DangerousTalk

Why is it that religious people feel the need to insert their religious views into seemingly every conversation? If an atheist inserting his or her lack of belief into seemingly every conversation we are criticized by the religious for “pushing our atheism.”

Yesterday, I was out with my 8 mouth old son and a woman came up to me and started a conversation. She told me about how she works in a hospital and deals with babies all the time. She of course thought that my son was cute (because he is cute!) and that was fine. No problems so far. But then she started going off on how he is a miracle from God and stuff. She actually laid the God-talk on pretty thick and it got pretty awkward. I did my best not to say anything and to just be polite since we were in a store full of people. But she made it really difficult.

The thing is that I shouldn’t have had to bite my tongue, she didn’t bite her tongue. In fact, she had no problem whatsoever pushing her religious beliefs on me and making the conversation very uncomfortable. Plus, had I told her that I didn’t believe in God, no doubt I would be considered the rude one.

Contrast this with an incident from over the weekend in which a facebook friend (relative really) had a status update in which she started to express doubt in God. I posted a comment joking about how I don’t believe in God and haven’t gotten hit with a lightning bolt yet. This of course led to a small debate with one of her Christian friends. I was very polite and even told her friend that if she wanted to continue the conversation, we should do so privately. But instead, her friend just kept insulting me. In the end, I was considered the rude one for, “pushing my atheism” and “inserting my atheism into every conversation” despite the fact that the conversation started with someone else’s doubt of deities.

This is why I think it is so important for atheists to come out of the closet. In fact, I am probably going to start wearing my American Atheist necklace more often now. If more people realize that atheists are out there in the general public in larger numbers, they will stop assuming that everyone they meet believes in God. This might cause them to think a little bit before they start babbling about gods and miracles at seemingly every turn.

Filed under: conversation, culture war, discussion, miracles, People of Reason, Religion | 8 Comments »

It has become ridiculously obvious to me that every time it becomes apparent that I am not a religious believer one of the very first things that happens is that some believer (usually a Christian) will insult me.

When this happened over the weekend, I called the particular person out on the insult and proceeded with the conversation is a very polite manner. I even asked if the person wanted to continue in the conversation because often times religious people talk about religion without wanting to get into a real conversation about it. She said that she wanted to continue the conversation and then started to insult me further.

This isn’t the only time that has happened and it doesn’t just happen to individuals. Recently, an atheist billboard in Idaho was vandalized. The billboard wasn’t even challenging religion it was just a message to other atheists. But a quick comparison between Christian billboards and atheist billboards shows that a large number of Christian billboards are intentionally offensive while most atheist billboards tend to be as polite as possible. You can check out some of what I am talking about on the Billboard Wars page right here on Dangerous Talk.

The point of today’s blog is that it seems that the mere existence of atheists seems to be an open invitation for Christians to be mean, offensive, and immoral. Whether it is billboards or personal conversations, as soon as Christians in general hear the about someone who doesn’t believe they go right on the war path. The tragic irony is that atheists are the ones who get the bad reputation of being mean when all we do is doubt.

Filed under: conversation, discussion, Projection, Religion | 14 Comments »

I have strongly advocated in favor of building a positive atheist community. I think a community of reason is very important. For starters, such a community would strongly help in lobbying politicians to vote against the religious fundamentalists and would help to establish more reasonable public policies.

However, many times I meet atheists who tell me that building an atheist community is destined to fail because the only thing atheists have in common with each other is the lack of belief in a god or gods. It is somewhat true that all atheists have in common with each other is a lack of belief in a god or gods however, a large number of atheists tend to also value reason and evidence-based thinking. There are some common values that many atheists and other people of reason hold and I think we can build a community on those shared values.

But I really think that those who point out that atheists only have their lack of belief to unite them are really just being a little lazy. After all, one can make similar statements about gay people. The only thing that all gay people have in common is an attraction to the same gender. Building a community based on that would surely be destined to fail, right? Yet the gay community is extremely strong. So I see no reason why the atheist community can’t do what the gay community has already done.

On the other side however, there are those within the atheist community who have a more dogmatic view that all atheists must approach religion in the same way they do. There are atheists now who strongly believe that all atheists should work with religious people and sing kumbaya. These so called “atheists 3.0” think that we need to build a positive atheist community and that all atheists need to take their approach. As I stated above, I strongly advocate building a strong atheist community. But I also acknowledge that atheism isn’t a religion and as such, there is no dogma.

There is no one way to be an atheist. That being the case, I don’t think that the so called atheist 3.0 should have the monopoly on atheism. I think building a positive atheist community is a great approach, but I also think that some times atheists need to be vocal in challenging the religious. I think the approach of ridiculing ridiculous beliefs and being critical of beliefs which are not thought about critically is also a great approach and I don’t see why we all must embrace only one approach.

One of the things that makes an community of reason so great is our diversity of ideas and the lack of dogmatic thinking. No one speaks for all atheists and there is no singular atheist message. Unlike religious fundamentalists, I don’t think that people who think differently than I do are evil nor do I think they are going to burn in Hell for all eternity. Quite the opposite, I think diversity of thought and diversity of approaches is one of strengths of the community of reason, not a weakness.

Filed under: atheism, Atheism NOT Religion, People of Reason, Religion | 8 Comments »

Yesterday, I discovered a great 7 part de-conversion story on YouTube. I don’t even think that the guy is finished with it yet, but I really like the way he has done this series so far.

So today I am going to be lazy and just post the playlist for this series. When one video ends, the next should start up automatically. These videos are worth the watching. Let me know what you think.

Filed under: atheism, de-conversion, People of Reason, Religion | 8 Comments »

After 9-11, some people started to realize that the terrorist attacks were faith based initiatives. Many of those same people then realized that America responded with faith rather than reason. As a result, atheists started to speak up and many became much more vocal about their lack of belief and their criticism of belief. The media has dubbed these atheists as “New Atheists.”

What separates the New Atheists from the old atheists? In the past, many atheists stayed in the closet and weren’t vocal about their lack of belief. Also, I guess before 9-11, some atheists didn’t really think religion was that dangerous… I guess. It isn’t like the Inquisition or the Crusades were religiously motivated, right?

Basically, the media likes to rename things to make it seem like there is news and conflict when nothing really has changed very much and there really isn’t a conflict. But I guess they have to fill the multiple 24/7 news channels with something and a boy doesn’t NOT get stuck in a balloon everyday, right? Oh wait, never mind.

So now there is Atheism 3.0. What does that mean? They are the atheists who want to criticize other atheists instead of criticizing religion. Now I understand that not all atheists want to criticize religion and that’s cool. Some atheists want to build a positive atheist community similar to the communities that religious people have. I am all for that. I think that is a great idea. But I don’t see why atheists can’t take both approaches.

