive—without the stereotypes. In fact, the Free Dictionary defines it as "a descriptive term; an epithet." If someone lacks a belief in gods, then I'm going to label them an atheist because that is what they are. I'm not going to be afraid, to borrow a phrase Sam Harris commonly uses, to call a spade a spade! I am a white heterosexual male atheist, as well as a number of other things. Is that labeling myself or just stating the facts? Or both? Would anyone believe me if I said I'm a black homosexual female Christian?

   Once upon a time—actually, it is still present today, but is fading away—it wasn't cool to be gay, and I don't mean "happy." Things that are lame or even abnormal were considered to be gay. According to Urban Dictionary:

[O]ften used to describe something stupid or unfortunate. originating from homophobia. [Q]uite preferable among many teenage males in order to buff up their "masculinity." "Man, these seats are gay. I can't even see what's going on!"

But thanks to homosexuals "coming out of the closet," people know more homosexuals and are realizing they aren't really any different than most heterosexuals. Hopefully the profane use of the word "gay" will soon fall out of use. Either way, that is how you combat a stereotype—you face it head on! That means taking on labels and being true to yourself.

   This is something the atheist movement is trying to do. People who are not believes in deities are being encouraged to come out of the atheist closet. Now, I understand that some people cannot be open about their lack of belief. I know one such atheist who is a Muslim apostate. The punishment for that can be death. While I know this person to be an atheist, I am not going about announcing this fact to other people. But for people who have nothing to worry about? Yeah, I'm going to label them.

   The one objection I can see with labeling people as atheists is not being able to confidently know that they are indeed atheists, as it is impossible to read minds. It's not as easy as, say, labeling a person like me as white; my skin color clearly gives that one away. It's not even as easy as identifying gender. (As one who is married to an intersex individual, I recognize that gender isn't..."black and white.")

   Now I certainly give kudos to the Ask an Atheist crew because they are there to help combat the stereotypes. But then again, they have accepted the label. Where we differ, I think, is that they are trying to present a more welcoming environment in which theists can even feel welcome. I am more of what are called the "firebrand" atheists. I'll give people a metaphorical kick in the ass if I think they need one.

I share the DREAM!

YouTube user GrapplingIgnorance has a dream. I share in his dream. (Text below.)

Note: The reason for the grim reaper getup, as I understand, is that this man is a teacher in the South, so he's hiding his face to reduce the chance that he can be identified as that would put his career at risk.

Disgruntled students of history throughout the ages have heard the same replies from their teachers when asking what relevancy studies of the past have on the present. "Those who do not learn their past are doomed to repeat it." If this phrase is true, it seems humanity has not yet had a single generation that truly knew its history. It seems that despite the rapidity with which our technology has advanced over the last several centuries, our civility has advanced on the opposite end of the alacrity spectrum. We carry in our pockets today devices capable of untenable magic by the standards of just decades ago. Conversely, as a human species, we remain doomed to repeat the bloodiest and most vitriolic of our traditions, such as groundless discrimination, unjustified ostracization, and bloody warfare. George Washington wouldn't have a clue what an iPhone is, but if he saw a bullet fly through a soldier today, he'd certainly be able to relate. I guess some things never change- but I have a dream.
I have a dream that though civil progress has been slow to this point, one day we as a human species will turn to the pages of our history books, and learn as much from their lessons as our scientists have from the science books penned by those who preceded them.
I have a dream our children will look back on the pages of our time in their own history books and look at us with genuine curiosity, wondering how we got so much so wrong- how we repeated so many of the same mistakes from the chapters that proceeded ours. How American soldiers could fight to save the Jewish people from oppression and ruthless prejudice during World War II in a time when their country was aching for equality itself.
I have a dream that one day people like Martin Luther King Junior will cast aside the very bible that condones the enslavement of his people, rather than praising its perfection while preaching against its message.
I have a dream that one day adults who believe religious fairy tales will be revered by the general public in the same way as those who believe in any other kind of fairy tales. With that I dream of the day when politicians hoping to win the popular vote on a flagship of religious faith rather than matters of policy will garner the same kind of reaction I would receive today if running under the platform that I have a close personal relationship with Goldilocks, and she has a plan for us.
I have a dream that one day people across the planet will be mature enough to realize that matters of language, proximity, and resource availability divide us enough naturally, that we don't need human-manufactured forces such as religion to contribute to that division without providing a single thing that a secular force couldn't provide with equal or greater efficacy.
I have a dream that one day all men, women, boys, and girls can express a mere disbelief in superstition without receiving mockery or cruelty from the general populous because of it. On that day I dream too that the superstitious, religious, and other wielders of illogical beliefs will receive more honest questions than ruthless mockery.
I have a dream that one day the money in my pockets will not make a painfully vague and demonstrable false declaration of belief on behalf of an entire nation that circulates it.
My dreams show the day that 10 arbitrary rules, only a few of which are congruent with actual laws, are NOT prominently displayed in a court of law. On that day if I am witnessed in that same court, I will not be required to swear on a holy book to pledge my oath of honesty. History has surely shown that swearing on that book has never served as an inhibitor of lies before, and in the future of my dreams, we will have acknowledged that.
I have a dream that hearing these hopes of mine will raise the same confused looks that Doctor King's speech would have evoked, had it been read in the year 2010 someday. Then my friends, on the day that my lofty dreams are common place events, the real progress can begin.

