Atheism is Not a Religion

Posted on Skeptico.com

This is a refrain I’m hearing a lot from religious apologists – atheism is a religion. Also its equally fallacious siblings, science is a religion and evolution is a religion. It’s a sign of their desperation that the best argument they have is not that atheism is wrong, or that god does exist (supported by evidence of course), but that atheism is a religion too. A strange argument for a religious person to make on the face of it.  Is it supposed to strengthen the atheist’s position or weaken the theist’s one? In reality it’s a sign they have run out of arguments.

Still, this argument is widely made, and so it needs to be addressed. Atheism (and here I mean the so-called “weak atheism” that does not claim proof that god does not exist), is just the lack of god-belief – nothing more and nothing less. And as someone once said, if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby.

That really ought to end the discussion right there. Clearly, a mere lack of belief in something cannot be a religion. In addition, atheism has no sacred texts, no tenets, no ceremonies. Even theists making this argument must know all that. So they must have something else in mind when they trot this one out, but what is it? What are they really thinking? Well, if you look at various definitions of religion, the only things that could possibly apply to atheism would be something like this:

6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly

or this:

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Obviously I don’t know if that’s what they mean – I don’t read minds. But I can’t see what else it could be. They must be referring to certain activities of atheists – writing books and blogs, financing bus ads, joining atheist groups, etc. They think atheists are “religious in their atheism” as one person put it to me – the word “religious” being used here colloquially to mean something felt very strongly, or followed enthusiastically. But this definition of religion is so broad that virtually anything people enjoy doing very much, or follow strongly or obsessively, is a religion. It’s a definition of religion that is so broad that it’s meaningless. In reality, most of the things that people follow enthusiastically, are just hobbies. And ironically, although not collecting stamps is not a hobby, getting involved in atheist activities (writing books and blogs, attending atheist meetings) might well be a hobby for some people. But it is a hobby, not a religion.

What Is Religion?

I’m sure that argument won’t convince all theists to abandon this rhetorical trope they love so much.  To really address the argument, we have to define religion, and then see if atheism fits the definition. While I don’t think I can define religion completely, I think I can state the minimum that religion has to have to still be a religion. And it seems to me that there is one thing at least that is common to all religions. It’s this. In my view, religion at a minimum, has to have the following characteristic:

Religion must include something you have to accept on faith – that is, without evidence commensurate with the extraordinary nature of the belief.

Most religions will include other things too, but they must require faith. Of course, not all things that require faith are religions, but all religions must require faith.

The minimum definition covers all the religions I’m familiar with. For example, it includes any religion that involves belief in god or gods – something you have to believe in without evidence. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism… all require you to believe in god or gods as a minimum, without evidence. The minimum definition would also include religions that don’t require belief in god, but require faith in other things. For example, I believe it would include Buddhism, which (for example) includes the belief that living beings go through a succession of lifetimes and rebirth. It would also include Scientology – no evidence for Xenu, that I’m aware of. Maybe you can think of some actual religions that would be excluded, but I haven’t been able to so far.

So religion requires belief without evidence. And by that definition atheism cannot possibly be a religion because atheists do not have to believe in anything to be an atheist – either with or without evidence. QED.

Now, some religious people may say, “but that’s not my definition of religion”. To which I say, OK, then give me your definition. Give me your definition of religion, that doesn’t require belief without evidence, that includes your religion, the others I named, and atheism. And it needs to be better than the two dictionary definitions I cited above.  Give me that definition. Because here’s the thing. The problems I have with religions are:

1. They are not based on fact or on any reasonable evidence commensurate with the claims they make. In many cases, the claims they make are plainly absurd and are actually contradicted by the evidence.
2. Religious proponents demand respect, and adherence to their delusions by others. This despite (1) above.

Those are the aspects of religion that I object to. Clearly atheism doesn’t fit 1 (or 2) above, so it is nothing like any of the religions I object to. If your religion does not require belief without faith, then I probably wouldn’t have a problem with it. Assuming, of course, all the tenets of your religion are actually backed up by evidence extraordinary enough for the extraordinary claims your religion makes. But they never do. 