Why is it that atheists either have to side with Chris Hitchens or with Greg Epstein? Hitchens claims that religion poisons everything and so he has no problem criticizing it and being vocal in his criticism. He doesn’t respect religion at all. I agree with Hitchens on that. Epstein admires the community aspects of religion and wants to build a secular replacement for that. He wants to work with religious people. I agree with him on those things.

I am a tolerant person, but there are things that I don’t tolerate. When theistic religion threatens human progress, human happiness, and human survival, I have to put my foot down and fight back. That is the essence of the so called New Atheism which finds religion to be a threat to those things. So I am with the so called New Atheists.

But I also think that we need to work with moderate religious people against the extreme religious people who are more dangerous. I also think that atheists should form positive communities and put a more positive face on atheism. So I am with the so called Atheism 3.0.

Why must we choose between them? Can’t we do both? Can’t Atheism 3.0 do their thing and the New Atheists do their thing? How did the theistic religions accomplish this feat of setting atheist against atheist? We are all on the side of reason here, there are just different approaches. I support taking both approaches and letting God sort it out.

Filed under: atheism, People of Reason, Religion | 15 Comments »

Yesterday, I posted an article on Examiner about near-death experiences. As it turns out, science can explain the experiences that many people have in this regard which tends to lead many people to believe in an afterlife and God. This article got a conversation going with a few people who wrote to me telling me that they don’t want science to explain these types of experiences. Instead, they just want to believe that their deceased loved ones are living on forever on a white cloud or something.

As it turns out, this type of emotional reaction is not new to me. When I first started questioning religion, my mother got a little edgy because she too wants to believe that our deceased family members are still living on some how. In fact, based on conversations we have had on the topic, I think that this view is the only real connection to religion she still has, although I could be wrong about that.

Still, while I understand that people don’t want to believe that dead friends and relatives are… dead, the reality is that they are. No amount of wishful thinking can change that fact. The only place that dead people still live on is in the memory of those who are still alive.

A comment that one person made to me on this subject is that the human mind seems so infinite that our consciousness must live on. How could all of someone’s experiences just be gone, just like that? Not to be caulis or anything, because I know that death is an emotional subject, but that type of thinking is a little ridiculous. Let’s think about it this with an analogy:

I believe that there is a pot of gold buried somewhere in my back yard. While my back yard isn’t large, it goes down very deep. In fact, I couldn’t drill to the center of the Earth because we don’t have the equipment necessary to do so. In other words, my back yard is seems so infinite that there must be some pot of gold buried in it somewhere. I just have a hard time believing that there is no pot of gold buried at any depth of my backyard. You can’t really prove there isn’t a pot of gold buried there unless you were able to drill to the center of the Earth. I want there to be a pot of gold buried there.

Such a claim would be ridiculous. We all know that there is no pot of gold buried in our backyards. Whether or not there is a pot of gold in my backyard is not really an emotional issue. So no one really has a problem calling bullshit on it. But death is an emotional issue. I hate to tell people that their dead loved ones are… dead. They get very emotional very quickly. They don’t want to believe that dead means dead. But it does. No one says that that guy was hit by a bus and afterlifed instantly.

Filed under: death, god of the gaps, Religion | 8 Comments »

If you take a look at the blogs on MySpace, it is clear that there is a very large atheist presence on that social networking site. According to Penn Jillette, atheists, agnostics, Humanists, and nones are the number three response to the question of religion on Facebook. That isn’t even counting Pastafarians, Jedi, or those who make up funny answers instead. Now it is time to take over Twitter.

One function of Twitter is the Hashtags. These are used to search categories and to track particular subject matters. Currently, the only hashtags that I am aware of for atheism is #atheist or #atheism. But these are pretty obvious and often times Christians will use them to proselytize. We need one universal hashtag.

Recently, a twitter friend used the term “Tweethen” in one of her Tweets and I think that would make for a great universal atheist hashtag. I encourage everyone to make #Tweethen their atheist hashtag. If enough of us use it, perhaps we can even make it a Twend, lol.

Even when you do your FollowFridays, please also use #Tweethen. Let other atheists and freethinkers know that this will be the new atheist hashtag.

Filed under: atheism, People of Reason, twitter | 3 Comments »

During the first week of my freshman year at college, I noticed a newspaper of campus called “The Rampage.” My university’s mascot was the Ram, so I figured that it must be the campus newspaper. It certainly looked like the campus newspaper. The front page had a typical story which one would expect to find on the front page of a campus newspaper. The sad fact is that this was not the campus newspaper, it was a trick.

A few weeks ago, a woman came to my door wanting to give me a pamphlet about depression. The front page of the pamphlet said, “Depression” in large letters. It looked interesting enough and she wasn’t asking me for any money or anything. So I said thank you and as I opened up the pamphlet, she ran off as quickly as she could. The sad fact is that it wasn’t really a pamphlet about depression, it was a trick.

As you might have guessed, both the newspaper and the depression pamphlet were really Christian propaganda designed to trick people into picking it up. These are not isolated examples either. I could list several similar examples and I am sure some of you will post some of yours in the comment section.

Do Christians really believe that their message is so weak that they actually have to trick people into hearing it? It certainly seems that way.

Many Christian groups and churches use this type of bait and switch technique to get people into religion. It just seems so dishonest. Isn’t there a Ten Commandment about baring false witness or something? I think that if you have to trick someone into believing something that should be your first clue that maybe what you are pushing is bullshit; I just saying.

Filed under: discussion, Preaching, Religion, Religious Manipulation | 10 Comments »

Theists always ask me why I don’t believe in God. I usually rattle off any number of reasons why I think that the whole idea of God is ridiculous, silly, and illogical. Somehow, that doesn’t seem to convince them since they tend to ask me the same question again at a later time. I guess the best answer that I can really give is to let them know that God wants me to be an atheist.

We first have to define God and there are probably three common ways to do this. The first is to just accept the mainstream definition which is that God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, omni-present, creator of the universe. That is just the bare basic definition. Another definition would be Anselm’s definition which states that God is the being to which no greater being can be conceived. This too is a pretty basic definition. The third definition would be that being described in the Bible. This one is a bit more particular. This definition defines God as a Jealous, angry, wrathful, tyrant. But who am I to judge?

The point is that regardless of which definition you choose to use, it is clear that whatever God wants he gets. If God wants me to believe in him, then God would know the exact piece of evidence needed to convince me of his existence and God would have the power to present that evidence. Yet I still don’t believe. The logical conclusion would be that either God doesn’t really want me to believe in him or that God doesn’t actually exist.

Theists always talk about God’s divine plan and yet I am still a non-believer. So I must conclude that either my non-belief is part of God’s divine plan or that God doesn’t actually exist. Either way there is no reason why a believer should try to convert me into a believer. To do so would be to go against God’s divine plan. If God wanted me to believe, he would present the precise evidence that he knows would convince me.

