Posts Tagged ‘Dawkins’

« Older Entries

Atheists Burned to Death by Humanists in Arkansas

Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

firefirefireLITTLE ROCK | Arkansan atheists, prompted by SPOE1, are closing public schools across the state for three days starting Tuesday to protest the killing of nine members of their community by humanists. The violent attacks drew condemnation from prominent atheist leader Richard Dawkins.

Hundreds of humanists, urged on by a radical consequentialist group, stormed an atheist neighborhood in the western city of Springdale Sunday, burning and looting dozens of homes after reports surfaced that some atheists had desecrated Raymond B. Bragg’s 1933 Humanist Manifesto.

Seven atheists died, some feel appropriately, by burning to death, and two suffered mortal gunshot wounds. Police did not arrive on the scene in time to prevent the deaths, and observers note that the officers who did arrive did not seem enthusiastic about intervening.

Atheist leaders, including Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, made separate statements to the media debunking the Manifesto defilement rumor.2

“The schools must be closed as a display of atheists’ anger and concern,” pro-atheist Arkansan Representative Richard Carroll told State of Protest.3 “The government must act to bring justice to Arkansas.” Representative Carroll made himself well known for his pro-atheism activism in Arkansas earlier this year after proposing a bill to repeal the anti-atheist provision in the Arkansas Constitution.4

Arkansas has harsh laws for hate crimes, including life imprisonment for defiling works that at least two or more people collectively consider “deeply sentimental” or as part of a “deeply held” set of beliefs.5 Abusing the name of any humanist leader is a capital crime.

In an email on Monday, Richard Dawkins said he was “extremely disappointed” in the actions of the radical humanists, and that it was a “senseless attack” perpetrated for “all the wrong reasons.”6

Other Arkansan leaders have yet to officially comment.7

  1. Society for Preventing Orwellian Endings [<]
  2. Sources tell us that it’s quite likely that even the mere rumor of defilement would have prompted the attack, and that no actual defilement was necessary to rile the humanists into violent action. Also, it’s questionable whether Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens were the ones actually making the statements. [<]
  3. At least that’s what the post-it note said, but Joe from the mail room spilled coffee on it, so we’re just going to go with whatever seems most reasonable in this situation. [<]
  4. This is actually true. See this article from Tacoma Atheists, and this one from Bloc Raisonneur. [<]
  5. See controversy over hate crime bill. Sources tell me that even broadly interpreted, the Arkansan government would never actually apply the law in favor of abuse perpetrated upon atheists. [<]
  6. I’m sure he would have. [<]
  7. There’s a reason you never see this in the news. And there’s a reason why you always see its counterpart in the news. Can you guess the difference? If you need it spelled out for you, take a look at this article from Bloc Raisonneur. [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Atheism, Government, Law, Religion, Satire | 8 Comments »

Let’s Talk…Atheism

Sunday, April 12th, 2009

Ivy is a guest writer for State of Protest.

Just for a moment. While taking a break from some work, I — rather unfortunately — came across a few of the most ridiculous talking points for atheism that I’ve ever seen. Matt Slick, the Christian apologist, has a website which led me to CARM, and I happened to notice a “cut and paste” section in which visitors to the site are encouraged to copy and paste the arguments neatly listed for them. Please don’t take my word for it. Click the link and see with your own eyes. Now, this strikes me as incredibly humorous because, to me, most forums that have discussions of religious nature exist for the sole purpose of exchanging ideas and partaking in critical thinking (ideally). It seems to me that encouraging people to copy and paste arguments rather than figuring out arguments for themselves is detrimental to the poster.

In any case, with great interest I clicked on the Atheism topic. I was immediately dismayed. It’s fair to note that Slick says, “Please understand that these are not ’stoppers.’” They certainly aren’t. In fact, it is my belief that Slick is doing a huge disservice to his visitors by listing these points because they’re so common that any atheist in any debate forum will get pissed just for having to deal with the same old nonsense.

Here are just a few points from this site that gave me the most *headdesk* moments.

Slick begins:

Dealing with atheism is actually easy to do. They don’t have any evidence for their atheism and they can’t logically prove there is no God.

Now hold on there, Slick. We’re already starting off on a very huge misunderstanding. First, I think it’s helpful to define terms (it’s going to be important a little further down). So what is atheism? Atheism, at its barest, is a lack of belief in a deity. A — without, theism — God. Please note: this does not automatically equate to “There is no God.” That is a variation of atheism (sometimes called “strong atheism”). Atheism comes in shades, and the only thing each shade has in common is a lack of a deity. Some go all the way to denial (“There is no God”), but denial is not required.