All the cool kids are on FreeThoughtBlogs!

OK, maybe not all the cool kids...yet! Friendly Athiest, JT Eberhard, and Daylight Atheism haven't gone anywhere, but a number of other blogs (Pharyngula, Greta, Blag Hag) have moved to Freethought Blogs. Check 'em out!

For anyone in the Fargo area on Sept 24...

I won't be there, but the Red River Freethinkers are putting on a convention called Project 42 on September 24. It's only one day, but with PZ Myers and Michael Shermer as speakers, it should be worth it.

David Silverman pisses off people on Fox Business

David Silverman rocks! It makes you wonder if Fox Business brought him on looking for a fight. And they got one. Though, many religious people will likely find that Silverman was "annoying," or "obnoxious," or "mocking," he did speak a lot of truth. When he denies a "spiritual life," he is criticized for expressing his "opinion." Well, frankly, there isn't adequate evidence for such a "spiritual life," so the correct thing to do is not believe in it until there is evidence. And I was glad to hear Silverman use the common analogy of drug use to address the "comfort" of religion.



***EDIT: Did I mention I got to eat dinner with Silverman in Des Moines?***

Atheists dismissing Rick Perry/Christianity

About a week ago, Rick Perry had a discussion with a boy evolution and the age of the earth. A couple of atheists have chipped in on posts in The Washington Post.

Richard Dawkins first addressed Rick Perry and the Republican party.

There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

Of course, he also had things to say about evolution:

Darwin’s idea is arguably the most powerful ever to occur to a human mind. The power of a scientific theory may be measured as a ratio: the number of facts that it explains divided by the number of assumptions it needs to postulate in order to do the explaining. A theory that assumes most of what it is trying to explain is a bad theory. That is why the creationist or ‘intelligent design’ theory is such a rotten theory.
...
...
The simplicity of Darwin’s idea, then, is a virtue for three reasons. First, and most important, it is the signature of its immense power as a theory, when compared with the mass of disparate facts that it explains - everything about life including our own existence. Second, it makes it easy for children to understand (in addition to the obvious virtue of being true!), which means that it could be taught in the early years of school. And finally, it makes it extremely beautiful, one of the most beautiful ideas anyone ever had as well as arguably the most powerful. To die in ignorance of its elegance, and power to explain our own existence, is a tragic loss, comparable to dying without ever having experienced great music, great literature, or a beautiful sunset.

Paula Kirby also addressed the issue. She strayed away from Rick Perry and focused more on evolution and it's impact to Christianity.