That’s the real problem with being all-powerful and all-knowing there really is no need for human beings to do your work since you can do it more efficiently. So if God really needs to do his own dirty work and if he wants me to believe in him, then I would obviously believe in him. For the record I don’t, so it must be God’s will.

Filed under: conversation, discussion, god, missionaries, Religion | 14 Comments »

Just like all cults, fundamentalist Christianity seems to have its own vocabulary. There are certain terms that seem to have pretty standard meanings, but when used in the fundamentalist Christian context they tend to mean almost the exact opposite.

The most overused term I hear is “Truth” with a capital “T.” To most people, something is true if we can verify that it in fact matches up with reality. However, when fundamentalist Christians use the term, they are specifically referring to a belief which as a point of fact cannot be verified and does not match up with reality. Truth is the belief that Jesus was the only begotten son of a deity who died for your sins (even though blood sacrifice in exchange for wrong doing makes no sense). Truth has become a particular belief about the world which has not and cannot be verified.

While many Christians will try to provide evidence for their claim of “Truth” the sad fact is that the evidence they present is so weak that it didn’t even convince them.  In general, Christians almost certainly became religious because they were taken advantage of when they were in a vulnerable position and probably even in a heightened emotional state or were just indoctrinated into religious belief at near birth. Attempts at providing reasonable arguments and evidence amounts to justification rather than facts or solid reasoning and when someone points out the flaws in their position, they almost always fall back to faith anyway. Faith for the record is non-verifiable by definition.

Another Newspeak term used in similar fashion is the use of the word “know.” Many times Christians have told me that they just know that the Bible is true and that God is real. They just “know” it. Really? Like truth, when we say that we know something it means that we experience with it. We can verify that some set of facts matches up with reality. But vague feels caused by heightened emotion can hardly be considered knowledge. Making a claim that one just knows something is true doesn’t make it so. The fact is that anyone can say that about anything. But that really doesn’t make it knowledge at least not in any intelligible sense.

A lot of times fundamentalist Christians tell me that they aren’t religious, they just have a “relationship” with God. As far as I am aware, a relationship is a two way street. Talking to one self does not qualify as a relationship.

The term, “Gospel” refers to four particular books of the New Testament which weren’t even written by the people whose name is ascribed to them. It does not mean absolute truth. In fact, if the Gospel of Mark wasn’t even written by a guy named Mark, I can’t see how someone could say that the term “Gospel” means unquestioned truth. Don’t take my word as Gospel on this though, research it yourself.

Filed under: 1984, conversation, discussion, Religion | 3 Comments »

Many theists complain to me that I shouldn’t criticize religion because it makes them happy. They accuse me of “trying to take away their happiness.” I find this accusation to be a sad attempt at a conversation stopper.

For starters, I don’t think I am trying to take anyone’s happiness away any more than drug rehab centers are trying to take away the happiness of those people who are high on hard and dangerous drugs. Theistic religion is a drug. In fact, it is the most dangerous kind of drug. Other drugs wear-off over time while god-belief only gets reinforced and more dangerous over time. When someone is on Cocaine, they can become dangerous to themselves and people around them, but when someone is on Jesus, they become dangerous to all of society.

That is a pretty strong claim that I am making here and there is no doubt that believers will be quick to point out all the missionary work Christians do and all the great things that the Church has done. They might even point out particular people who did great things who happened to believe in a deity. But they will just as quickly dismiss all the truly horrible things done in the name of Christianity and theistic religion and dismiss all the truly dreadful things done by particular people who happened to not only believe in a deity, but who have done dreadful things primarily because of that belief. They will talk about people’s misuse of the Bible or religion and they will talk about context and then point out instances of positive teachings in the Bible (ironically out of context).

When all that is done, they might even attack atheism as if atheism was a belief in itself. They will throw out names like Stalin, Mao, and oddly enough Hitler (who was a Christian). But all those things (aside from being intellectually dishonest) are just smokescreens that don’t address the fact that theistic belief is dangerous to society.

It is pretty selfish of a believer to put their own happiness above the well-being of others. A cover-to-cover read of the Bible will quickly show just how vial and evil the character of God is. One doesn’t need to go passed Genesis to see it, but once one gets into Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy it becomes pretty clear that someone would have to be a evil, sick, twisted person to worship that deity. But one thing is clear, while the God of the Old Testament loves torture and death, he at least stops there. The New Testament takes the evil one step further by claims of continued torture for all eternity unless you happen to worship its central character, Jesus.

Running around telling people to worship you or be tortured for all eternity just doesn’t sound like a peace and love kind of thing to do. Besides, while Jesus must have gotten good public relations people over two-thousand years, he still claims in the Gospel that he was not a peace and love kind of guy, but instead was the metaphorical sword kind of guy (Matt 10:34).

Yet, even though many theists will talk about happiness and how moral they are because of religion, the fact is that all the happiness in the world still wouldn’t make their religion of choice any more true. Religion would still be a drug at worst and a mythological story at best. We all know that stories of magic are make-believe and we all know that when we die, we are dead. If we really and truly thought differently, we wouldn’t fight so hard to live.

Real happiness doesn’t come from a god or a religion, it comes from living life well and surrounding yourselves with people who genuinely care about you and you them rather than those who are just using you as an enabler for their Jesus fix. Aristotle claimed that happiness is the end result of a life of reason. I think he might have been on to something there.

Filed under: atheism, de-conversion, Evils of Christianity, god, morality, Religion, the bible | 7 Comments »

I get asked a lot by both Christians and atheists alike, what is the book that I would most recommend to people in order to de-convert them away from god-belief. The answer I always give surprises a lot of people.

While some people would expect me to say, Richard Dawkin’s book, The God Delusion, I rarely recommend it. Don’t get me wrong, it is a good book for people who have never heard any of the arguments before, but the fact is that most of the arguments in that book are hundreds of years old. The book is a good overview of the arguments and for that it is a pretty good choice. But it wouldn’t be my first recommendation.

How about Chris Hitchen’s book, God Is Not Great. That too is a pretty good book, but not my top recommendation. It is a lot like The God Delusion in that it is a good overview of already existing arguments. Again, I might recommend it for some people who really haven’t heard these arguments before.

Sam Harris has two pretty well known atheist books and the first doesn’t even mention atheism. His books are great and I would highly recommend them, but neither The End of Faith nor Letter to a Christian Nation are in the number one spot. Both books do a really good job of laying out the case for why atheists have been so critical of theistic belief. Letter to a Christian Nation in particular is a good easy read for Christians. I have actually given it as a gift to at least one of my Christian friends.

Historian Bart Ehrman’s book, Misquoting Jesus, would probably be my third choice for Christians to read because it deals with how the Bible has changed over time. Once Christians see that the Bible isn’t this infallible monolithic book they tend to be more open to reasoning outside the Bible.