Thus, atheism is not, in itself, a claim. If I am an atheist, I have absolutely nothing I need to prove (unless I am a strong atheist and my claim is, “There is certainly no God”). If I am not making a claim, I do not require evidence. Let me put it another way: assume that someone states, “There is a pink, magical monkey that lives in my room, often flying around at night while I sleep. It is invisible, so you cannot see it. However, I believe that it is there.” Now before this individual told you this, you held no belief of this pink monkey. You were an a-pinkmonkeyist. And after this person made the claim, your natural reaction is to say, “I have never heard of such a thing. Before I believe your claim, I would like you to prove it to me. Until then, I cannot believe you.”

Is it then logical for the individual to retort, “You have no evidence that my monkey doesn’t exist and you cannot logically prove that it does not exist, therefore, your position is illogical”? Certainly not. This is exactly why you cannot tell an atheist, “You have no evidence for your atheism” and “You cannot prove God does not exist.” The burden of proof falls upon the person who is making the claim. Unless coming from the position of strong atheism, the atheist has absolutely no claim to make and no burden of proof to meet. Right off the bat, Slick is mischaracterizing the atheist position (or at least failing to clarify that he is describing strong atheism).

Slick continues…

Please understand that these are not “stoppers.” But, they can be challenging to atheists. Also, see how long it takes before they become condescending. Do not return their condescension. Instead, ask them to give rational reasons for their positions.

No, they are not stoppers. Nor are they particularly challenging to most atheists who hang out on debate forums or spend a great deal of time having these discussions.

Unfortunately, many atheists do become condescending, but I have a few points to make on that. First, the condescending attitude is not exclusive to the atheist community. There are plenty of theists who are just as condescending, in some cases even more so. It’s a problem for both sides, so I find it irritating that it is brought up here in such a…well, ironically, the way it’s mentioned here is quite condescending. Yes, just you see how long it takes for those heathens to become condescending. Right. Secondly, the condescending attitude, I think, often stems from frustration more than anything else (for both sides). When you repeat a point over and over and over while the person from the opposition does the same, both sides are likely to become frustrated and emotional. It’s almost inevitable, and happens to even the most level-headed of people who started the conversation with only the best of intentions. Sorry, Slick, this isn’t a problem of the atheist. It’s the problem of the human being.

So let’s move on to some of the points.

Ways to Attack Atheism

  1. By asking questions
    1. Atheism is an intellectual position. What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic, and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?

1

I am an atheist for several reasons. The biggest reason is because I simply have yet to see any evidence for a deity, and all logical “proofs” for any sort of deity have been circular or otherwise logically flawed. I believe that people are basically influenced by their culture and the predominant religion found within their culture, and they come to the “truth” of their religion because that is the only religion they know. A devout Christian here would likely be a devout Muslim had he or she been born in the Middle East. I could go on and on, but I don’t want to make this all about the problems with theism and belief.

  1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn’t that simply faith?

I have no idea how Slick comes to his conclusion here. My atheism needs no evidence because it makes no claim, so I do not see how I am taking anything on faith. It’s important to note that I would never claim with certainty, “There is no God” because I don’t know and I cannot know. I do not believe in a god of any type because I have yet to be shown that there is, but I do not claim that no god exists. I would assume many other atheists feel the same. There is no faith involved in that.

  1. If you say that atheism is supported by the lack of evidence for God, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God.

As for Number 3, I do agree that my atheism comes, in part, from a lack of evidence for God, but I make no claim that there is no evidence for God. I claim that I have yet to see evidence for God. This does not hurt my position any because, again, I do not claim that a god does not exist.

  1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence…like say, screaming blue ants? Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief in them, too?

I think Number 4 is silly because it appears that Slick is trying to mock, when it’s actually the closest he has gotten to what atheism is. I do not believe in screaming blue ants, and if we were to speak in a casual, practical sense, I would tell you they do not exist.

However, I could not claim with absolute certainty that screaming blue ants do not exist.

How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren’t absolute). So, how do you account for them?

1) Why is a god required?
2) How are they conceptual by nature?
3) How do you know they are not properties of the universe?

There are a lot of problems with TAG, and the best rundown I’ve seen on the argument recently is the argument found here.

Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes? No, since to get to “now” you’d have to traverse an infinite past. It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause. Why can’t that be God?

Sure, why can’t it? Nobody said it couldn’t be. Now I ask Slick, why does it have to be God? How did Slick make that jump? Could a god have brought about the universe? Yes! But so could have any other phenomena that we have yet to discover. How do we know our universe was not created as a byproduct of a previous, dying universe? Why not aliens? Or if it’s a god, why must it be your God? Why must “God” be the very first answer?

The Universe exists

  1. The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn’t be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.
  2. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.
  3. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.
  4. Uncaused Cause
    1. Objection: If something cannot bring itself into existence, then God cannot exist since something had to bring God into existence. Answer: Not so. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes lest an infinity be crossed (which cannot happen). Therefore, there must be a single uncaused, cause.
    2. All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.

This goes back to what I was saying to the point above. The universe had a beginning. Yes. But to Number 2 I say, “Atheism does not NEED to account for our existence!” Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a deity. It does not seek to answer any questions or offer any ideas. Slick is criticizing atheism for not doing something it was never supposed to do in the first place! I repeat myself for the last few points: yes, something caused the universe. But there’s no way of saying that it must have been God. To immediately jump to a god as a cause is highly illogical.

Responding to Atheist Statements about God

  1. “I Lack of belief in a God”
    1. If you say that atheism is simply lack of belief in a god, then my cat is an atheist the same as the tree outside and the sidewalk out front, since they also lack faith. Therefore, your definition is insufficient.
    2. Lacking belief is a non-statement because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject. Therefore, you either believe there is a God or you do not…or you are agnostic. You cannot remain in a state of “lack of belief.”
    3. If you lack belief in God, then why do you go around attacking the idea of God? If you also lack belief in invisible pink unicorns, why don’t you go around attacking that idea?

For Slick’s first point I say, yes, your cat is also an atheist! That’s why it’s silly to even have a word for a concept like atheism because you don’t have words for people who don’t believe in unicorns. I’m sorry if he finds the definition “insufficient” but that’s really what the word means.

As for the second point: Lacking belief is not necessarily a non-statement. And here is where Slick gets confused with terms like “atheist” and “agnostic.” Atheism and agnosticism deal with two separate things: atheism deals with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge (a — without; gnostic — knowledge). Technically, all of us — theists or nontheists — are agnostics, and for anyone — religious or non — to claim otherwise is simply ignorant or dishonest. So back to myself — I am what is considered an agnostic atheist; I do not know whether there is a god because I cannot know, but I do not believe there is a god. If you are a Christian, you are an agnostic theist, meaning you do not know for certain that God exists, but you certainly believe that God does.

Lastly, the third point. Why do atheists not attack ideas like the pink unicorn? It’s very simple: I’ve never had a believer in the Pink Unicorn interfere with my schooling, my science, my sexuality, my life. No Pink Unicorn believer has ever flown planes into buildings; no Pink Unicorn believer has hated me without knowing me just because his or her Sacred Unicorn told him or her to.

  1. “I believe there is no God.”
    1. On what basis do you believe there is no God?
  2. “I don’t believe there is a God.”
    1. Why don’t you believe there is no God?

1) An apparent lack of evidence.
2) Looks like you’ve got a typo, Slick. “Why don’t you believe there is no God?” Well, I do believe there is no God. ;)

“There is no proof that God exists”

  1. To say “there is no proof for God’s existence,” is illogical because an atheist cannot know all things by which he could state that there is no proof. He can only say he has not yet seen a convincing proof; after all, there may be one he hasn’t yet seen.

Again, we’re getting into agnosticism and atheism. I freely admit that there is perhaps evidence that I’ve never seen. However, at this point I would consider that unlikely because if there were such compelling evidence, it would be all over the place. I have frequented many forums, watched many videos, and listened to many people. I can say that after a while the arguments are all the same — just as the reasons for atheism are all the same. I would be delighted to hear anything I have not already heard.

“All of Science has never found any evidence for God”

  1. That is a subjective statement. There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God’s existence through science.
  2. Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion.
  3. Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore, it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.

