Vicarious Redemption

Val and I haven't been blogging in a few weeks because of a move, but now that we are (mostly) settled we shall try to pick up the pace again. And I will finish the last bits of the Prop 8 decision this week /facepalm.

For today, I'll share with you an excellent argument from Christopher Hitchens.

"The concept of vicarious redemption is the most repulsive. The one that none of his followers troubles to deny....The idea that by throwing your sins onto somebody else, onto a scapegoat, you can have them abolished. That is a disgusting and immoral doctrine. You can not relieve people of their responsibility. The moral rot of Christianity is exposed in its central doctrine." -September 7, 2010 Debate: Does Atheism Poison Everything?

As you may know, Hitchens is currently battling cancer. He seems to still be doing well, if weakened from it. Still speaking publicly, while being realistic about his chances.

I'm at a loss of how to express myself, "best wishes for recovery" doesn't seem to sufficiently say what I feel. That's one trouble with being a Christian-raised atheist, the language that I have for conveying certain ideas or feelings is still steeped in religion.

I hope that Christopher Hitchens recovers from his cancer. And if he doesn't, I hope that he continues to enjoy the time that he has left, and feels he has contributed up to the end to the debate that he enjoys so much.

In search of reason,

Mike

This is (one of the reasons) Why I Won't Be Quiet.

This article from the Washington Examiner showed up on my Facebook news feed the other day. I'm not sure why it was posted, or why I went to read it. But I did, and it angered me enough to leave a comment.

The "Opinion Article" is basically just a summary of the longer article linked from another newspaper, but check out this part:

The Paine Foundation is part of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, a tiny nonprofit (annual income: $14,000) seeking to purge religion from private life.

I've spent a lot of time in the past year investigating and interacting with nontheist groups. Everyone that I've met has been friendly and accepting, and while they may not agree with religion, they'll fight harder for everyone's right to practice it than anyone else I know. Not one group that I've seen is fighting to purge religion from private life. We tend to be the strongest supporters of "Do what you want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's ability to do what they want." David's statement is a hateful stereotype based entirely in ignorance, and I was compelled to tell him so.

My comment:

Okay, you generally did a good job summarizing The Morning Call article, but you got one thing very, very wrong. The Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia has no interest in "seeking to purge religion from private life." Their mission statement is on every page of their website and impossible to miss. But, since you obviously did, let me quote it here for you: "The Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia (FSGP) was founded in 1993 by Margaret Downey. Today, FSGP's community outreach efforts have changed the hearts and minds of many citizens who never met or talked to an atheist. FSGP sponsors activities, events and speakers to educate the public about the nontheist life stance. FSGP's efforts to keep religion out of government and government out of religion ensure Constitutional protection for theist and nontheist citizens alike."

Did you notice that last part? It's important. Please think before you go spouting off hateful stereotypes.

When Mike and I first dove into the world of non-theism, I was torn between being excited about all of these new ideas and wanting to just be quiet about it and not upset anyone. We could just keep pretending to be Christian, after all we'd already been doing it for a while and a 'bad' Christian is better than an atheist. Our families wouldn't have to know or be upset. It was difficult to make the decision to tell our families, knowing that it would drive an uncomfortable wedge between us and them that would likely never completely go away. We chose to go ahead for two reasons:

1. We wanted to be true to ourselves, and we love our families enough that we didn't want to spend the rest of our lives lying to them.

2. There is a lot of hate for atheists in this country. Statements like the one above are common. Senators can call atheists "anti-American" and presidents can say that we shouldn't be citizens. News stations and newspapers can twist a message of hope and acceptance from atheists for atheists into one of hate (here, here, and here). There are so many more examples out there, but I won't take all of your time. All of these things are talking about me, my husband, and many of my close friends, who are all some of the most accepting, tolerant, and moral people I know. How would you feel? Would you stay silent in the face of such undeserved criticism? I won't.

Never stop questioning,

Valerie

Atheists Bashing on the National Stage

A brief break from Prop 8 for something that jumped to my attention. A republican candidate for congress, Michael Stopa, told The Sun Chronicle that he thinks atheists are anti-American.