In my view, theists will have their work cut out to deny this minimum requirement for religion.  Come on – they even refer to their religion as “my faith”. 

Evidence and Extraordinary Evidence

Some religious people will claim that their religious beliefs are backed by evidence. This is where it gets tricky, because many religious people genuinely believe their religion is rational and backed by evidence. For example, one Christian I debated cited that the evidence Christianity was real, was (and I quote), “the resurrection of Christ”. Of course, the resurrection of Christ, if it had actually happened, would be pretty good evidence for Christianity. But, unfortunately, there is no good evidence for the resurrection. Certainly, nothing close to the extraordinary evidence we would need to accept this extraordinary claim.

Extraordinary Claims

This needs explaining in more detail. Why do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Well, all claims require exactly the same amount of evidence, it’s just that most "ordinary" claims are already backed by extraordinary evidence that you don’t think about. When we say “extraordinary claims”, what we actually mean are claims that do not already have evidence supporting them, or sometimes claims that have extraordinary evidence against them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they usually contradict claims that are backed by extraordinary evidence.

So why is Jesus’ resurrection an extraordinary claim, and why is the Bible not extraordinary evidence for it? Well, the resurrection goes against all the evidence we have that people do not come back to life, spontaneously, after two days of being dead. Modern medicine can bring people back from what would have been considered in earlier years to be “dead”, but not after 2 days of being dead with no modern life support to keep the vital organs working. In fact, it is probably reasonably safe to say it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that people cannot come back to life after being dead for two days without modern life support. So, extraordinary claim it is.

On the other hand, the evidence we are offered in support of this extraordinary claim consists only of accounts written decades after the event, by people who were not there when the events described were purported to have occurred. We are offered nothing but hearsay anecdotes from superstitious people with a clear reason for wanting others to think the story true. This is hardly acceptable evidence to counteract the fact that this never happens. Christians might ask, what evidence would an atheist accept for such an extraordinary claim? And in reality, it is hard to imagine that there could possibly be any evidence good enough for us to accept the resurrection as true. Christians may claim that this is unfair, or that we are closed minded, but the fact that you are unlikely to find extraordinary evidence for this event 2,000 years after the fact, is hardly the non-believer’s fault. The real question, considering the weakness of the evidence, and the wildly extraordinary nature of the claim, is why would anyone believe any of it in the first place?  The truth is, they accept it on faith.  In fact, the acceptance of this story on faith alone is usually considered to be essential to the true believer. And although that was just Christianity, the same lack of evidence, and belief based on faith alone, applies to the claims of all the other religions that I’m familiar with.

Religions require belief in extraordinary claims without anything close to the extraordinary evidence that is required.  Atheism requires no belief in anything.  The contrast couldn’t be clearer.

But the believer has one final shot – one last desperate rhetorical item to fling at the atheist.  Here we go.

More Faith To Be An Atheist?

The final argument many religious apologists throw into the mix is it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in god. That certainly took me by surprise the first time I heard it. I think what they’re trying to say is this. Atheists think matter just appeared out of nowhere, that something came out of nothing. But where did the matter come from? To think that matter appeared out of nowhere requires more faith than to think a creator made everything. Why is there something rather than nothing? To think that matter just appeared by itself, requires faith.

Atheists don’t think matter came out of nowhere. Atheists say we don’t know where matter came from; we don’t know why there is something rather than nothing. Maybe one day we’ll know, or maybe we won’t. But we don’t know now. Theists are exactly the same. They don’t know either, but the difference is they make up an explanation (god). But it’s just a made up explanation – they have no reason to suppose it’s true, other than that they just like it.