Evolution is a simple fact. We can choose to remain ignorant of it, we can stick our fingers in our ears and refuse to think about it, we can even rail against it and shout and scream that it is not allowed to be true. But facts are facts, and will not go away just because we don't like them. We don't get to vote for our preferred method of having come into existence as a species, any more than we can choose to have been delivered by stork rather than conceived and born in the usual way.

The primary role of the school is pretty straightforward: it is to educate. It is to give young people the opportunity to learn as much as possible about the world, on the basis of the very best knowledge we have. Education is about overcoming ignorance - so the idea of allowing ignorance to set the school curriculum and to perpetuate itself by continuing to teach generation after generation information that for the last 150 years we have known to be false, is a shameful betrayal: a betrayal of young people, who put their trust in us and who deserve better; and a betrayal of the very concept of education itself.
...
...
...Evolution means that the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis are wrong. That's not how humans came into being, nor the cattle, nor the creeping things, nor the beasts of the earth, nor the fowl of the air. Evolution could not have produced a single mother and father of all future humans, so there was no Adam and no Eve. No Adam and Eve: no fall. No fall: no need for redemption. No need for redemption: no need for a redeemer. No need for a redeemer: no need for the crucifixion or the resurrection, and no need to believe in that redeemer in order to gain eternal life. And not the slightest reason to believe in eternal life in the first place.

She also point out that, "...Many Christians happily accept evolution: they see Genesis 1 as merely a metaphor, and declare that if God chose to create us using evolution..." So, while evolution doesn't instantly get rid of Christianity, it creates a weakened form. The following is such an example:

...when Christians realize God created the world to be free to grow and change, they do not fear evolution as “rampant secularism” but celebrate it as evidence of the astonishing power of an infinite God.

I'd really like to hear what she has to say about Jesus. I feel I can speculate a few things, though: I suspect that she finds Jesus to still be the "Son of God," but that he was sent to serve as a moral teacher and an example for us humans. I also suspect she does not believe in a torturous hell (I had an encounter on YouTube yesterday where the theist was claiming hell fire is part of a purification process, and that people don't stay in hell forever), though likely still believes in a heaven. I also suspect that she would have been raised in a family or culture that takes a more literal view of the Bible. This is good news for the next generation as long as atheist stay vocal. If she teaches her children that Jesus was just a good moral teacher sent by God, then pressure from atheists can get them to look at those teachings. They will find that those teachings are nothing special. They may still go about believing in a god, but at least they wouldn't be "the end is nigh!" type of Christians. It would be progress.

Piers Morgan is rude to a guest, but it's not Christine O'Donnell!

Oy, I'm a few days behind on this post, but it's something ironic that I want to address...

Christine O'Donnell ended an interview by Piers Morgan when he pressed her on gay rights issues that she did not wish to discuss, calling Morgan "rude" before all was said and done. If she wanted to see Morgan be anything close to rude to a guest, she should have seen him interview Penn Jillette the night before.



Now, some may not actually think Morgan was rude, but it was much closer than anything he did to O'Donnell! The one thing Morgan did provide us with was a prime example of argumentum ad ignorantiam, as he is willing to accept an answer, even a potentially incorrect answer, over no answer at all. Perhaps the most ironic part of all of this, though, is that the non-believer "angers" Morgan, but it is O'Donnell, who I have no doubts has a sincere belief in a god, who is the one who ends the interview on a religious related topic (and don't try to tell me the gay marriage issue isn't tied to religion)! The sad part is that is the problem with belief — when religious people disagree on some "spiritual" topic, there is no rational way to resolve the conflict since, well, their god doesn't exist. And even if it did exist, it would seem to either be incompetent or uncaring about getting such messes cleared up. Yet, it is the non-believer who wants to have a rational discussion that "angers" Morgan.

The full interview can be watched between these clips here and here. (The second part gets more into politics, and that is the one area where I will get on Morgan's side. Damn Libertarian atheists! :) )

SSA Blogathon Highlights

This past Saturday, Jen McCreight at BlagHag has a 24-hour blogathon. I'm covering what I thought were the highlights. (Psst...the headers are links!)