I would have to say that Number 1 is an exaggeration. There are many scientists who believe in a god, however, to say they “affirm evidence” is to say that there is scientific evidence, and scientific evidence would go through the process of peer review. If that were the case, the evidence would be confirmed as scientific truth (it would have to — science does not go by opinion), and there would be no debate over whether there is scientific evidence for a god. But if it has not gone through peer review, or has and failed to pass, then it is not scientific evidence, but rather a matter of subjectivity. So no, there has yet to be “scientific” evidence, so that covers Slick’s second point regarding opinion. Scientific evidence is scientific. It would be well documented and testable.

Slick’s third point is just a cop-out. So you declare God outside of the universe. Well isn’t that just too easy, as Dawkins once commented. Declaring God outside of the universe thus removing all responsibility of having to prove him? How convenient!

What is God? or Define God.

  1. God is the only Supreme Being who is unchanging, eternal, holy, and Trinitarian in nature. He alone possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. He alone brought the universe into existence by the exertion of His will.

First, I ask how anyone would know this about any god. You cannot cite a Bible or a holy text because for all we know the description of God is false. If you claim that the Bible says God doesn’t lie because God cannot lie because God wrote the Bible and the Bible says God cannot lie…see the circular argument? You do not know the nature of God. You cannot know the nature of God. Therefore, I cannot accept that definition.

  1. Prove your God is real.
    1. I can no more prove to you that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don’t love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists.
    2. I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgment of many types of evidence…because your presuppositions don’t allow it.
    3. The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.
      1. When the atheist complains, ask him to logically explain the existence of the universe. Point out that opinions and guesses don’t count.

Right off the bat, if you cannot prove your claim, you cannot be upset if someone dismisses it. And in that case, you probably shouldn’t even get into these conversations. “Believe in God or you will burn!” Well, prove God. “I can’t prove God anymore than I can prove that I love my family, silly!” Well…okay? Then I don’t believe. Have a nice life.

For the second point, I need not prove that the universe is all that exists. I don’t know if the universe is all that exists. The only thing I claim is that I don’t hold a belief in a deity.

For the Number 3 — okay, Slick asserts that God brought the universe into existence. Great, but didn’t he also say, “Point out that opinions and guesses don’t count”? Oh, irony! For the umpteenth time, yes, the universe had a beginning. However, that does not automatically mean that the beginning was a god, and even if it was a god, it doesn’t necessarily have to be Slick’s God. How did the universe come about? I don’t know. But “I don’t know” is not a problem. “I don’t know” is an honest answer. Saying it’s a god is an opinion that could be right or could be wrong, but is no better than “I don’t know.” Atheism does not set out to explain where the universe came from. It is a lack of belief in a deity.

And lastly…

  1. Responding to Atheist Statements about Evolution and Naturalism
    1. “Evolution is a fact”
      1. That depends on if it is micro or macro. Micro variations occur, but macro variations (speciation) have not been observed. The best we have are fossils and they have to be interpreted. Besides, there are plenty of gaps in the fossil record.
      2. Have you read any books that discuss the contrary evidence to evolution? If not, then how can you say you are educated enough to say it is a fact?
    2. Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.
      1. Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

This is, admittedly, very frustrating. These are very common points that people bring up regarding evolution, and I think it’s a shame that the subject of evolution isn’t better covered in schools. Slick’s questions show a gross misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works. So let’s wrap up this post with a brief lesson on evolution.

Evolution is a fact.

It is also a scientific theory.

Contrary to popular belief, a scientific theory is not “just a theory.” In the context of science, a theory is something backed up with evidence; it’s not like the colloquial use of theory that means a guess. Science considers gravity, the idea that germs cause disease, and that your body is made of cells all theories. All of those are scientific theories. And they are facts. Evolution is scientifically documented and hugely supported by evidence. I promise.

Now let’s get into this micro/macro nonsense. When I first saw Slick make that distinction, I knew I was dealing with someone who hasn’t kept up with his evolution research. Science makes no distinction between micro and macro evolution in terms of processes. Both are evolution. The only difference between micro evolution and macro evolution is time. Macro evolution comes from micro evolution. To say that macro evolution cannot happen while micro evolution can is akin to me saying that I can walk to my kitchen but I cannot walk to the state of Washington. I can, and it will take many more steps, but it is the same process. We get macro evolution from a lot of micro evolution. Slick is being dishonest if he tries to tell anyone that there is a difference.

Also, this “gap in the fossil” record is disingenuous at best. We have a very thorough fossil record. Let me demonstrate how opponents of evolution make the gap argument.