And it’s a useless explanation. Unless they know something about this “God” – how he created everything; why he created it; what he’s likely to do next - it’s a lack of an explanation. It’s just a placeholder until a real explanation comes along. Except that the theist won’t be open to the real explanation when and if science is able to provide one. The god placeholder prevents investigation into any real tentative explanations. The theist who says god created everything, is the one with the faith – faith that “god” is the explanation and that no other is possible. The atheist is content to say “we don’t know”. For now, anyway. And it’s obvious that saying “we don’t know,” requires no faith.  That may be a hard thing to do for people who want all the answers, but it certainly isn’t religion.

One last thing.  Some theists have responded to the “if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby” argument by pointing out that non stamp collectors (aphilatelists?) don’t write books or blogs about not collecting stamps, don’t post anti stamp collecting ads on buses, don't ridicule stamp collectors, etc.  This is meant to demonstrate that the “stamp collecting” analogy is weak.  It actually demonstrates that the analogy is very good, since it highlights one of the main problems atheists have with many religious people.

Here’s the thing they are missing, and the real problem most atheists have with religion.  If stamp collectors demanded that people who don’t collect stamps obey their stamp collecting rules, started wars with groups who collected slightly different types of stamps, denied non-stamp collectors rights or discriminated against them, bullied them in school, claimed you had to collect stamps to be a suitable person to run for public office, tried to get stamp collecting taught in schools as science in opposition to real science, demanded that people be killed for printing cartoons that made fun of stamp collectors, claimed that non-stamp collectors lacked moral judgment, made up ridiculous straw man positions they claimed non-stamp collectors took, and then argued against those straw men positions etc etc, - then non-stamp collectors probably would criticize stamp collectors in the way atheists criticize many religious people. And with good reason. Not collecting stamps would still not be a hobby.  Or a religion.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Do you believe in a god? (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• The fatal consequences of religious books (isiria.wordpress.com)
• How to Create a Heresy (firstthings.com)

Atheist Children Unite!

Atheist Comedian on Prayer In School

Eddie Izzard Circle (2002) on Popes

Comedians joking about religion. And upsetting facts

EDDIE IZZARD : Whales n' God - Circle '00

Noah's Ark - Eddie Izzard ILLUSTRATED - Vol. I

Eddie Izzard -Moses and the 10 Commandments

EDDIE IZZARD : Creation n' Connery - Glorious '97

edde izzard talks about dinosaurs and jesus

Eddie Izzard - Noah & The Flood

eddie izzard vs. creationism

Its Comedy time, the next few post will be with Eddie Izzard, and his views on religion

Related articles by Zemanta

• Izzard boards Two Jags' battle bus (guardian.co.uk)
• Eddie Izzard Announces Surprise Show at Largo, Tix Almost Gone (laist.com)

Evolution - The 'Best' Counter Arguments

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection - The 'Best' Counter-Arguments DEBUNKED.

Original video "Top 10 List Why Anti-Evolutionists Are Wrong" by
• http://www.youtube.com/cdk007

In discussing evolution with people who doubt its validity, cdk007 has found they use the same arguments over and over again. He felt it was time to put these arguments to the test and hold them against existing facts.

cdk007's degrees:
• High School Diploma
• Minor Chemistry
• Minor Physics (Astro-physics)
• Bachelors (B.A.) Degree Botany
• Ph.D. Molecular Neuroscience
• Currently postdoc at an Ivy League University

To download cdk007's video go to:
• http://www.mediafire.com/?4yn0m1q1l0t

If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:
• http://www.mediafire.com/?nttnnndz2mz

Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, think about it!

---

Related videos:

"Dear Creationists, Thank You." by cdk007:
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q2ABS7wSxU

"Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 30)" by Thunderf00t:
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpL1dmfVoGA

"15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism" by AronRa:
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0

"Creation 'Science' Made Easy" by potholer54:
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO7IT81h200

"How Evolution Works" by DonExodus2:
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY

"A Question Of Origins - Debunk" by djarm67:
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KimDWtyv5s4

"Intelligent Designer Exposed: Who is the Designer?" by C0nc0rdance:
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0kk0iGBSEE

"Fuzzy Logic and the Definition of Species" by shanedk:
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb5OEw_q-II

Related articles by Zemanta

• NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial (milkandcookies.com)
• Four out of five Britons do not believe in creationism (telegraph.co.uk)
• Understanding What is Wrong With Mississippi's HB 25 (msatheists.org)

The Argument from Maximal Greatness, for the Non-Existence of God!