Michael Stopa... said he is convinced Obama is an atheist...

Stopa, a Harvard University physicist, said he has no proof for his claim, but says Obama has the radical anti-American views of an atheist.

"I have no specific evidence, but I think he's sympathetic to anybody who is opposed to America and American values," Stopa said.

Can you imagine if a politician said something similar about another minority? "Obama has the radical anti-American views of a Jew/Hispanic/etc." Say something similar to another group and the media would be all over it after a single news cycle. He would be held accountable for his bigoted remarks, and his party would be trying to distance themselves from his campaign.

If you have deconverted from Christianity or another religion, or if you were raised without attending church or temple, Michael Stopa believes that you are not a true American. If you have close friends or relatives who are not religious, Michael Stopa is accusing them of being opposed to American values.

I went to Michael Stopa's campaign site and left him a brief message.

Contrary to your claims in the Sun Chronicle, atheists are not "opposed to America and American values." I am a proud American and I cherish the civil liberties and religious liberty that my country guarantees. I suggest that you apologize for this hateful and ignorant remark.

If you are not religious or are friendly to those who are, I hope that you will also send him a message. And please, spread the word to everyone you know, especially if you happen to known anyone in Massachusetts. Maybe we can let people Mike Stopa and others know that it is not okay to shout "unamerican" at the 16% of our country that isn't religious.

In search of reason,

Mike

Feeding trolls with honest questions - Continued

I promised to follow up on the conversation I was having with the Christian evangelizing on an atheist discussion board, and we're in luck, it continued.

Hi Mike,

I would have to say that your humanism sign over to the right of your blog caught my attention this morning.

Could you explain to me, in 1 paragraph what humanism means to you?

I am here to share Christ with you.

That means tell you God loves you, which He does and what he has done for you to be forgiven.
As a follower of Jesus, we must stay with the gospel message.That is why I only post what I have. If I could answer all of your questions, it still would not have anything to do with you believing the gospel message.It is the Holy Spirit working in your life that convinces you and convicts you, not me or anyone else.

I have to work for 24hrs, so I will not get back to you until Tuesday.
Have a good Monday.

I was happy to answer his question about what I take from the philosophy of Humanism, but I also wanted to give him one more chance to address my questions.

Feeding trolls with honest questions

I was visiting an atheist discussion board on Facebook and found that a large number of the discussion threads had been started by a Christian with the intent to proselytize. Most even advertised this fact with titles like this:

If you say so... All of these discussion threads were started by the same person, first name Shawn. I don't have a problem in general with theists coming onto atheists sites to try to proselytize, but starting 10 discussion threads in less than a week is just spamming. Many people have tried to engage him fairly, but had little success. He evaded questions, changed the subject, and quoted bible verses. Not very useful when you goal is to convince someone that you're right. I decided to have some fun and put a challenge to him. I admit that I start off on the rude side, but he was starting the debates and then ignoring questions and counter arguments, you can only be so polite if you want to get their attention at that point.

Me: Shawn, you obviously don't care about the facts. You haven't answered a single question or rebuttal. Appeals to emotion about "god's sacrifice," emotional blackmail of being "eternally separated," and Jesus ASCII art shouldn't convince anyone with a 5th grade education of anything. You assert all of these things about god, but you'll never convince us they're true when you still haven't proven your god exists.

Two more things about the sacrifice of Jesus, and I hope you take the time to actually consider and answer them.

1) How is such a human sacrifice not morally repugnant to you? If you wronged me, say burned down my home, murdered my wife, stole my lifesavings and spent it on hookers, I would likely have a hard time forgiving you. Should I then have my son be a human sacrifice so that I can forgive you? If you recognize that I had my son brutally murdered for your sake I will forgive you. How is that benevolence? I'm honestly asking you.

2) I don't understand how Jesus' death was a sacrifice. If I was offered the chance to rule eternally in heaven and the price was 30 years of trudging the earth, being mocked, a day of brutal torture, and 3 days in hell, I'd take it. That is a *very small* price to pay for ruling over all of heaven and earth for eternity, don't you think? Or did Jesus not rise to heaven after his death? Again, I'm not trying to mock you, I honestly want to know what you think.

