Flying Rabbi FAIL

In the "I can't believe this is 2009" category: Flying rabbis take to the air to combat H1N1, blasting the virus into oblivion with their funny horns.

This would be hilarious if it weren't so enraging. Yeah, forget about educating your flock on hand-washing, or the symptoms of the disease, let's instill a false sense of security (not to mention superiority) instead! And try to waste some jet fuel while you're at it!

Tags: atheism
Mood: angry

Good riddance - it was a slap in the face to every one of us who were dinosaur-loving kids

Dinosaur Adventure Land*, the creationist theme park, will be seized to pay back the $430K owed to the federal government.

On Kent Hovind, its founder:

Saying he was employed by God and his ministers were not subject to payroll taxes, he claimed no income or property.

* - Not to be confused with Dinosaur Land of Winchester VA. Dinosaur Adventure Land is in Florida. While DL-of-VA's a little ratty in places, and inexplicably persist in exhibiting King Kong along with the dinosaurs, at least they use words like "evolution" and "hundreds of millions of years ago".

Tags: atheism, news
Mood: pleased

::Atheism:: I've been meaning to update on this topic...

...and today's a good as day as any. I came across this on the Richard Dawkins feed: 'Out of the Closet' - Black Atheists. Although it seems like the atheist stereotype of being predominantly male seems to be rapidly reversing itself (at least by observation), it doesn't necessarily appear to be the same in the 'race' category. So it's good to hear some new non-white voices besides Hemant Mehta and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Unfortunately the article is rather short given the range of topics it covers, so you have to kind of "take her word on it" for some of the ideas she's putting forth. Who knows, maybe she's planning to follow up and become a regular contributor to atheist topics.

Oh yes, and I really must stay away from the caffeinated mints - I've only had two (and no other caffeine) and I'm bouncing around and my concentration's shot - which kind of defeats the purpose, eh?

Tags: atheism
Mood: hyper

start the morning off...

... with an excellent post on same sex marriage found on Friendly Atheist. Lots of links too, in case poetic words don't do it for you.

Tags: atheism, gay marriage
Mood: inspired

::Atheism:: More Americans Say They Have No Religion

This has been out for a couple days, but there's probably those who haven't seen it yet.

A wide-ranging study on American religious life found that the Roman Catholic population has been shifting out of the Northeast to the Southwest, the percentage of Christians in the nation has declined and more people say they have no religion at all.

Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.

Northern New England surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least religious region, with Vermont reporting the highest share of those claiming no religion, at 34 percent. Still, the study found that the numbers of Americans with no religion rose in every state.

"No other religious bloc has kept such a pace in every state," the study's authors said.

In the Northeast, self-identified Catholics made up 36 percent of adults last year, down from 43 percent in 1990. At the same time, however, Catholics grew to about one-third of the adult population in California and Texas, and one-quarter of Floridians, largely due to Latino immigration, according to the research.

Nationally, Catholics remain the largest religious group, with 57 million people saying they belong to the church. The tradition gained 11 million followers since 1990, but its share of the population fell by about a percentage point to 25 percent.

Christians who aren't Catholic also are a declining segment of the country.

In 2008, Christians comprised 76 percent of U.S. adults, compared to about 77 percent in 2001 and about 86 percent in 1990. Researchers said the dwindling ranks of mainline Protestants, including Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians, largely explains the shift. Over the last seven years, mainline Protestants dropped from just over 17 percent to 12.9 percent of the population.

The report from The Program on Public Values at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., surveyed 54,461 adults in English or Spanish from February through November of last year. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.5 percentage points. The findings are part of a series of studies on American religion by the program that will later look more closely at reasons behind the trends.

The current survey, being released Monday, found traditional organized religion playing less of a role in many lives. Thirty percent of married couples did not have a religious wedding ceremony and 27 percent of respondents said they did not want a religious funeral.