I have fossil A and fossil B. Someone says, “Well what’s the fossil between those?” I produce a fossil between A and B. Well look what I just did! Now I’ve opened the door for my questioner to say, “Well where are the two fossils that link it to A and B?” And so on. The more fossils I produce, the more “gaps” I have. It’s an infinite process. Are there gaps in the record? Surely. You cannot possibly have every single fossil that ever existed. You can, however, have so many that the picture is clear, and that’s exactly what evolution has.

As for Question 2, no, I have not read any books. I have discussed evolution with people on forums and in blogs, though, on many occasions and I have read several arguments against evolution. None of them have held water. Honestly, the majority of people (majority, not all) who don’t believe in evolution simply don’t understand what it is or how it works. Evolution does not say that everything came from nothing. Evolution does not say that life came from non-life. Evolution does not say that God cannot exist if evolution is true. Evolution doesn’t “fail to explain things like the eye.” In fact, evolution is probably one of the most important discoveries of science. Evolution ties together so many disciplines of science and biology that it has been said that none of these would make sense without evolution. Evolution is so important to science. And yet it is one of the most controversial topics. What’s worse, people seem to believe that there is still actually a debate over whether evolution is true. I assure you — science has moved on from that debate ages ago. Science does not question whether evolution is true. There is no debate. The only question now regarding evolution (in science) involves the specifics (“Does evolution work through punctuated equilibrium?”).

I would urge Slick to reconsider posting these copy and paste points for theists. All he is accomplishing is a gross misinformation campaign for his readers, along with depriving them of the chance to use their own reasoning when engaging in debate with those who don’t share their viewpoints.

  1. Editor’s note: The original website used multiple instances of lists of ones; not all of the quotes in this article reflect the exact numerical positions of the subparagraphs. [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Religion | 8 Comments »

When Will Obama Go to an Atheist Meetup?

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

President Obama has not attended an atheist meetup, drinking skepchickally, skeptics in the pub, or other nonbeliever event since he took office, despite his inaugural address pledge to acknowledge nonbelievers, and his continued insistence on “reaching across the aisle” to acknowledge and respect those with different beliefs.

“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace,” Obama stated in his inaugural address.

Within his first few months in office, Obama has already reached that hand of respect out to all corners of the earth, from offers to speak with leaders of Muslim nations to actually visiting heavily Islamic countries , bringing offerings of peace, and an explicit assurance that the United States is not at war with Islam.

Domestically, Obama has reinvigorated the controversial faith-based initiative, favoring religious discrimination in organizations that receive federal funding, and stocking his advisory panel with a heavy majority of theists.

Despite this overt and frequent outreach to religious organizations domestic and foreign, Obama has made no effort to connect with the non-believers he pledged to treat with the same respect and attention as believers. His reference to non-believers seems, in hindsight, to have been nothing other than a hat-tip to the often left-leaning fifteen percent of the nation, most of whom helped him get elected.

Obama has also pledged to seek a new church for himself and his family, subjecting his minor daughters to indoctrination in dogma almost universally rejected by the scientists of the world, with details disagreed upon by nearly every other religious denomination or sect. He has yet to choose one, indicating that he must take into consideration the interference he would cause with church attendance of fellow church members. Why has he not taken into consideration the idea that by choosing to be an active practitioner of an ancient superstitious ritual, he interferes with the ability of both non-believers and those who believe in different superstitions to be treated with respect and equality in a nation founded with an explicit separation of church and state?

President Obama, pick yourself a church along with your wife. Let your children play in the White House playground, or have them tutored by someone who respects reality and can encourage them to be skeptical instead of dogmatic. And then make a surprise visit to a Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris lecture/debate, or an atheist meetup. You might get some shit from the fundamentalists, but didn’t you say something about reaching out to everyone, despite their beliefs? You reached out to one of the most hated homophobes, Rick Warren, for your invocation. What’s stopping you from reaching out to people who don’t happen to share your monotheistic point of view?

—

This article is a rebuttal to the Fox News Blog comment “BILL SAMMON: When Will Obama Go to Church?” by Bill Sammon, Managing Editor, Washington Bureau, FOX News Channel, which, out of all the things that someone could find fault about Obama over, chooses to attack Obama’s lack of church attendance since his swearing-in.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Government, Religion | 8 Comments »

Sharing the Epiphany of Disbelief

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

Steve-Doug is a guest writer at State of Protest.