Why does God only reveal himself to some people?

It's been a while since I chimed in, and I have a lot of post ideas simmering, but in the mean time, here's an article that I found absolutely fascinating.

Why does god reveal himself to some people and not to others?

The article discusses free will, informed consent, hide and seek, heaven, and asks all kinds of interesting questions.

Let me know what you think!

Never stop questioning,

Valerie

Atheist Peanut Gallery

Two weeks back ABC Nightline aired a special segment on Atheist organizations in America. The Friendly Atheist had a wonderful live-blogging post on how ABC choose to go for controversial shock value instead of doing honest reporting. A must read (no seriously it provides context needed for the rest of the post).

Not surprisingly, Fox News ran with the "atheist cult" narrative. As their audience mainly consists of conservative Christians, the sheer ignorance or hatred of atheists in most of the comments is not surprising either. Instead of my standard type of post, I decided to lift a random sampling of these comments and respond to them. I admit that I get more aggressive with some of these than I usually prefer to, but sometimes the best response to bigotry is ridicule.

Grammar and spelling are left as I found them, a few have been pruned down for length, and there were a couple from the pages that I sampled that were so nonsensical I didn't want to waste your time on them. Other than that, this is an authentic taste of what atheists see every day for the offense of not shutting up and hiding out of sight.

Are Atheists Fundamentalists? Part II: Religious Extremism

The last time I talked about fundamentalism I was contrasting a reluctance to believe something without justification to holding onto beliefs in the face of a contradictory reality. This time I'm going to address the charge many Christian groups have leveled that somehow New Atheists are religious extremists.

Quite recently an atheist billboard with a message of unity - "One Nation, Indivisible" (the original text of the Pledge) - was vandalized by theists. Chrissy Satterfield, a writer for World Net Daily, applauded this vandalism.

"Atheists have been vandalizing my beliefs for years, so it’s about time the shoe was on the other foot... I also need to extend a thank-you to some people in Sacramento and Detroit. In February, 10 atheist billboards were defaced in the Golden State and a slew of atheist bus ads were vandalized in Detroit... I'm happy that I can count on other Christians to stand up for themselves and for Christians everywhere. It gives me hope."

To Christians like Satterfield, Atheist "vandalism" is apparently the act of disagreeing with her beliefs and having the audacity to say so publicly. Here's the thing Satterfield, I may disagree with your beliefs, criticize them, even ridicule ones that especially deserve it, but I respect your freedom of speech. I would never destroy your property. I am unaware of any instance in which theistic billboards erected in response to atheist billboards (an entirely appropriate response by the way) have been defaced to mock theists. So you're wrong, we haven't been vandalizing your property, and frankly I find it laughable that you think someone can "vandalize" your beliefs.

Unfortunately this isn't the only example of theists showing no sense of perspective. Atheist outreach groups in the US have been accused of being militant, extremist, and even terrorists before I'd even heard of Dawkins and Hitchens. Here's some perspective on the issue.

• Extremist theists fly planes into buildings.
• Atheists are called "extremist" when they write books and give lectures at universities, their crimes are exacerbated when they use a mocking tone.

• Extremist theists murder doctors and cartoonists in cold blood.
• Atheists are called "extremist" when they try to promote medical accessibility and education, as well as freedom of speech.

• Extremist theists take money from their congregations to support political campaigns to turn homosexuality into a capital offense, or fund "witch" hunts of women and children.
• Atheists are called "extremist" when they use money made from their books and speeches to support civil rights campaigns, oppose cruel and unusual punishment, and to promote education that will discourage dangerous superstitions.

• Extremist theists go on TV shows funded by their congregations to condemn entire societies for being unholy or worshiping the devil.
• Atheists are called "extremist" when they go onto atheist-hostile mainstream networks to demand that our culture and government stop treating non-Christians (theist and non-theist alike) like second-class citizens.