Sarah Palin adds another grandchild to her list of hypocrisy

Apparently, Sarah Palin's eldest son, Track, got married. Also, what I've heard is that the wedding was quick, causing speculation that the bride was pregnant. According to Yahoo! News:

Pictures of the new bride posted on Facebook show that she is rather obviously expecting, while her marriage took place just two months ago.

I think Jen's opinions on the matter are quite fitting:

But you know what I think is the really scary part of this story? That it's more important to have shot gun weddings to save face instead of using a fucking condom. You're going to make a life commitment to someone because you accidentally knocked them up? Really? And these are the same people arguing about sanctity of marriage. The same people who won't let same sex couples who love each other get married.

She has more great comments, so I'll recommend going to her post.

Solve these critical thinking puzzles, win a prize!

Nothing really news worthy here except for some puzzles, and I love puzzles! My answers are as follows:

1. Two - Ken Ham and narwhal.
2. 50 lbs.
3. B.

An intro to the neutral theory of evolution

This is an interesting piece on how species can change without selection processes taking place.

What makes men gay?

Here Jen discusses the latest in the scientific understanding of what makes men homosexual. In short, scientists just don't know. Yet, there are some ideas.

A study in 1996 found that gay men had a greater number of older brothers than heterosexual men. This is known as the "fraternal birth order" (FBO) effect, and has been replicated in many studies. It's independent of potentially confounding variables like year of birth, age, socioeconomic status, and parental age. Non-biological siblings had no effect on sexual orientation.

The main hypothesis for why you see this pattern is known as the maternal immune hypothesis. Just like your body mounts an immune response against bacteria or ill-matched transplants, moms may develop an immune reaction against a male specific protein that's present during development. Those proteins are normal for a male fetus, but a mother's body still recognizes them as foreign. The immune response may then alter parts of the brain associated with male specific proteins like the anterior hypothalamus, which has also been linked to sexual orientation.

"Men should have veto power over abortions; Women should be held criminally liable if they refuse"

Some psychiatrist who is also a Fox News personality (according to Jen) suggests that men should have veto power to prevent women, who are carrying their child, from getting an abortion. He could have made a compelling argument, but he made an fool of himself instead.

We are ignoring the quiet message that current abortion policy conveys to every American male: You have no voice in, and, therefore, no responsibility for, the pregnancies which you help to create. Your descendants are disposable, at the whim of the women you choose to be intimate with.

That's not a bad point, but Jen has a good counter of her own:

Or maybe you should know if a woman is pro-choice or not before you stick your penis in her, and if it's so goddamn important to you, then don't stick your penis in her. A mindblowing proposal, I know.

A bigger point could have been made here that there probably isn't any family planning considerations being made when the couple is having sex. Perhaps we should think of promoting responsible sex practices first.

Giving would-be fathers a lack of veto power over abortions is connected psychologically to the epidemic of absentee fathers in this country...

What?!?

...We can’t, on the one hand, be credible in bemoaning the number of single mothers raising their children, while, on the other hand, giving men the clear message that bringing new lives to the planet is the exclusive domain, and under the exclusive control, of women.

OK, I can agree that you shouldn't send men a message that women have all the control of bringing in new life, but to suggest that not allowing men to have veto power over abortions is connected to the "epidemic of absentee fathers in this country" is quite simply absurd...at least in the direction he appears to imply. If there is any reason men should not be allowed veto power over abortions, it is because of all the absentee fathers. Absentee fathers are not the result of a lack of veto powers or other supposed lack of control over the female reproductive system, which is what this man seems to imply. It is more likely the result of irresponsible males that have no interest in being involved in the reproduction process, with the exception of that first step.

Skepticism & fiction

Some reader asked Jen how she can be OK with Harry Potter and it having an afterlife. The answer was quite simple:

...Because it's fiction? Seriously, it's a fantasy novel that's full of magic, dragons, unicorns, giants, goblins, ghosts, elves, pixies, potions, charms, hexes, teleportation, and soul splitting... and you're worried about the concept of the afterlife? You could suspend disbelief for all of that, but not one vaguely religious concept?