As atheists, we feel compelled to share the epiphany of disbelief. Unfortunately, finding a mode to convey our rationality often undermines the powerful sensations which accompany the reduction of myth-based doctrine. Certain stereotypes of activism need to be addressed; there are, in fact, more opportunities for activism than the average heathen may be aware of. While operating prestigious science blogs, writing numerous best-selling diatribes on faith, and donating hefty sums to atheist networks and coalitions certainly advance the cause of godlessness significantly, these are not the standards of activism we as laypeople must set for ourselves; it is just not feasible for us all to utilize these vehicles of activism. Rather, we can observe openings in our daily interactions which can facilitate the dissemination of rationality and scientific literacy.

My own conversion to atheism occurred almost a year after I was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, a type of cancer which infects the body’s lymph nodes. Despite being only fifteen and very religious, I was still very unwilling to preserve this belief system when prayers went unanswered and skeptic inquiry into Christianity yielded no intelligent answers. Chemotherapy being just as debilitating as it is known to be, my social interactions were greatly limited and I depended on the internet to express and develop my deviations. The online game Star Wars: Jedi Outcast grew to be a virtual outlet for my social needs. The game catered to tight-knit virtual communities, and it wasn’t long before I had established very strong friendships with a group of players of varying religious stances. Of these players, I found myself steadily growing to regard the fundamentalists with much reproach, while the pantheist, agnostic, and atheist members encouraged my skepticism. Before long, my beliefs had no common ground with the fundamentalists.

While I was exploring the concepts of atheism, I became transfixed by the mechanics of evolution, a subject almost invariably linked to disbelief. The poetic antithesis of complexity and simplicity characteristic of natural selection occupied my mind at great intervals. Naturally I was very distraught when, after discussing evolution in general terms, my fundamentalist friends professed rejection of the theory. In their dismissals classifying the theory as luck-based, entropy-violating, and largely speculative, it also became clear that they had no understanding of the actual theory; rather, they had crafted an insincere amalgamation of absurd statements which could only be said to resemble extreme misinterpretations of evolution. Noting their inability to be swayed by well-structured argumentation, I decided that I must take it upon myself to illustrate the true mechanics of this process in terms that would register with them. I set out to design a modification for Jedi Outcast which showed how the theory worked in accurate terms.

The modification consisted primarily of a custom built level designed in an urban setting. Throughout the level, pop-up text informed players of key concepts they were observing. Pictured below is the “starting point” of the level.

Once inside, players witnessed robots with design codes. The robots were analogous to organisms, while the design codes represented the genotype. The codes, or genotypes, explained the physical attributes of the robots; i.e. shape, resistance to fire, ability to travel across water, etc. In the following rooms, robots with different codes attempted to traverse difficult landscapes. If the robot made it across, it was stated that its traits were suited to survival and would get to be continued in the next generation of robots. Consecutive rooms provided different challenges, establishing the theme that what is effective in one generation and environment is not always effective in another; thus variability is needed. Pictured, different robots traverse a harsh environment.

Pic 2

The final area of the level was constructed to resemble Richard Dawkins’ image of Mount Improbable: a large gap separated two ledges, at one a large and rather complex machine and at another a small and not-so-complex machine. Players were encouraged to attempt to jump from ledge to ledge, but this was impossible. Instead, a gradual slope ran along the mountain with “transition” machines spaced at intervals along the slope until the player had gradually arrived at the complex machine. This illustrated how organisms do not “jump” from species to species, but rather move in slow alterations. Players were greeted with two pop-up footnotes: the first denounced the phrase “transition organism” as purely for use of explanation, as all organisms (or in this case, machines) are transitory; the second stated that evolution is in no way a goal-oriented force. Evolution does not seek to craft complex machines, heat-resistant robots, or human brains. Evolution simply sees to it that designs which suit their environments succeed in replication. In this case, the environment has rewarded generator-like designs. Pictured is Mount Improbable, with the machines highlighted in the attempt of allowing them to be seen more clearly.

Pic 3

At the close of the level, players were told that the representations in the level were very much generalized and reduced for the sake of illustration, which is perhaps an understatement. Although my graphic representation was not as detailed or analytical as a published treatise on evolution, it provided an effective illustration as an introduction to evolution, especially for people who dismissed evolution based solely on handy catch-phrases developed and promoted by religious-based opposition.