Yes, atheists bring lawsuits against publicly funded institutions when Christian leaders subvert them to promote Christianity above other world views. That's because they're breaking the law. If a court, city council, or public classroom ever proposed starting every day with an affirmation that we are a nation without reliance on a god, a people that has grown up from its belief in spirits, you would sue too. And rightfully so, I would support you. Because its not the place of our public institutions to "decide" what belief is the right one.

So really, what have we done? Given speeches, written books, mocked superstitious beliefs, promoted secular education and the sciences, and supported the Constitution. I'm sure you all can understand my frustration, when I see people like me being labeled "fundamentalists," "vandals," and "extremists" for these things. These people don't have a right to not be offended, they are not entitled to special privilege, and I am not acting like a criminal or religious extremist when I point it out.

In search of reason,

Mike

P.S. On a more lighthearted note: It has been brought to my attention that extremist dyslexics fly buildings into planes. Have a great day!

Christian Missionary Deconverted by Tribe

A happy and peaceful people teach one missionary that his religion doesn't translate across cultural boundaries as well as he thought. Having spent many years of his life with them, he slowly realized that his "faith" was just an ancient collection of superstitions.

He kept this hidden from those closest to him for two decades, because he feared the consequences. When he finally had the courage to share this part of his life, his family rejected him for it. I am not aware of anything beyond the biases of religions that can turn a family against their loved ones just for who they are and not for anything that they have done.


Video found with the help of Tracie Harris

I am lucky that my wife's deconversion was progressing not far behind my own when I told her. And I am thankful to her that, as distressed as she initially was when I shared that part of me with her, she was glad that I did and was willing to proudly stand by me.

In search of reason,

Mike

Are Atheists Fundamentalists? Part I

Many of the pro-science bloggers I read attended or closely followed the science conference Evolution 2010, and apparently during at least one panel things degenerated into atheist bashing.

BlagHag reports that it started out okay [We should be careful] choosing our wording as to not confuse others... Don't say you "believe" in evolution, don't call it "Darwinism," don't say you have "faith" in science, etc.

Unfortunately the attitude quickly came up that scientists should distance themselves from any atheist viewpoints.  The proponents of this want to win over more people by enthusiastic accommodation, or even outright encouragement, of evolution as a theistic rather than natural process. To these accommodationists, it seems like atheists are as extreme as fundamentalist theists. But is that perception true? Are both ends of the spectrum always extreme, the middle always right?

Most of the evolution deniers I've talked to have implied or even come out and said that they can't accept evolution because it contradicts their bible. No amount of evidence or logic will convince them, because in their mind evolution is atheism (at best a theist who accepts evolution is misguided and led astray from the inerrant truth of the bible).

"No matter what you say you can never make me stop believing" I've heard some say. When I was witnessed to last month the evangelist told me "Whether you are convinced by my testimony, ignore it, or respond to me with hate and anger doesn't matter. I have succeeded, for I have done what the Lord asks and planted his seed in you."  So no matter what, theist fundamentalists will refuse to change their minds, they see truth from their book, not from evidence in the natural world.

On the other hand New Atheists are arguing that people should think for themselves. We happily say "convince me" or "show me the evidence." If there is sufficient evidence we will change our minds with confidence that we are justified in doing so. Many atheists even have public lists of what would convince them of a god.

Are these two positions even remotely comparable? I'm all for introducing science education in a way that doesn't force a choice between science and religious beliefs, but lets be reasonable.

There is no evidence for a seven day creation 6,000 years ago. There is no evidence that the Sun orbits the Earth and that the Moon creates its own light. There is no evidence that Adam and Eve and a talking snake were real. There is no evidence that the hand of someone's god reached down and guided the mutations and selections of the evolutionary process so that it would inevitably result in humans.

We're not being irrational or stubborn for not believing in these things. We care about our beliefs being true and we won't accept beliefs if we find that we lack good reasons for them. All we are doing is applying the scientific process and concluding that we have no justification to believe those things. If you demonize atheists for being contrary to believers, you're not really trying to reconcile science and religion, you're trying to win a popularity contest.

In search of reason,

Mike

Ignosticism

Tip of the hat to "Big Religion and Spirituality Blog" for pointing out a new term for me to add to my lexicon: Ignostic.