Dude. Come on.

Jen also points out that recognizing fiction for what it is can be helpful when it comes to being told BS stories.

I knew that The Witches, or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, or the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, or Harry Potter, or Greek mythology were all just stories. That's exactly why when I heard about the Bible, I immediately recognized it as just another story. Fiction doesn't erode at skepticism - it can enforce it!

Harry Potter and Skeptical Thinking

Jen discusses Harry Potter further, discussing how their are examples of skeptical thinking in the books.

Think about it. Even though their world is based on magic, they have their own version of supernatural, pseudoscience crap - basically everything that Luna Lovegood and her dad believe in. Most magical people easily accept unicorns and dragons and nifflers, but Crumple Horned Snorkaks? Ridiculous.

And Hermione is a wonderful skeptic. Just look at this quote from the 7th book about the Deathly Hallows:

"But that's - I'm sorry but that's completely ridiculous! How can I possibly prove it doesn't exist? Do you expect me to get hold of - of all the pebbles in the world and test them? I mean you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody proved it doesn't exist!"

Hermione just destroyed all Christian apologetics. ...Too bad the Deathly Hallows actually existed. *cough*

For those who do not follow Harry Potter, that last statement must be in reference to the Resurrection Stone. I think that is what Hermione was speaking of in that quote.

The University of Arizona Med School adds Integrative Medicine

This is a disappointing post on how the University of Arizona is adding an Integrative Medicine degree.

The track will focus on integrative medicine – healing-oriented medicine that takes into account the whole person (mind, body and spirit), including all aspects of lifestyle.

The part where it says "spirit" should throw the red flag that this is not actually medicine, but pseudo-scientific nonsense.

LAN bans women to protect them from misogynists

This was just a post on stupid males who probably lack social skills. In order to prevent tension between misogynistic male gamers and any female gamers during a LAN party, the people running the party (probably all males) banned females from participating, instead of the misogynist males. Likely, it's easier to ban females than it is to figure out who the misogynist males are. They took the easy route to fixing a problem (which only temporarily fixes it, since it does not address the behavior that causes the problem) instead of doing the right thing.

Europeans: How does religion in the US look to you?

This post asked Europeans to chip in on how religion in the US appears to them, so check out the comments. Many looked like this:

Your religion just looks scary and fanatical, and has the kind of influence on society that it never should have!

Why I Do This

In my first post, I discussed my history as an atheist, including the fact that I have been calling and recognizing myself as an atheist for the last three years. But people often wonder why be outspoken about it? Aren't you just being preachy? Isn't that the same as religion?

Well. No.

It's not preachy because I'm not out to tell you what to think. I'm just trying to get you to think. That is also a way in which it is not religion. There is also no leadership in atheism. Yes, there are leaders of some of the organizations, but there is no pressure on anyone to follow those leaders. If those leaders are doing things that are positive, we tend praise them; if they do something negative, we tend to call them out. Much the same goes with the people who write books. If these authors have good ideas, we will promote those ideas; if their ideas are bad, we will let them know. And, by the way, no atheist I know of considers any of these books to be "holy." Atheism is as much a religion as bald is a hair color.

This still doesn't answer why you need to speak out about it.

There are many reasons to be outspoken about atheism. For one, I get upset, even angry, about all the negative impacts religion has on people. That is a very long list, one that I am not going to go into here, but Greta Christina has a post listing many problems, so I suggest checking that out. One of those things to be angry about that I would like to address here is

that the 41st President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush, said of atheists, in my lifetime, "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."

This upsets me.

But what happened to Damon Fowler this past week really upsets me! Damon's school, the Bastrop High School in Louisiana, was planning to have a prayer at the graduation ceremony. School (we're talking public schools, not private) prayer was determined to be illegal by the Supreme Court back in 1962.

[Damon] contacted the school superintendent to let him know that he opposed the prayer, and would be contacting the ACLU if it happened. The school -- at first, anyway -- agreed, and canceled the prayer.