This is another original Atheological argument I
innovated, as I continue to do my job as a strong
atheist, to substantiate the veracity of my position.

The importance of disproving God needs to be
more stressed and explicity stated:

God, and the God concept, subsist upon
the invalid metaphysical Ontology of
the Primacy of Consciousness, over the Primacy of Existence. If God were real, this would have
disastrous consequences for the Uniformity
of Nature, the Intelligibility of the Universe, and
would mean there could be no truth or factuality to existence.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How to Argue with Believers and Not Get Frustrated (thehiddenatheist.com)
• Obama Plans Fence-Mending Speech to Atheist World (scrappleface.com)
• In Praise of Atheism (africaunchained.blogspot.com)
• Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism? Because We're Right. (thehiddenatheist.com)
• The Differences between Atheism and Christianity (hiddenatheist.blogspot.com)

Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

May 12, 2009 Uncut CBC Interview with George Stroumboulopoulos

Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism? Because We're Right.

Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism? Because We're Right. | | AlterNet

Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism? Because We're Right.

By Greta Christina, AlterNet. Posted June 26, 2009.

Thinking you're right and trying to persuade other people you're right is not intolerant or close-minded -- it's a cornerstone of democracy.

Whenever the subject of atheism comes up, anywhere that isn't an atheist discussion group or something, one sentiment almost inevitably comes up:

"I wish atheists wouldn't talk so much about atheism."

The sentiment gets worded in many different ways. "The new atheists are so evangelical." "This atheist criticism of religion is just intolerant." "You atheists are just as close-minded as the hard-line religious believers you're criticizing."

But the essence of it is the same: The fact that many atheists are talking publicly about our atheism, and are trying to persuade people that we're right about it, shows that we're ... well, evangelical, intolerant and close-minded. So today, I want to explain why so many atheists think it's important to talk about atheism ... and why many of us try to persuade other people that atheism is correct.

The first answer is the most obvious: Anti-atheist bigotry. Atheists talk about atheism because there's a lot of misunderstanding and hostility toward us. It's nowhere near as severe as racism or sexism; but it does exist, and it has real-world consequences.

Parents are denied custody of their children for being atheists; people are harassed and and their homes vandalized by their neighbors for being atheists; teachers are suspended for being atheists; teenagers are harassed and suspended from school for being atheists; politicians whip up anti-atheist fear to try to get elected. (And that's just in the U.S. I'm not even talking about parts of the world where atheism is a crime punishable by imprisonment or death.)

Making ourselves visible, coming out about who we are and what we do and don't believe, is the best way we have to counter that.

That's only a small part of the story, though. Another part -- and probably more important -- is that many atheists see religion not just as a mistaken idea but as a harmful one. We see it as a serious social problem, a type of belief that on the whole does significantly more harm than good ... and one that, because of its ultimately unfalsifiable nature, has little or none of the reality checks that other belief systems eventually have to measure up to.

We see people bombing buildings, abusing children, committing flagrant fraud, shooting political dissenters, etc., etc., etc., all behind the armor of religion ... and we feel a need to speak out.

Even that, though, is missing the crux of the issue. The crux of the issue, the most important answer to the question, "Why do atheists have to talk about atheism?" is this: Why shouldn't we?

Thinking you're right, and trying to persuade other people you're right, is not intolerant or close-minded -- it's a cornerstone of democracy. That's how it works: people explain their ideas, debate them, make arguments to support them, revise or refine or drop them in the face of valid criticism, make snarky jokes in the face of stupid criticism.

The marketplace of ideas won't flourish if people don't bring their ideas to the market. Being close-minded doesn't mean thinking you're right; it means refusing to reconsider your position, even when the evidence suggests that you're wrong. And being intolerant doesn't mean thinking other people are wrong; it means refusing to listen to them, and dismissing them entirely as stupid or wicked, simply because you disagree with them.