About 12 percent of Americans believe in a higher power but not the personal God at the core of monotheistic faiths. And, since 1990, a slightly greater share of respondents — 1.2 percent — said they were part of new religious movements, including Scientology, Wicca and Santeria.

The study also found signs of a growing influence of churches that either don't belong to a denomination or play down their membership in a religious group.

Respondents who called themselves "non-denominational Christian" grew from 0.1 percent in 1990 to 3.5 percent last year. Congregations that most often use the term are megachurches considered "seeker sensitive." They use rock style music and less structured prayer to attract people who don't usually attend church. Researchers also found a small increase in those who prefer being called evangelical or born-again, rather than claim membership in a denomination.

Evangelical or born-again Americans make up 34 percent of all American adults and 45 percent of all Christians and Catholics, the study found. Researchers found that 18 percent of Catholics consider themselves born-again or evangelical, and nearly 39 percent of mainline Protestants prefer those labels. Many mainline Protestant groups are riven by conflict over how they should interpret what the Bible says about gay relationships, salvation and other issues.

The percentage of Pentecostals remained mostly steady since 1990 at 3.5 percent, a surprising finding considering the dramatic spread of the tradition worldwide. Pentecostals are known for a spirited form of Christianity that includes speaking in tongues and a belief in modern-day miracles.

Mormon numbers also held steady over the period at 1.4 percent of the population, while the number of Jews who described themselves as religiously observant continued to drop, from 1.8 percent in 1990 to 1.2 percent, or 2.7 million people, last year. Researchers plan a broader survey on people who consider themselves culturally Jewish but aren't religious.

The study found that the percentage of Americans who identified themselves as Muslim grew to 0.6 percent of the population, while growth in Eastern religions such as Buddhism slightly slowed.

Also, here is a link to some graphics illustrating the % change of various categories of religion, including "no religion". These graphics are really neat - you can view geographically as well!

Tags: atheism
Mood: optimistic

::Atheism:: Short & Sweet

Atheist QotD gets fed to my iGoogle page, and although sometimes the daily selections are less than "gems", today's is short, sweet, yet says so much:

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

-Christopher Hitchens

Sometimes I can't find just the "right" way of expressing this sentiment, so I compensate by writing (or saying) volumes. All I really needed were eleven words. :)

Tags: atheism
Mood: pleased

::Atheism:: Hellooooo next batch of morons.

[Reposted from an entry in LJ, dated 1/27/09] Why is this CNN's "most popular" story of the day? What is it about certain segments of the population and their perpetual death wish? Are the slow (but actually real) threats of pollution, climate change, overpopulation and economic ruin not exciting enough for ya? Is this really going to be taking up the public consciousness for the next four years? And when absolutely nothing happens (aside from the usual variety of tragedies & atrocities we see every year), what is the next Date-O-Doom on the horizon? A much more interesting read is this secularist's take on the Holocaust vis a vis the Pope's latest blunder, and the folly in using magical reasoning with respect to history. Among other things. I need to remember to read it again when I get home, as lunch was wrapping up & I kind of rushed through. The article hit on a couple of ideas that I'd not considered (or heard mentioned) before; a revisit will aid my ponderings. Tags: atheism, news Mood: cranky

Atheist bus campaign comes to DC!

	The widely publicized UK bus advertisements now has a US counterpart. Click here for more information on the ad campaign itself and how to donate. Tags: atheism Custom Friends Groups: Atheism, Mom Mood: excited

::Atheism:: QotD

My iGoogle's Atheism "Quote of the Day" module gave me a pretty good one today:

"If atheism can be called a belief, can I say that my not collecting stamps is a hobby?"

Tags: atheism
Custom Friends Groups: Atheism
Mood: amused

From richarddawkins.net

The human body is not "intelligently designed". In fact, it's rather poorly "designed".