Then Fowler's name, and his role in this incident, was leaked. As a direct result:

1) Fowler has been hounded, pilloried, and ostracized by his community.

2) One of Fowler's teachers has publicly demeaned him.

3) Fowler has been physically threatened. Students have threatened to "jump him" at graduation practice, and he has received multiple threats of bodily harm, and even death threats.

4) Fowler's parents have cut off his financial support, kicked him out of the house, and thrown his belongings onto the front porch.

I have become used to Christians behaving badly when they get defensive about their beliefs, but #4 is just outright unacceptable!

I am upset that this is not an isolated incident.

According to JT Eberhard, high school specialist for the Secular Student Alliance, "In Alabama, Auburn High School is refusing to allow an SSA affiliate. In Cranston, Rhode Island, a public school is facing an ACLU suit for refusing to take down a sectarian prayer [a banner posted in the school gym]. In Texas we had a student who was told he could have a secular club if he called it a philosophy club and didn't affiliate with the SSA.

And I haven't even started on my anger over creationists pushing their non-scientific beliefs into science classes. I am angry as to how far behind the United States is on understanding evolution.





(At least I can take a slight sigh of relief when I see that the polls on evolution have at least not gone down. 16% (or 54% when you count the "guided by God" gap fillers) is still a dismally low number, though.)




But let's forget the science side of things for a moment and return to the Fowler story. Again, the major disappointment is that his parents have disowned him! This is a huge problem. This alone is reason enough for me to be outspoken about atheism. I believe speaking out is a way to help people like him. Now, you may be wondering how does speaking about atheism help a kid who's been disowned by his parents? It helps by raising awareness.

Below is a recent poll on how accepting Americans are on the issue of gay marriage. Note that there has been over a 40 point swing over the last 15 years. This is amazing. How did this happen? Well, some have suggested that the most important factor may be that people now know gay people. Gays used to be demonized (and still are by fringe groups) by people claiming that they are sexual deviants that like to molest children. People could get away with such claims when not many gays were "out of the closet" because, let's admit, people are lazy and aren't very good at fact checking. However, when people get to know gay people, they see that these claims are bullshit based on personal experience. It turns out that gay people are really not all that different from heterosexuals. It turns out that gays pose no threat to heterosexual marriage.



Atheists likewise are demonized. As I mentioned in my first post, there are people who claim you need to believe in a god to be moral. Likewise, people have accused atheists of eating babies. As with the gays, people buy into these ridiculous claims as they do not know atheists and do not see that atheists really are not all that different than everyone else. As I said in that first post, I've been an atheist my entire life. For any family members who may be reading this that have known me for years, I'd like to ask you, "Could you tell I lacked a belief in a god?"
This is part of what frustrates me with the Fowler situation. He was probably a critical thinking atheist for a number of years, though his parents probably did suspect. Not that it matters; the fact that they threw him out of their house for any reason (I cannot stress this enough) is despicable. I know atheists who are older than me who live miles away from their parents that still don't have the courage to come out (of the atheist closet) to their parents. When I see or hear stories like this, it reminds me of how much trouble my own parents have had as accepting me as an atheist. (Which, as I pointed out in my first post, feels odd now that I am aware that my mother may be an atheist herself!) This is wrong. And a way to fix it is for people like me, who have already dealt with their parents and who live in a liberal, open-minded community where I do not need fear being ostracized, to be the ones to be fully open about our lack of belief. There are bound to be family members who read this that had no idea. Many of them probably hold misconceptions about atheists. Some of them may want to disassociate themselves from me and maybe even my immediate family simply over the fact that I am an atheist. That's fine by me. If you are that intolerant and bigoted, I don't want to acknowledge my relationship to you, either. For those family members who do stay around, but are not necessarily "comfortable" with atheists, I have a message for you: The non-believers are here, we are growing in number, and we have no plans to remain silent about unfair treatment.


I'm quite sure this is an atheist poking fun at the notion that we eat babies, by the way.