My number two recommended book is actually written by a Christian. Historian Karen Armstrong’s book, The History of God, is up there on my list. In this book, she shows to origins of the Abrahamic deity and how our view of that deity has changed over time. Personally, I am surprised that Armstrong can still consider herself a Christian after writing it.

But the book that I would recommend the most and that other atheists also recommend the most is still the Holy Bible. While many believers claim to have read the book, few have actually read it cover-to-cover without the aid of some religious leader telling them how to interpret it the correct way. We sometimes forget that for a long time, common people weren’t able or allowed to read the Bible for themselves. The Church held that only specially trained priests could interpret it correctly.

Even today, churches don’t really encourage their parishioners to read the Bible cover-to-cover on their own. The Bible is filled with the most despicable immoral acts one can think of and so it is no wonder that churches often focus people’s attention on the relatively few positive verses that they cherry-pick for their sermons. When some churches do focus on any number of the immoral passages in the Bible, mainstream Christians jump to claim that the Bible is being taken out of context, misunderstood, or misused. But the fact is that the Bible is a pretty immoral book as a whole and when people sits down and read it cover-to-cover that usually becomes pretty obvious.

Filed under: atheism, conversation, de-conversion, Religion, the bible | 7 Comments »

This wasn’t the topic I was planning on writing about today, but I think I would be remiss if I didn’t. President Barack Obama has already joked about being born on Krypton and talked about ridding the world of all nuclear weapons and now we has become a symbol of peace for the entire world.

Today, President Obama surprisingly won the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. He didn’t win this honor because of the actions he had taken, but rather because of the hope of actions not yet taken. Obama’s speech in Cairo earlier this year probably helped to put many in the Islamic world at peace after the 8 years of Crusade rhetoric from the Bush Administration. But that alone was not the reason for the honor.

The Nobel committee believes that Obama can do more. They are hopeful that he will be able to quell international terrorism, help to reverse global climate change, foster global diplomacy and international relations, and work to rid the world of all nuclear weapons.

I think part of this honor is a way of inspiring America back to the role of global leader and international community builder that we lost during the Bush years. Under Bush, America got the global reputation as being a bully rather than a leader and as a nation who goes it alone rather than a nation who unites other nations together in common cause. For Barack Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize isn’t recognition of achievement, but rather a call to action… not only for the President but for others to rally behind the President.

Filed under: Current Events, global climate change, Obama, Politics | 6 Comments »

When theists talk about Biblical scholarship, I can’t help but laugh. I can study the books of the Harry Potter series for years and years, but that doesn’t make the belief that Hogwarts is a real place filled with magic any less fictional.

It seems to me that the entire basis for the field (if you can call it that) of Biblical scholarship is to make the insane ideas of a series of bronze-aged mythology more compatible with itself as well as with 21st century understanding.

Many Americans were appalled last week when Religious Right website conservapedia.com wanted to edit out liberal ideas and words from the Bible. But the fact of the matter is that Biblical scholars edit out many of the really horrible ideas in the Bible all the time just by making new translations, re-defining words, claiming passages are metaphorical, and just reshaping the ideas presented.

Now I don’t want to dogmatically claim that all Biblical scholarship is this way, but I am certainly left with that impression about Biblical scholarship in general. There was a time when only the elite were allowed to read and interpret the Bible. It wasn’t that those people had some secret knowledge, but rather because they knew that people would be appalled at what the Bible actually said. Now everyone can read the Bible for themselves, so what is the point of Biblical scholarship? I think the answer is to make the Bible less appalling to the average reader.

Filed under: Biblical Scholarship, Religion, the bible | 8 Comments »

If someone owed you a hundred dollars and handed you 10 cents insisting that it was a hundred dollars, what would you do? Would it be considered proselytizing to inform them of reality? Would you claim that they are entitled to their belief? What if someone told you that they sincerely believed Elvis was still alive, would you take them seriously? Would you try to convince him or her that Elvis is dead? What if someone told you that gravity was just a theory and that it should no longer be taught in science class, how would you react?

The fact is that there is a real world and there is something called reality. There are also people in the world who mistake mythology for reality. I don’t think it ought to be considered “proselytizing” to correct people or to educate them about the nature of reality or to question them about their claims about reality. Yet there are people who want to define all education as proselytizing so that they have an excuse to actually proselytize. The view is that it is okay if Christians proselytize if everyone else proselytizes too. But education is not proselytizing.

The real question is; how do we know the difference between reality and mythology? The answer is simple; we use reason, critical thinking skills, the scientific method, and evidence to determine fact from fiction.

Reality and science are not religions. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is calling bullshit on religion. Atheism is asking the Elvis believer to present evidence that Elvis is still alive despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary. You can’t proselytize atheism any more than you can proselytize reality. There are no real beliefs in atheism except perhaps that others have not adequately presented evidence for their claims about reality.

Theistic religion can’t have it both ways, either reason & logic are the only tools for determining reality or 10 cents can be a hundred dollars. We can’t just make up reality at our whim and expect others to respect it.

Filed under: atheism, Atheism NOT Religion, delusion, Religion | 20 Comments »

James Dobson and Chris Hedges have very little in common, but when it comes to the non-believers, they are on the same page. In fact, they constantly play off each other. Dobson talks fire and brimstone and Hedges talks of peace on Earth. Yet we never see the two of them debate each other or even really challenge each other. In fact, the only people these two Christians argue and debate against are atheists.

Just like Christianity there are differences within atheism. In the past, there has been vigorous debate between atheists in relation to how vocal we ought to be with theists. Should we take the Greg Epstein approach of keeping our atheism quiet and create a new Humanist religion which doesn’t conflict with religious people’s views? Or should we take the Chris Hitchens approach and treat theistic religion with absolute contempt and ridicule? Atheists are constantly debating between fellow atheists on this question.

More recently, atheists have been debating with ourselves about whether an atheist needs to just concern themselves with religion or whether they must tow the skeptical line on everything. Is there room in atheism for those who don’t believe in gods, but are open to believing in alien visitation, ghosts, or medical industry conspiracies?

The big difference that I see with these divides is that atheists seem to always be debating other atheists and Christians seem to not be debating other Christians (at least not much). Dobson and Hedges have radically different views about the Bible, God, and Christianity, but they are united in their criticisms of atheism. I don’t think all atheists need to have the same approach or philosophy. I am skeptical of the “skeptical” dogma at times and don’t think that all atheists need to tow the PZ Myers line. But we should be clear here; all those who lack a belief in gods are atheists.

Atheism isn’t a club or a group in the traditional sense. We are a label of people who don’t fit into the group of theists. We shouldn’t argue about whose atheism is better or who is a real atheist. We can discuss our differences without resorting to these types of things. We cannot be divided into these types of sects and denominations. Atheism is not a religion. It is a label.

So instead of debating Epstein’s atheism vs. Hitchens atheism or PZ Myers vs. Bill Maher, we should all unite against theism. We can disagree without turning atheism into a dogmatic religion.