PS - note who's pushing creationism this time...Tags: atheism
Mood: amused

A Survey of Public Understanding of Evolution

Taken from richarddawkins:

http://www.evolutionsurvey.com/

They'll ask you to describe evolution in your own words as well as why you do/don't believe in it. Also has some demographics questions, and if you give your email address you can get a copy of the eventual results.
Tags: atheism, quiz
Mood: curious

This oughta be interesting

Carcass of "bigfoot" creature to be unveiled today.

Synopsis: Two Bigfoot hunters (a cop on disability and a corrections officer) claim to have retrieved a dead Sasquatch from a remote area in Northern Ga. They will not disclose the precise location because they claimed there were other live creatures, and they wanted to protect them. Supposedly the carcass is in good enough shape to supply DNA evidence (although the pic looks like an ape suit in a chest).

I am unclear from the article what access they will be granting biologists/geneticists that will be "verifying" the find. And that's what it hinges on - DNA evidence. In 2008, where DNA testing is commonplace, a fake corpse would be revealed in no time (unless they have a couple of shill scientists in on it). If they don't grant basically unlimited access to real, uninvolved, impartial scientists, and skeptics, it should immediately be ruled as a scam.

Every so often a new species in a remote part of the world is discovered, and sometimes they are large animals. Extremely rarely do they find large-ish land animals, but it's happened once or twice in modern times (although not *that* large). So I keep my mind open, even just a hair of a crack. But it would require real evidence corroborated by multiple respectable sources, as happened with the coelacanth. If that doesn't happen, there's no reason to proceed further. This should be interesting to follow, for amusement if nothing else.Tags: atheism, news
Mood: skeptical

::Atheism:: Humanist/Atheist Chaplains?

An article on WP in favor of putting Humanist Chaplains in the military. That's er, different. I've got mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, I can get behind the non-proselytizing agreement, and even that it be expanded beyond chaplains to the entire military, or at least those in positions of authority. And I suppose, if there are networking resources for the religious, there should be an equivalent for the declared nonreligious (although one commenter brings up an obvious point - how granular should this get - one Jewish chaplain, or one each for orthodox/reformed, etc., etc?).

I doubt many atheists require atheistic "guidance" akin to the religious pastor/parishoner, but if I were far away from home, I might want to touch base & chat with some other freethinkers (if I otherwise didn't know any). But I can't imagine an official representative would be necessary, unless the working environment was exceedingly hostile towards the nonreligious. In that case, the answer would be to curb the discrimination, not construct another bin to hole people up in. More to the point, are actual service men/women asking for this role to be filled?

Either way, I don't think anyone would be happy with the term chaplain.

chap·lain –noun
1. an ecclesiastic (a member of the clergy or other person in religious orders) attached to the chapel of a royal court, college, etc., or to a military unit.
2. a person who says the prayer, invocation, etc., for an organization or at an assembly.

Any atheist who's "out" has probably been hassled by someone saying that "atheism is your religion"* (or a popular variant, "science is your religion"). So I would predict an immediate chafing from atheist servicepersons at thought of going to a "chaplain". "Adviser" or "coordinator", perhaps, if there had to be a representative of humanism/atheism. But again, why have it at all?

I guess it all depends on how military chaplains are viewed - as government-paid representatives of a religion (or set of "endorsed" religions; even now they exclude certain faiths), or as a service that is needed by some of the troops for proper functioning. I lean towards the former, but hardly inclined to be upset over it, let alone raise a stink. After all, the lion's share of the government's financial sponsoring of religion comes not from chaplains or even faith-based programs, but from the tax-exempt status that "recognized" religions enjoy.

Still, I did find the author's observations on the clergy interesting (given his vantage point, I have no reason to doubt it). I've often speculated on levels of nonbelief within the religious profession. It naturally follows that those highly schooled in a religion would be more likely to spot its failings.