In the end, this endeavor proved to be bittersweet. On the one hand, my fundamentalist friends were greatly informed by the representation. Several openly professed that they had a complete non-understanding of the theory beforehand, and now had some understanding, simplified as this understanding may be. However, none were able to accept the theory. Holding an understanding of how evolution works, they could no longer assault the theory under false pretenses. They were thus resigned to utilize only unclear pseudo-philosophic arguments stating that faith was absolute and what we observe could be satanic trickery. It is my belief, though, that their confinement to such ridiculous arguments devoid of empirical backing emphasizes the denialism of creationism to such an extent that rejecting its pseudoscience becomes substantially easier to the layman who might believe that there might be some legitimacy in creationism. I have come to believe that even if our non-scientific opponents fail to find themselves swayed by the scientific method, removing any doubt of rationality from their arguments is the only effective way to control their propagation. Even though we may not always hold the burden of proof and evolution has certainly secured itself beyond significant scrutiny, I should gladly take the opportunity to explain the rationality of science to the ignorant in the effort to reduce any perceived eloquence of pseudoscience.

As I hope my example has showed, there are extraordinarily varied options for spreading the cause of rationality. It is up to the individual to identify and take advantage of opportunities for such activism. It must be remembered that rational inquiry seldom sways those utilizing the reality-limiting perspective of faith, and we must try not to be discouraged. The frustration accompanying an opponent’s refusal to acknowledge scientific principles can make debates almost unbearable. The practice of “keeping quiet” instead is on par with aiding the spread of pseudoscience, and as such, I will gladly explain the principles of reality to the staunchest of fundamentalists in lieu of silence; I know I’m not the only one.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Atheism | 2 Comments »

Hardcore Atheist List

Wednesday, December 17th, 2008

I first saw this list on Tangled up in Blue Guy’s blog, but it was originally posted at Friendly Atheist’s blog. I’ve been procrastinating, partially because I had some bones to pick about some of the specific items, but apparently Friendly Atheist has made some edits. Now I’ll try again, with my sometimes extended commentary. If you have a blog, copy the list (the clean list is on FA’s site) and post an answer of your own, bolding the ones you’ve done (or cheating, like I do), and comment below with a link! If you don’t have a blog, or you just don’t want to put this on your blog, do a list in the comments!

How much of an atheist am I? Let’s find out. The challenge is to boldface the ones I’ve done, and elaborate, if I choose.

1. Participated in the Blasphemy Challenge.
-I’m giving myself half a point on this one. I’ve said the words (over and over), but I haven’t made a video and posted it on the YouTube version of the Blasphemy Challenge. I’ll say it again: fuck the holy spirit.

2. Met at least one of the “Four Horsemen” (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) in person.
-Yeah, right.

3. Created an atheist blog.
-You’re lookin at it.

4. Used the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a religious debate with someone.
-And the invisible pink unicorn, and the flying teapot, and whatever else gets the message across. Lately, it’s ingesting sand.

5. Gotten offended when someone called you an agnostic.
-I don’t like the way this one is phrased. I don’t get offended. I will correct someone, but I won’t get offended. I don’t think a real atheist would.

6. Been unable to watch Growing Pains reruns because of Kirk Cameron.
-Well, that would be included in unable to watch anything with that idiot in it.

7. Own more Bibles than most Christians you know.
-To be fair, I don’t know that many Christians. Most are family. I’ll give myself half.

8. Have at least one Bible with your personal annotations regarding contradictions, disturbing parts, etc.
-That, and my atheist hint book. But why bother with paper when you can have the skeptic’s annotated bible?

9. Have come out as an atheist to your family.
-The ones that matter.

10. Attended a campus or off-campus atheist gathering.

11. Are a member of an organized atheist/Humanist/etc. organization.

12. Had a Humanist wedding ceremony.
-This one I’m particularly proud of.

13. Donated money to an atheist organization.

14. Have a bookshelf dedicated solely to Richard Dawkins.
-I will if you send me the $$ to facilitate that. But I’d never limit it to one author. Dawkins is great, but he’s not god. ;)

15. Lost the friendship of someone you know because of your non-theism.
-Best friend in high school went all Mormon, and I also lost the friendship of about half of my family.

16. Tried to argue or have a discussion with someone who stopped you on the street to proselytize.

17. Had to hide your atheist beliefs on a first date because you didn’t want to scare him/her away.

18. Own a stockpile of atheist paraphernalia (bumper stickers, buttons, shirts, etc).
-Kinda, but I don’t actually display anything.