Filed under: atheism, Atheism NOT Religion, People of Reason, Religion | 24 Comments »

In George Orwell’s book 1984, there is a very interesting and often overlooked conversation. In this conversation, O’Brian informs Winston that he (O’Brian) can float on a bubble. O’Brian then contends that if Winston and he both believe this to be true and no one is around to disagree than it is in fact true and O’Brian really can float on a bubble. But if just one person doubts this reality, than that reality is shattered for everyone. Truth, O’Brian claims is what everyone (without exception) believes Truth to be. With that in mind, O’Brian later tells Winston that he can’t just kill Winston for opposing Big Brother, but rather he has to first get Winston to believe in Big Brother.

To some extent, I see this as the way theists think about “Truth.” As long as everyone believes in God, God is still real. People can argue about the attributes or character of God, but everyone still must believe that God exists. This is why so many theists focus so much on atheists. As long as there is just one skeptic out there who doesn’t buy into the God illusion, then that illusion is shattered for everyone. This is in part why so many theists are so opposed to atheists and it is in part the reason why they must shout their beliefs from the rooftops. The need for the conversion of others is tied directly to this view of Truth. In the end, just one atheist willing to ask questions is all that is needed to pop the bubble of religion.

Filed under: 1984, delusion, Evils of Christianity, missionaries, Preaching, Religion | 6 Comments »

Yesterday was Blasphemy Day and some atheists have been critical of the holiday. I don’t really have a problem with that. Not all atheists have to agree on this or anything else for that matter except of course the lack of belief in deities. But I would like to address some of the criticisms.

One criticism is that Blasphemy Day is only about ridiculing religion and just reinforces the angry atheist stereotype. This is a valid criticism and while I see where this criticism comes from, it really does miss the point of the holiday. Blasphemy Day isn’t about ridiculing religion (although that does occur as a result of this holiday). The purpose of this holiday as I understand it is about free speech. In 2005, many in the Muslim community went into full riot mode when on September 30th a Danish newspaper published a series of cartoons seem by many in the Muslim world as Blasphemous. This is the reason why September 30th was chosen as the day to Blaspheme.

But let’s not kid ourselves, many Christians and Jews also have issues with free speech and claim that speech which ridicules their silly beliefs are blasphemous too. The main difference is that Christians and Jews no longer kill people over blasphemous speech the way that the Danish Muslim rioters did. The holiday is geared toward reminding people that Christians and Jews once were just as violent about Blasphemy as Islam is today and to also remind people that many in the Muslim community do take these things seriously. We are not and should not be afraid. We should not silence our criticism or water it down because some people are easily offended.

This brings me to the second point. I don’t have a problem ridiculing ridiculous beliefs. And quite frankly neither do most people. How many people laugh at Tom Cruise’s expense? Or as Sam Harris pointed out in a debate, what about people who seriously believe that Elvis is still alive? What would happen if someone went into a job interview or on a date and voiced this sincere belief? People would laugh and mock that belief. The believer would probably not get a second date and it is rather doubtful they would get a job after voicing such a belief. Is that wrong? I don’t think it is. If people don’t want to be ridiculed for their beliefs, then they should not believe ridiculous things.

As for the atheist image problem, I don’t really think that is going to change just because we don’t have a Blasphemy Day. The fact is that our very existence is the cause of our demonization. There are many very vocal theists who hold the view that everyone should believe in their brand of mythology is exactly the same way they do. The fact that people don’t believe in their god is an affront to their beliefs (in their eyes). Those that believe in other myths are at least playing the same game. But atheists aren’t playing make-believe. This is a threat to their imaginary world. So you can play nice with them all you want, but they are still going to marginalize atheism and demonize atheists. Those in the middle, don’t seem to really care.

Since the fundamentalists are going to demonize us in any event, I choose not to cooperate. So I will not spell “god” with a hyphen. I will not pretend that their ridiculous beliefs are legitimate points of view with any degree of merit. I am not trying to be mean or hateful, but I just don’t want to play make-believe with those people and call it reality when it is not.

Filed under: atheism, Blasphemy, free speech, People of Reason, Religion | 3 Comments »

Fuck Mohammad with a Crucifix, today is Blasphemy Day! For those who aren’t aware, this is the anniversary of publishing of a handful of Danish cartoons which caused mass rioting from the Muslim community. Incidentally, none of the major US publishers published those cartoons at the time out of fear. In fact, the executives at Comedy Central even blocked South Park from showing the prophet Mohammad in their cartoon show out of that same fear.

But Blasphemy isn’t just a Muslim thing. Christians have it too. A few years ago, my friends over at the Rational Response Squad and Beyond Belief Media teamed up and launched the Blasphemy Challenge. Good times were had by all freethinkers. This year, the Center For Inquiry has a contest dealing with Blasphemy Day. Today is the last day for submissions. I wrote about it on the Examiner.

I think as the atheistic community grows, Blasphemy Day will grow too. I think it is a good idea and many in the community would like to have holidays to celebrate and rally behind. What traditions would you all like to start with Blasphemy Day? Do you have any funny Blasphemy Day stories?

Filed under: atheism, Blasphemy, Religion | 7 Comments »

I’m a little disappointed in the greater atheist community. Atheists are notorious for not uniting together and for not supporting fellow atheists. We really need to fix this problem. While not all atheists agree with each other on anything necessarily except for the lack of belief in a god or gods that is no excuse. The gay community is similar and yet they don’t seem to use that excuse. Not all gays are liberal. Not all gays agree with each other on everything. The only thing that all gay people need to have in common is to have an attraction to the same gender. Yet the gay community helps each other out and supports each other in ways that our greater atheistic community can’t seem to manage.

Now, I know that my blog doesn’t have the same kind of bump power that PZ Myers or the Friendly Atheist has, but I still expected more from all of the Dangerous Talkers here. I know how many people roughly read my blog on a daily basis and I know how many people voted for the film that I promoted on Friday. Let’s just same that the numbers don’t even close to match up. Now I know that the film festival website sucks and that it crashed my Firefox on more than one occasion. I also know that people are required to register before they can vote and while registration is FREE it takes 10 seconds. I also know that before you can vote you have to actually watch the film which is 15 minutes long. But if you really don’t want to do that, you could always turn your volume off, start the film, and tab over to your facebook, myspace, or twitter for 15 minutes.

The point really isn’t this particular film or this particular online film festival. The point is that the greater atheistic community now makes up at least 15% of the American population and yet we can’t seen to support each other or work together to get our ideas out there to the general public. We have no political power to speak of and can’t seem to use our growing numbers to do much of anything. We are too lazy to even vote for an atheistic film in an online film festival. How can we really expect to fight back against the well organized, well funded, Christian Right which still outnumbers us 3 to 1?