* - Atheism only falls under the religion question as the "none of the above" answer. Not believing in something != professing belief without proof in an absense. There are an infinite number of comparable questions you could pose (e.g., do unicorns/leprechauns/purple happiness particles/Judoon exist) that are logically impossible to prove in the negative, but most people dismiss these questions rather than take an agnostic stance.

Tags: atheism
Custom Friends Groups: Atheism
Mood: contemplative

Friday Snippets

I found a great quote on one of the message boards today. The only thing edited was the punctuation:

The idea of 'god' is just a limitation we place, as a species, on our imaginations...

Also, glittachris let me borrow his netflixed NOVA program on the "Intelligent Design" (i.e., Creationism) vs Evolution court battle in Dover PA. I'm halfway through it, it's pretty good. I really should try to intersperse some quality public TV documentaries in between my space operas & Wonder Woman (in her satin tights! Fighting for her rights! And the old red white & blue! ).

Also, just for fun: The harder I work, the luckier I get.

::Atheism:: The Anonymous Scientology Protest

While this isn't about atheism per se, atheism heavily influences my feelings on this matter.

A few months back, most of us heard of the leaderless, web-based group "Anonymous" that was staging anti-Scientology protests in this area and across the country. I had an immediate visceral reaction to this, based on what little I knew of Scientology and the reasons for the protest. But I said nothing as I had not done any real reading on the matter. I've since schooled up, and my opinion stays the same. It may not be what you'd expect.

Basically, as I understand it, Anonymous' main gripes with Scientology are:
1. The "disconnection" policy the church pressures its members to comply with. Any family member or friend who is critical of Scientology gets totally shut out.
2. Repeated efforts to censor the media reporting negatively on Scientology.
3. Their attempts to achieve tax-exempt recognition.

I read some other mumblings about internal corruption, and apparently there was an isolated death in the ranks that was of a suspicious nature. But mainly a lot of talk about it being a "cult" and "paranoid", "crazy" etc.

However, the first thing I must ask is: Why should I protest this religion?

Do they believe crazy things? Without a doubt. But space alien gods don't stack up as *that* crazy when set against virgin births, earth-supporting turtles, and bearded sky gods.

Are they paranoid nutters? You bet. And #2 is troubling, but also looks pretty cut-and-dry. It seems to me that lawsuits would swiftly resolve such things. --Also, it doesn't appear as though the censorship has been terribly successful, as I've not met one person who (if they even knew what it was) had a favorable impression of Scientology.

Are they a cult? Perhaps, but cult-status, like history, is often decided by the winners. As for #3, I am opposed to any religion being exempt from taxes, as it creates a breeding ground for financial and ethical ills. So I am not terribly threatened by one more in the mix.

As for gripe #1, that is sad. It must be truly heartbreaking for family/friends to lose someone over a difference of opinion, especially in a country where free speech is so valued. So I really do understand the POV of any protester who's been touched personally. But as far as I know, we are talking about consenting adults, and no one is being killed, kidnapped, raped or tortured if the recruit suddenly opted out. Find me evidence to the contrary, and I'll consider revising my opinion. Scientology represents such a small % of the population that the disconnect policy's fallout probably doesn't even total the emotional damage of one of our smaller states' suicide rates (this is a total WAG, btw).

We aren't talking about a religion that lies to vulnerable populations about contraceptives' effectiveness against AIDS. Or mulitate girls' genitals so as to be a more pleasurable fit to men on their wedding night. Or marry off child brides to creepy old men. Or protect clergy that molest little boys. Or wage war, killing over differences in religious doctrine. Or burn and torture those suspected of witchcraft and heresy.

All this goes on today, much of it even in this country. *If* I were going to protest a religion, it would be based on wholesale human suffering. That list would include, in order: The Catholic Church, Islam, and The FLDS Mormon Church.

Exactly why should Scientology surpass these to the top of the list?
Tags: atheism

Mood: indifferent

::Atheism:: WTF

I'm sure at least a few of you have read about the Pew survey on religious affiliations that recently released its findings. Among them are:

Over 90% of Americans believe in god(s), including 1 out of 5 atheists.