Think of it this way. Is it intolerant or close-minded to say that single-payer is the best plan for the American health care system? That public funding for solar power will reduce our dependence on foreign oil? That global warming is real? That the theory of evolution is right? Is it intolerant or close-minded to try to persuade people to come around to any of these points of view? And if not ... then why is it intolerant or close-minded for atheists to explain why we don't believe in God and to try to persuade people that, of all the ideas people have about religion, atheism is the most plausible?

See, here's the thing, atheists see religion as a lot of things. But for many of us, religion is, above all else, a hypothesis about how the world works and why it is the way it is.

Obviously, we think it's a mistaken hypothesis: inconsistent with itself, inconsistent with reality, unsupported by any good evidence. We can't prove our case with 100 percent certainty -- that's pretty much impossible, especially when you're trying to prove a negative -- but we think we can make a pretty good case.

But more to the point: We see no reason to treat religion any differently from any other hypothesis about the world. We think it's valid to ask it to support its case just like any other hypothesis ... and just like any other hypothesis, we think it's valid to poke holes in it in public.

And we think one of the main reasons religion has survived for so long is that it's so impressively armored against criticism and indeed against the very idea that criticism of it is an acceptable thing to do.

So we therefore think criticizing religion is not only valid, but important. It doesn't just chip away at religious beliefs themselves. It chips away at the idea that religious beliefs should be immune to criticism. It chips away at the armor that religion has used so effectively for so many centuries to shield itself from any and all questions and critiques.

Now, playing devil's advocate for a moment: Some may argue that I'm being hypocritical; that I'll decry the evangelism of evangelical believers, but am willing to defend it in atheists.

But I don't, in fact, have a problem with evangelical believers trying to persuade others that they're right. Don't get me wrong: I think many of their specific beliefs are mistaken. I think many of their specific beliefs are bigoted, hateful and harmful. I have serious problems with many of the methods they use to persuade, with their reliance on fear and false promises and, in some cases, outright lies.

And I think far too many of their rhetorical devices simply deflect legitimate criticism instead of answering it. But I don't think it's wrong of them to express their beliefs and to try to persuade others that they're right. Again -- that's the marketplace of ideas. And I'm in favor of that. I can disagree passionately with someone's ideas without thinking they're jerks simply for wanting to share them.

I think a little historical context may be in order. This "I'm so tired of hearing about (X), proponents of (X) who advance their views in the public eye are intolerant" trope has been used against every major social-change movement I can think of.

Queer activists were "in your face"; civil rights activists were "hostile"; feminists were "strident." And now atheists who make our case are "intolerant" and "evangelical." When people speak out, not against atheism, but against the very idea of atheists persuasively expressing their views, I always want to ask if that's really the side of history they want to end up on.

Besides, it's not like we're standing outside anyone's window with a bullhorn at 3 a.m. We're not holding a gun to anyone's head and making them read Pharyngula. We're not even knocking on people's doors at 8 o'clock on Saturday morning to share the good word about Darwin. (Well, except for that one guy...)

If people don't want to hear what atheists have to say, there is a wide, wide world of blogs, newspaper articles, magazine articles, YouTube videos, movies, TV shows and oodles of other media available with just a flip of the page or a click of the remote or the mouse. If someone is seriously angered because they occasionally see the word "atheist" in a headline, or have to change the channel if Richard Dawkins is on, then I have to wonder if what's upsetting them is not the evangelical intolerance of atheist activists, but the very idea of atheism itself.

Now, if someone disagrees with us, then by all means, I want them to say so. If someone thinks that there's solid, reliable evidence supporting religious belief, or that the good done in the name of religion outweighs the harm, then I strongly encourage them to bring their ideas to the conversation and to make their case.

But there's a world of difference between, "Here's why I don't agree with you," and, "You are a bad person for even opening your mouth." The former is an attempt to engage in the conversation. The latter is simply an attempt to shut us up.