We need to step up people! We need to support our fellow atheists whenever we can. We need to support our community. The irony is that this was the very thing that I was talking about in the atheist film that I want everyone to vote for.

Filed under: atheism, culture war, People of Reason, Political Activism, Religion, Tree of Knowledge | 13 Comments »

Over the weekend, I was reminded of a conversation I had a number of years ago. But before I get into that conversation, I want to talk about more recent conversations I tend to have with people who gravitate to the Right Wing.

It seems that whenever I get into a political discussion lately, Right Wingers accuse me of being a Communist. The funny thing is that I doubt very much that any of these Right Wingers have ever even met a Communist. They don’t even seem to understand the meaning of the term. They just blurt it out because that is what Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck tell them to do.

A few years ago, I sat down with a Communist and had the conversation about Capitalism vs. Communism. I remember the conversation well; we were both single at the time and sitting in a bar on Valentines Day. During that conversation, I came up with an analogy which I think fits these two systems.

Imagine you are in school on the first day of class. The subject of the class is Communism. The teacher says that this class will be taught Communist style. She tells the entire class that at the end of the semester, they will receive the same grade, a C. The first week, there will be some students in the class who will want to learn the material anyway and they will continue to study and learn. Most of the class will just passively listen but not exert themselves to much. And some of the students will do nothing and not pay attention at all. As time goes on, less students will continue to learn and more students will continue to slack off and do nothing. Everyone gets an equal grade of a C (average).

A Capitalist class on the other hand focuses on competition. Strictly speaking, you get only the grade you earn and some students will get Fs and some will get As. Most will get Cs.

These analogies basically cover the concepts of equal distribution of wealth and the incentive for work. In the Communist system, the government divides the pie equally among the people. The problems are that this affects people’s incentive to work and that the more people you have the small piece of the pie each person will receive.

Capitalism on the other hand focuses on competition. The idea is to grow the pie so that there is more pie available to those who are willing to work for it. The problem with Capitalism lately has been that people want more pie, but are unwilling to work for it. Instead, they want to cheat people out of their pieces of pie and then use the pieces of pie they have to bribe the government to help them steal more pie. This is a perversion of Capitalism and that is why government regulation has to kick in to stop the bribery and to stop people from cheating others out of their pie. If you want more pie, you have to work for it.

At one point in my conversation, I remember my friend asking me simply why Capitalism is better than Communism. My answer was simple, “Toothbrushes.” I then explained how if you go to your local grocery store and try to buy a toothbrush, you will have to choose. There are toothbrushes that spin, rotate, move up and down, and even some that do all three. There are toothbrushes with strips to let you know when you need to replace them, and now there are electric toothbrushes for relatively low cost. There are about 3 or 4 toothbrush makers and they are all competing to create the next great toothbrush before the other companies. As a result, we the people get the choice of better and better toothbrushes for lower and lower prices. Capitalism does this same kind of thing for almost every industry. Communism would just pass out sticks with bristles to everyone. If it works, what incentive is there to make a new one?

But again, the problem is that some people want to stop the competition so that they can make all the money. In early twentieth century, industries would meet and form Trusts which would set the prices for the entire industry. Or sometimes one toothbrush company would buy out all the rest and then there would be no competition. Laws were passed to prevent these Trusts and Monopolies from forming. The idea is that competition drives the market. Today, the Health Insurance Industry are playing these same games. Most states only have a few big insurance companies that have bought out their competitors and now deal with each other to set premium prices and to try to push sick people out of their plans and into the hands of their competitors.

Now large corporations don’t want to work hard to compete, they want to cheat to compete. They bribe our elected officials to pass laws which shift money from 95% of the people to the top 5% without having to actually work hard. Americans need to push our elected officials to restore Capitalism by restricting corporations from cheating the system.

Contrary to my Right Wing Friend’s assertion that anyone who wants the Public Option or Medicare4All is a Communist, the opposite is true. These are Capitalist systems which promote competition. While doing nothing and letting large corporations bribe our elected officials is moving America toward Communism by inhibiting competition.

Filed under: Capitalism, communism, healthcare, Politics | 7 Comments »

Last year, the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia put up a winter display outside the Chester County Courthouse in West Chester, PA. As a member of that organization, I was part of the effort. While we were putting up our Tree of Knowledge, a film maker named Greg Walsh took some video that he was turning into a mini-documentary.

His documentary is now in an online film festival. While I just posted an article on this on the Examiner and encourage everyone to check out that article, I also want to encourage everyone to watch the 14 minute film and rate it 5 stars.

Here is the link to the online film festival.
Thanks,
-Staks

Filed under: atheism, People of Reason, Religion, Tree of Knowledge | 2 Comments »

We live in a world that is dominated by religious belief. Often times, well meaning people insert their religious belief into casual conversation. This is socially acceptable behavior in our society. When this happens, an atheist is put in an awkward position.

We don’t want to send the message that it is acceptable for religious people to push their views on us. We also don’t want to pretend to be believers when we are not and yet we also don’t want to offend the often well meaning religious person who hasn’t even considered the possibility that other people might not be religious or might not be a believer in their religion.

For example, before the summer started I was talking to a local crossing guard as she stopped traffic for me and my baby. But our friendly conversation got awkward for me very quickly when she said, “God bless him,” referring to my baby. Now I could simply pretend to be a believer and say thank you. That would be the socially acceptable response. But why should I have to pretend that I believe in a God when I do not. She was the one who imposed her religion into the conversation.

She meant well and I don’t blame her for the imposition. She is just a victim of religious indoctrination. But had I told her that God doesn’t exist and started the conversation, society would consider it rude. People would claim that I am imposing my atheism on this nice old lady.

It doesn’t seem fair to me that religious people can impose their views on others without a thought and when we inform them that we don’t hold those views, we are the ones considered rude by society. But life isn’t always fair. So I say be rude… as politely as possible. While I am glad this crossing guard was well meaning, she should know that it was rude for her to assume that everyone believes as she does. I wouldn’t deliver a sermon on it or anything, but a simple, “I don’t believe in god, but thanks for the sentiment,” should do fine.

We have to let people know that it is not okay for them to impose their religion on us. We need to change the atmosphere in which this type of behavior is considered acceptable. It won’t happen over night, but if we just pretend to believe by saying, “thanks” out of fear of being rude, than this will continue. We need to risk the social stigma of rudeness for the sake of future generations.

Filed under: conversation, discussion, Preaching, Religion | 11 Comments »

During the Bush years I heard a lot of people telling me that America was getting so bad under religiously wacko Republican rule that they were seriously considering leaving the country. Even today, I hear some of my more progressive friends tell me that with Health Care the way it is and the Religious Right continuing to make this nation less and less educated, that Europe or Canada is looking better all the time.