Ignosticism is the position that all other theological positions, even agnosticism, assume too much about the concept of god.

In plain English, what ignostics are saying is that before we can argue if god(s) exist, we need to define the god concept in a clear and specific manner. Before we do, asking questions of existence is futile because the term "god" is meaningless.

I fully subscribe to this idea, and I'm glad I now have a term to sums it up.

In Our Own Words

A couple months ago TheThinkingAtheist YouTube channel compiled testimonials of their viewers.  It was so popular that people asked for a second one, which was posted yesterday.  A large variety of people from around the world expressing how they were raised, why they are atheists, and how being open about who they are has affected their lives.  Both videos below.





In search of Reason,

Mike

Why Talk About Religion?

"If you don't believe in God then why do you talk about religion?" is a question that I have gotten several times from the Christians around me. In asking this question they are making several assumptions. The question assumes that the god in question should be the Christian god, and also implies that they feel if you reject religion you have no reason or right to talk about or be critical of it.

This ignores that fact that many politicians are not just Christian, but campaign and vote on the conservative theological values of the more fundamentalist minority of American Christian churches. Obviously basing their politics on their religion means that their religion can affect my life, and I have as much right to be critical of that as any other way of thinking that influences politicians. It's also ignoring the fact that Christians feel no such restrictions to talk about things they disagree with (If you believe in Jesus why do you talk about Allah/Buddha/Scientology/non-belief?).

When I'm asked that in so many words those are my usual responses, mainly objections to the assumption that I have no right to criticize something related to their belief system. But when the question is posed with honest curiosity, along the lines of "what is your interest in religion?" then they have asked a very good question. It's a good question because it requires introspection to answer it fully and properly.

I've been asked the question often enough in one way or another, so I decided to find out not why I object to being silenced on the subject, but why do I feel compelled to research and talk about religion and Christianity in particular.

A New View on Comfort

One of the fascinating things about embracing atheism for me was the realization that there are other completely different world views out there than the one I grew up with. I'd like to share one of these new views that I now take great comfort in.

A disclaimer: I speak from Christianity because it's what I know. If anyone has insight on other religions, please feel free to share it!

On of the major reasons that many turn to religion is the comfort it offers. It gives you the belief that everything happens for a reason, that the suffering of this life is insignificant in the grand scheme of eternal paradise, and that you will see all of your loved ones again; these can all be comforting things. When there is uncertainty in your life, religion is ready with open arms, caring words, and answers.

I frequently hear disbelief from religious people who are presented with the idea that atheism can offer any comfort. It is depressing for them to consider the idea that everything is just random and that death is the cold, hard end.

When I first realized my atheism, I agreed with this analysis. There were now so many holes in my understanding of the world where my belief in the divine used to sit. I am still filling many of these holes with new understandings, and constantly revising them; it's an interesting journey.

Back on point however, the idea of my purpose and what happens when I die were one of the first things that I addressed ... mainly because the idea of hell still had me terrified, but I'll discuss the afterlife in another post. As I have turned the idea over in my head, I realized that atheism does offer comfort in the face of suffering and uncertainty. Among other things, it offers the idea that our suffering isn't a mystifying punishment or attempt to teach us a lesson. It's simply cause and effect, and we can make reasonable, reality-based decisions about how to deal with it.

Learning to Clutch... The Definitions

Since the topics we’re going to be writing about are often misunderstood or unclear, I thought it would be good to explain the lexicon we’re using. After all, you can’t hold a constructive conversation if people aren't using the same definitions.

I want to start by dispelling common misconceptions about “Agnostic” and “Atheist.”

An Atheist by definition is simply someone that doesn’t hold a belief in a god or gods. Theists propose god concepts, and those that aren’t convinced by any of them are Atheists.

An Agnostic by definition is someone who simply claims that they lack knowledge or certainty about a topic. You can claim to be Gnostic or Agnostic about any topic, we’re just most familiar with it in regards to religion.

This means that rather than a continuum from Christianity/Islam/etc. to Deism, to Agnosticism to Atheism we have two axis overlapping.