This is not an inclusive category including agnostics or "unaffiliated", but atheists, by themselves.
The obvious question is "How?". I mean, I'm all for defining personal identity as one sees fit, even if it doesn't match the dictionary defintion of "gay", "straight", "atheist", etc. But professing a definitive belief in god(s) kind of flies in the face of the core idea of being an atheist. At the very least, it's bound to create confusion, and thus requires clarification.

If you drill down into the data, most of that 21% believe in the deity concept as an "impersonal force", e.g., the laws of physics, etc. A mysterious 3% answered "Other/Don't know", which I suppose could be anything from a personal concept to "the human spirit", religion as a conceptual entity, etc. But then there's that 6% that believe in a personal god.

I am honestly curious - can anyone on the filter shed some light onto why someone defining as "atheist" would answer in such a way?

It has certainly given the atheist forums (and others) a head-scratcher. Were some people just fucking with the survey? Some atheists can be on the cantankerous/mischievious side. Are some respondants confused and misreading "atheist" as "a theist" as a subcategory of "unaffiliated"? Was the survey laid out in such a manner that input error accounts for some of this percentage?

Also apparently 1 in 10 atheists pray weekly. This also has been a source of confusion, and I've read atheists trying to explain it away as respondents being too literal in their responses (e.g., the "please let me find a good parking spot" that most of us do by habit).

But are atheists being "too literal" with the praying question, and "too metaphorical" with the god(s) question?

It's all just speculation - those who answer in the affirmative for the god(s) or praying question need to answer for themselves. The answer could be illuminating (or amusing, or just more confusing).
Tags: atheism
Mood: confused

Addendum: Just discovered this question is taken on by Sam Harris.

::Atheism:: Authors

Today, I thought I'd share impressions on a number of the prominent authors in the atheist/secular humanist "movement". I don't get to read nearly as much as I like (e.g., I was happy to get a dozen pages in on "The Selfish Gene" last night), for the aforementioned distractions that keep me from posting. However, I've at least sampled a majority of the main players, with the exception of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Richard Dawkins - Honestly, even though he's arguably the best-known name on this list, Dawkins is the author that resonates most. Perhaps because he's a scientist, and not a philosopher, lit-major or journalist. I find the same comfort in his thought process and way of representing himself that I did with Carl Sagan and do with Neil deGrasse Tyson. I do not necessarily agree with all of his ideas, however (maybe a 85/15 split). I've also seen a bad essay or two from him (plus one really sloppy and emotional essay on polyamory). But overall, I enjoy his writing most of all.

Christopher Hitchens - An acclaimed international journalist, he's also written god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and other atheism/humanism-related material. In his life he's done a lot, been a lot of places, and been a member of about 6 different religions. So he has a very wide perspective, but he tends to wander off on tangents and name-drop. But his unique vantage point makes his book's main argument, the artificiality of religion, truly compelling.

Sam Harris - A philosopher by training (many of these authors are), I had to read The End of Faith with a dictionary as my constant companion. Some of the vocabulary-flexing seemed unnecessary, IMO, but he does speak at length about secular, non-supernatural spirituality. This is a topic that I have a special interest in, but do not feel ready to talk about at present. Basically, I don't feel schooled enough to represent myself accurately, and I don't want to be misinterpreted. Unfortunately I never finished The End of Faith, but I hope to eventually.

Daniel Dennet - So far I've only read a few essays. He definitely adds a new perspective, but some of his social ideas seem a bit unrealistic. Or maybe oblivious is the word - he, after all, is one of the primary defenders of the term "Brights".

Paul Kurtz - I've read a number of essays in the Free Inquiry magazine (which he created). I like his skepticism essays, but some of his other favorite topics are a little dry for my tastes.