I have to admit, that the thought of moving to the Netherlands or Canada has entered my mind. So I can’t really blame other people for having the same thought. Fundamentalist Christianity continues to make America the laughing stock of the world. Our Democratic President and Congress seem powerless against the wacky religious Republican minority. When half of America gets their opinions from Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and James Dobson, we have to wonder what is going on in this country.

The fact is that more than half of the American public either doesn’t accept the science of evolution or are not sure. Whether or not homosexuality is an abomination or not has become an issue of intense debate. More Americans believe in an ancient book of myths than the latest scientific discoveries in cosmology. To say that most Americans are intellectually ignorant would be an understatement.

Fundamentalism is on the rise in American and many progressives are just tired of it. But we can’t leave. Do you really think that the fundamentalist Christians like James Dobson and Sarah Palin would just stop after they have completely taken over America and blasphemy and skepticism are outlawed?  If Ray Comfort was President and 90 percent of Americans were fundamentalists, do you really think they would just try to convert the other 10 percent of America and then leave the rest of the world alone?

One of the problems with fundamentalist Christianity is that they have this view that they are saving people’s eternal souls. If you knew that someone was going to be tortured for all eternity and that you could save them, it would be an act of cruelty not to. These people see what they are doing as humanitarian. They are on a mission to save people from sin.

When Bush went into Iraq, one of the excuses he used was that Saddam Hussein was gassing his own people. We had to save them from their leader. Now think about it. A fundamentalist Christian America looks at the rest of the heathen world. What do you think they are going to do, just sit by and let the Satan control the rest of the Earth? No, they are going to want to fight the evil Satan and they are going to attempt to convert the entire world for God.

America is the most powerful nation on this Earth. If you thought is was scary that Bush had the Nuclear Codes, what about if James Dobson, Ray Comfort, or Glen Beck had them? America is the last battlefield. If we lose America to the fundamentalist wackos, we lose the world! By leaving America, progressives and freethinkers will be conceding the world to darkness and ignorance.

The culture war is not one of our choosing, but it is a war we must fight. We can’t just leave the battlefield in good conscience and hope that the fundamentalist extremists will come to their senses. We need to stay here in America and combat superstition with reason. We need our more progressive European and Canadian friends to move here and help us. Save America, Save the World.

Filed under: culture war, Most Dangerous Religion, People of Reason, Religion | 9 Comments »

Today, President Barack Obama went to the United Nations to give one of his signature speeches. This time, his speech was on the Global Climate Change problem. As always, the President was articulate and inspiring. He talked about the great threat that the world faces and even quoted John F. Kennedy.

Dealing with the Global Climate Change problem isn’t like dusting crops, you have to deal with all the other nations of the world and the wacko anti-science religious fundamentalist in America. If you are a fellow Star Wars geek, you might have noticed that I just bastardized a line from Han Solo. But I am sure Han Solo won’t mind since Harrison Ford (the actor who played Han Solo) thinks Obama needs to do more on this issue.

Just yesterday, Solo… I mean Indiana Jones… I mean Harrison Ford had this to say:

The sad fact is that like Health Care Reform, I predict that Obama will once again be held hostage by the religiously insane Republican minority. There is a lot of money to be had from Big Business by not having environmental regulations and being allowed to dump pollutants in the water and in the air. Polluting the Earth is big business and I doubt Obama will be willing to scrap that part of our Nation’s economy.

The Republican opposition here stems not just from the profits of big business who don’t want to spend the extra cash for global security and the public health, but also from the part of the Republican Party which is religiously wacko. That’s pretty much more of the base. These people believe that God created the Earth and only God can save it. But worse yet, some of them believe that the Earth shouldn’t be saved at all. One of the signs of the End of Days/Rapture/Armageddon is that nature will turn against mankind. While I think that the End of the World would be a bad thing, these religious nuts think that the End of the World is a good thing. In fact, they think that it is the greatest thing that could ever happen.

Rush Limbaugh and newly crowned wacko in chief, Glen Beck, are both in the anti-science camp claiming that global climate change isn’t happening and even if it is, it is not a bad thing. With this kind of pressure, I am sure that Obama isn’t going to step up to the plate. Instead, he will just say that he should and that it is important. But when the time comes to really lead on this issue, like with the health insurance issue, Obama will seek, “bipartisanship” which is the new code word for whatever the Republicans want.

Filed under: culture war, Current Events, End of Days, global climate change, Obama, Politics, Religion | 8 Comments »

The other day, a Christian wrote to me and told me that he didn’t think that even if incontrovertible evidence was shown for God, that I would accept it. One of his arguments was that Jesus did lots of miracles and there were still people in his day who didn’t believe even though they saw the miracles happening right before their eye.

I love these types of conversations. I always throw them for a loop when I tell Christians like this individual that one of the reasons why I don’t believe is because of the miracles. Many Christians have a hard time understanding this line of thinking.

Think about it in this way, even the Bible says that Satan can do these same types of magic tricks. The Bible repeatedly warns against any kind of magic except for God-magic. So if Satan can do magic tricks and Jesus can do magic tricks, how do magic tricks support the idea that God is real? Come to think of it, Penn & Teller can do magic tricks too without supernatural powers. I once saw them throw a rabbit in a wood chipper… okay bad example.

The thing is that Uri Geller can bend a spoon with his mind right in front of your face, but that is really poor reasoning to conclude that Uri Geller is God in the flesh. Think about it, why would God feel the need to show off his divine powers by bending spoons?
If God was real and was all powerful and could do anything and he really and truly wanted to make his presence known, he wouldn’t need miracles or magic tricks to do it. We would all simply “know” it intuitively. As a point of fact, we don’t.

People are taught religion often times from an early age. If we intuitively “knew” God, than there would be no reason to teach religion, no reason to proselytize, and no reason for missionaries. Either God doesn’t want everyone to know of his existence or he does not exist. It isn’t that I don’t believe despite the miracles, but rather that I don’t believe in part because of the miracles.

Filed under: miracles, Religion | 8 Comments »

The Republicans really do need a game show. It used to be that Republicans just had a token stupid person in office like former Vice-President Dan Quayle but that just wasn’t stupid enough. So then the Republicans elected America’s stupidest President, George W. Bush. Some Republicans however claimed that Bush Jr. was actually a secret genius who was just playing stupid. This is a pretty stupid belief and most Americans didn’t really buy that one anyway. At least there was some desire on the Republican Party to claim intellect at least.

More recently, the Republican Party gave us the Vice Presidential candidate and former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. Her rise to prominence was based on being twice as religious and twice as stupid as our former President George W. Bush. She is so stupid that in the same speech in which she announced that she was quitting the position of Governor, she insisted that she was not a quitter. She’s so stupid that she thought strong foreign policy experience meant that she could see Russia from her house… interestingly enough, it wasn’t Russia she saw from her house it was an Obama sign on her neighbor’s lawn. Fortunately, Mrs. Death Panels’ fifteen minutes of fame seems to be nearing its end.