19. Attended a protest that involved religion.

20. Attended an atheist conference.

21. Subscribe to Pat Condell’s YouTube channel.

22. Started an atheist group in your area or school.

23. Successfully “de-converted” someone to atheism.

24. Have already made plans to donate your body to science after you die.

25. Told someone you’re an atheist only because you wanted to see the person’s reaction.
-I’m having trouble with this one. It sounds extremely shallow and pointless, but perhaps I’m missing something. Why would doing that make me “Hardcore”?

26. Had to think twice before screaming “Oh God!” during sex. Or you said something else in its place.
-Actually, I think about this kinda stuff all the time. I am very careful not to scream anything during sex, lest I offend or distract. I’ll give myself half.

27. Lost a job because of your atheism.
-I’d be working for the ACLU right now if that were the case.

28. Formed a bond with someone specifically because of your mutual atheism (meeting this person at a local gathering or conference doesn’t count).

29. Have crossed “In God We Trust” off of — or put a pro-church-state-separation stamp on — dollar bills.

30. Refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

31. Said “Gesundheit!” (or nothing at all) after someone sneezed because you didn’t want to say “Bless you!”
-I usually say nothing. Why bother, when 90% of the people around me are of the inclination already to do it. Hmm, I wonder what would happen if I were in an elevator with just one person, and that person sneezed. God would probably smite the poor bastard.

32. Have ever chosen not to clasp your hands together out of fear someone might think you’re praying.
-Hahah, I like this one. Yes, and no to this one. I’ve refrained from doing so, and I’ve also kept my hands clasped on purpose just to see if people would regard me differently (while I keep my eyes squinty).

33. Have turned on Christian TV because you need something entertaining to watch.
-Heh, yep. And radio, too.

34. Are a 2nd or 3rd (or more) generation atheist.

35. Have “atheism” listed on your Facebook or dating profile — and not a euphemistic variant.
-Yes and no. I’m not really me on anything public. yay. I’ll give me half.

36. Attended an atheist’s funeral (i.e. a non-religious service).

37. Subscribe to an freethought magazine (e.g. Free Inquiry, Skeptic)

38. Have been interviewed by a reporter because of your atheism.

39. Written a letter-to-the-editor about an issue related to your non-belief in God.
-For this one, I’m also going to count writing a letter to a government representative.

40. Gave a friend or acquaintance a New Atheist book as a gift.
-“New Atheist”? Is that the name of the book, or are you saying “Not a book by Bertrand Russell? And I’ve given a lot of my own “book” away, in a sense. The Atheist Hint Book.

41. Wear pro-atheist clothing in public.
-Yeah, everything that doesn’t say “pro-God” is my pro-atheist garb. Yay.

42. Have invited Mormons/Jehovah’s Witnesses into your house specifically because you wanted to argue with them.
-Heh, yep. Also, I stood on the stoop outside the other day, during the amazingly freezing weather, just to talk to a few young Mormons (called, oddly enough, “Elders”) for two hours! I even told them straight to their faces that their chances of converting anyone on my block were none to less than none.

43. Have been physically threatened (or beaten up) because you didn’t believe in God.
-In a sense. I’ll leave it at that, and half it.

44. Receive Google Alerts on “atheism” (or variants).

45. Received fewer Christmas presents than expected because people assumed you didn’t celebrate it.
-How about I tell people not to send me Christmas presents?

46. Visited The Creation Museum or saw Ben Stein’s Expelled just so you could keep tabs on the “enemy.”
-In general.

47. Refuse to tell anyone what your “sign” is… because it doesn’t matter at all.
-Well, that, and I like to be mysterious. ;)

48. Are on a mailing list for a Christian organization just so you can see what they’re up to…
-Close to #46.

49. Have kept your eyes open while you watched others around you pray.
-Almost every time, except when I’m nodding off.

50. Avoid even Unitarian churches because they’re too close to religion for you.
-Yeppers. Can’t stand them quasi-religious non-church churches.

Friendly Atheist’s ranking system:

0-10: Impressive, but not too far from agnosticism.
11-20: You are, literally, a “New Atheist.” But you now have something to strive for! Go for the full 50!
21-30: You are an atheist, but babies aren’t running away from you. Yet.
31-40: You are the 5th Horseman! Congratulations!
41-50: PZ Myers will now be taking lessons from you.

—

Looks like I scored a 30.5.

yay?

StOP

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Religion | 4 Comments »

« Older Entries