Susan Jacoby - I've read her essays in WP, but would also at some point like to check out her book, The Age of American Unreason. I've noticed she manages to convey a nuanced and inclusive view without pandering or weakening her position.

Jacques Berlinerblau - Another WP contributor. I do not know what is going on with this guy, half the time I can't figure out what side he's arguing for, or even what he's talking about. He's a professor of religious studies, and thus is concerned with a lot of religious minutiae. He's a self-identified atheist but rarely writes about atheism unless it's to criticize people or parts of the atheist movement. Perhaps, if he can't manage to make his points more clearly, it would be better to classify him as an academic on religious topics, including atheism, and relinquish his categorization as speaking from an atheist viewpoint, since he rarely does.Tags: atheism

Mood: rushed

::Atheism:: Meet & Greet

Howdy. First post on atheism is optional introduction/backstory time. Feel free to comment below if you feel comfortable sharing, and can take the time to type. I know already the group spans from hard-line atheists to people with religious belief.

For me, I never had the usual atheist's experience of rebelling against religious upbringing. My parents both were raised Catholic but individually ditched those beliefs in childhood/young adulthood. They had their two oldest children baptized for some reason (I suspect my grandparents were leaning on them to do it), although that was stopped after my sister (one priest they interviewed faced pedophilia accusations in the 80's). We never went to church. I grew up basically in an agnostic-leaning-towards-atheist household, with a few half-hearted attempts made to get us "familiar" with Christian mythology. Presumably for literary/cultural references, etc.

So basically, in the context of religion, there was never anything for me to rebel against. I've been "out" as long as I can remember. However, the recent (post-2001) atheist movement has helped clarify certain thoughts I've had over time - thoughts that needed to be honed outside of the dusty confines of one's own mind.

The crux is, I'll only be led to "believe" something, or even investigate the possibility of something existing, if there is some reasonable [external] evidence to put me down that path. Therefore I am an atheist, not because I claim the ability to prove an absense, but that there is not one scrap of evidence in favor of these supernatural claims. Me wanting something like eternal life, a divine purpose, etc., no matter how badly I want it, does not make it so.

Agnosticm implies indecision (or a non-decision or an openness towards) about supernatural claims. To borrow an overused talking point, I am not agnostic about the existence of the Tooth Fairy, Unicorns, or the Medusa. Why should I be agnostic about religion? If one day, naturalists spot and capture a Tooth Fairy, I will simply revise my position on the matter. But why bother to debate it until there's actually something to debate (Sacks of teeth found in the wild, fossilized Fairy droppings, etc)? I've actually had agnostics try to bully me out of identifying as atheist. The above paragraph answers their usual arguments.

In general I find religion to do more harm than good, especially when large groups of people or power is involved. Not for anything that resides in the supernatural beliefs per se, but the fact that by definition, religion requires one to suspend reason (at least in respect to their supernatural claims). That makes it a magnet for all sorts of ills, because the base group, at least part of the time, does not try to make decisions based on logic. Of course, nothing immunizes secular groups from this sort of nonsense, and there are several really nasty examples of secular causes gone bad (nationalism seems to me to be the worst culprit). But there is no Bible or "because god says so" to shut up the dissenters. Even with nationalism, often times they use religion as a backup motivator, a crutch or club.

That's my core thought on atheism & religion - that putting irrational thinking up on a pedestel is a toxic thing. Sure, every human being is irrational in some respect, including myself. Some irrational thoughts (e.g., optimism) can be even be considered good. But to romanticise irrationality, in my mind, is dangerous and destructive. The word "insidious" comes to mind, because of all the subtle ways it gets into our thinking, but I don't want to seem overdramatic. ;)

At some point I'll talk about spirituality and atheism, which if you read Sam Harris, you'll know there are at least some folk who do not view them as mutually exclusive.

Next time I'll get into more detailed subject matter, but for now, feel free to share your story if you have the inclination to type.Tags: atheism
Mood: contemplative