But then we have the new crop of elected Republican idiots. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is desperately trying to be the next Sarah Palin. It started when she insinuated that there are anti-American people serving in our government, but more recently she stated that the best way to defeat health care reform is to pray and fast. But that wasn’t dumb enough, so then she wanted Republicans to come together and slit their wrists as some kind of blood oath to stop health care reform. Don’t worry, she’s not advocating suicide, she’s just dumb.

I could go on, but we have to get to our next contestant, Governor Bobby Jindal who came to fame by telling the American people that money going to research when volcano’s could erupt was a waste. It didn’t take long before that money saved a lot more money and lives. The evils of science I guess. But Jindal’s stupidity isn’t so much what he says, but what he has done. By his own account, in college he and some friends held a girl down, restrained her, and exorcised her demons. I wonder whether his demons were exorcised that night as well… wink wink.

But those are just the actual elected officials. The fact is that there is a whole spin off game show for the pundits. It used to be that Rush Limbaugh said the stupidest and craziest things despite that fact that he probably isn’t all that stupid, but just says these things to get attention. But then along came Sean Hannity to give Rush a run for his money with similar nonsense. Despite Hannity’s attempt to be American’s Next Top Craziest Republican Pundit, he never really got into the game. Bill O’Reilly on the other hand made a serious run for the top spot of pinhead of the week.

Then along came Glen Beck. While on the radio, Beck was the most sane of the lot, but put a camera in front of the man and all hell breaks loose. Now even Time Magazine has declared Beck the winner of the loony bin asylum. From evil left wing conspiracies to repeatedly crying for America on the air, Beck knocks it out of the park. The man calls President Barack Obama a racist and then says that he don’t think Obama hates white people in the same sentence.

Of course, the politicians and the pundits are just two thirds of the stupid and insane Republican Party. Trinity of stupidity is complete when you add the Republican base. All you have to do is watch some of these townhall events and the 9-12 rally in D.C. to see just how stupid the Republican base really is. Then there are the “Teabaggers.” For the record these mostly homophobia people called themselves that name. Perhaps they did not do a google search on the term, “Teabagger.” I think they would be quite surprised to find out what pops up. From the Birthers to the Teabaggers the Republican base may need their own spin off game show called, “America’s Got Stupid.”

Filed under: culture war, palin, Politics | 22 Comments »

A few months ago, I saw the Academy Award nominated film, Milk about gay activist, politician, Harvey Milk. One of the things that I noticed about as I saw the movie was that the main character was able to gain political power because he formed a strong gay community to elect him. I remember wondering if atheists could form a local community and elect leaders.

Last night, I was checking out some other atheist blogs and the Friendly Atheist did a story on a small town called Liberal, Missouri. I did a little more research on this because it sounded interesting to me. The town of Liberal was founded in 1880 as a town for atheists only. There was actually a law to keep Christians out of the town.  There were no churches and on Sunday mornings school children would learn about science and philosophy.

Of course, a town which advertises as a town for atheists only is going to be a target for Christian missionary groups. Sadly, Christians started moving into the town on the “down-low” and holding secret worship services. Some Christian groups even bought up property next to Liberal and erected giant signs pushing Jesus.

Don’t get me wrong though, Liberal was no paradise, it certainly had its problems. For one thing, while I understand the desire to outlaw religion I do see that level of authoritarian control to be detrimental to society. Nevertheless, I think that modern atheists can learn a lot from Liberal, Missouri. Maybe the time has come to try this experiment again in a more modern way.

I don’t think we can actively exclude Christians and other god believers, but we can certainly find a place where we can form the majority and use the democratic process to create a community of our own. Of course, fundamentalist Christians will undoubtedly come to proselytize and we would have to deal with that. First things first however, what are people’s opinions about the idea? Where would be the best place for such a town? How willing and able would you be to move to an atheist town?

Filed under: atheism, People of Reason, Religion | 14 Comments »

Many times when I am in a discussion with religious and/or atheistic moderates, they tell me that, “some people need religion.” They also often tell me that, “you can’t reason with a fundamentalist.” These are interesting opinions and many of my readers may even agree with them. I however do not.

I think people are smarter than this. When someone claims that some people need religion, they are basically implying that while they are of a superior intellect and don’t need religion, other people are not on their intellectual level and still do “need” religious superstition and mythology in order to be moral or to function well in society. I don’t think people “need” religion. I think people have been taken advantage of by religious systems which prey on people when they are emotionally vulnerable. The fact is that any one of us could have been brainwashed by religion. Most of us have been taken advantage of when we were in an emotionally vulnerable position (often times when we were just babies with no understanding about the world).

While many atheists were once religious, we are no longer. Some how we were able to free ourselves from the “need” for religious belief. Was it our superior intellect? I don’t think it was. I think that most of us were confronted with questions we couldn’t answer and as result started to have doubts. Those doubts eventually lead to disbelief.

The funny thing is that many atheists were once fundamentalist believers. It is usually the string of questions and the fundamentalist’s need to justify their fundamentalist belief by finding answers which in time tends to leads doubt and later disbelief.

The fact is that we are all human and we all have the ability to reason and the think. Some people just have forgotten how to do those things well. But the more we poke holes in the religious mythology and show how ridiculous these beliefs really are, the more we can get believers (moderate and fundamentalist) to start to doubt their absolute certain beliefs.

Filed under: atheism, conversation, de-conversion, Religion | 5 Comments »

There was a time in American history when our society reached for the future. People were excited to explore space, to see what the latest technology was coming out, and what technology companies were working on for the future. People were curious about what a positive future for humanity might look like.

In the 1960s, New York City hosted the World’s Fair. The themes of the fair were, “Peace Through Understanding” and “Man’s Achievement on a Shrinking Globe in an Expanding Universe.” This was an optimistic look at humanities future dedicated to science, reason, curiosity, and knowledge.

Believe it or not, the World’s Fair still goes on today every two years… but not in America. We have become a nation consumed by religious and nationalistic fanaticism. People are more interested in the End of the World than a better tomorrow. We now live in a nation where almost half of our citizens reject the science of evolution and close to a third believe religion should be taught in public schools.

We are the only western democracy that doesn’t provide health insurance for it citizens and even the more liberal members of our society seem to think that space exploration is a waste of resources. Our people fear our government instead of our government being a tool of the people as prescribed in our Constitution.

As I look around me and discuss philosophy and science with the average citizen, it has become painfully obvious that we have become a nation of stupid people who have little to no curiosity or understanding about the world around them. Most people in America can’t even think critically about ideas presented to them on a daily basis and being smart has become a social albatross.

We live at the beginning of the 21st century shouldn’t we aspire for a better future? Why are we stuck with bronze-aged mythology? How is it that America have been held hostage by a bronze-age death cults hoping for Armageddon?

Filed under: anti-intellectualism, culture war, Religion, The Future | 26 Comments »