If someone comes to the marketplace of ideas and the only thing they have to offer is, "How dare those atheists set up a stand here! They're trying to convince us that we're mistaken and that their ideas are better! That's so intolerant!"... then I don't see any reason why I should take that seriously.

How to Argue with Believers and Not Get Frustrated

Posted on commonsenseatheism.com

How to Argue with Believers and Not Get Frustrated

A reader asked me,

Do you ever feel a [sense] of futility when arguing with believers? What drives you to argue as much as you do?

After giving some examples of arguing with stubborn and ignorant Christians, he concludes:

Sorry about this rant I have just been arguing with some frustrating people as of lately. Arguing with people who think they are “masters” concerning the skeptic position and “skeptic psychology” even though though they have never read a skeptic book, this drives me nuts! I am thinking in my head… damn it, please go educate yourself and read some skeptic books and a couple of logic books [while] you are at it!

How do you decide who or who not to argue with? What are your thoughts about the merits of arguing with the religious?

I have already explained Why I Write This Blog – I’m not just trying to win converts to logic and atheism, though that’s part of it.

Arguing with people can be a frustrating experience. People generally have many deeply held but poorly examined beliefs – theists and atheists alike! Most people don’t like having their beliefs challenged; it is uncomfortable for them.

One of my most fortunate developments was to enjoy having my beliefs challenged. Reading strong philosophical arguments for the existence of God – or anything else contrary to my current beliefs – is actually “mental masturbation” for me, except that challenging my beliefs not only leaves me excited but sleepy, but may actually bear fruit in my life.

Christians are especially vulnerable to holding unexamined beliefs because for them, beliefs have moral and eternal implications. A good way to make someone resistant to examining one’s beliefs is to tell them it is not only immoral to doubt God, but that doubt may usher them into a world of eternal, excruciating torture.

I argue with stubborn believers a lot, but I can’t remember the last time I was frustrated by this. When I tried to guess as to why I’m not frustrated, I came up with the following advice on how to argue with believers and not get frustrated:

1. Lower your expectations. If you think you’re going to deconvert a believer or even change his mind about something, you need to lower your expectations. Things don’t usually work that way. I never expect to deconvert someone or change their mind about an important topic. Instead, I take a lesson from my early days as a Christian evangelist: I seek only to “plant seeds.” Back then, I planted seeds of faith in an invisible friend. Now, I plant seeds of doubt. The arguments I give are not going to impact someone in the moment, but the seeds I plant may sprout fruit sometime later. The theist may consider my arguments at another time, or remember them when confronted with something in the real world. Perhaps when visiting a hospital, he’ll think, “Isn’t it nice that God can be source of comfort for all these people? But wait – why would a loving God allow so much innocent suffering in the first place? Luke may have had a point, there.”
2. Detach yourself from the outcome. This is useful pretty much any time – when taking exams, when picking up women, when writing an article, whenever. You need to realize that your efforts are not the only cause of a given outcome. If a theist doesn’t see the flaws in his own reasoning even when you carefully explain them, realize that there are many causes for this that are outside your control – his upbringing, his psychology, his emotions, his ignorance of science or logic, etc. Focus on what you can control: your presentation of atheism. If you gave a concise, clear, and compelling presentation of atheism then you should be proud of that. And if you did not, then you “win” anyway because you can learn from the experience. Perhaps you need to refine your argument to avoid common objections, or perhaps you need to research a particular issue more. Remember, one reason the theist didn’t change his mind may be that your arguments weren’t compelling. In this case, the theist himself, if he is trained in logic, may help to improve your own argument by pointing out flaws in your reasoning. This is a big bonus to you even though the theist did not deconvert on the spot.
3. Value the conversation. Part of detaching from the outcome of an argument is to value the conversation for its own content, not for its result. Personally, I enjoy a good back-and-forth. I have to think on my feet and run everything through my critical thinking filter in real time. Such conversations tell you a lot about how believers think. The more you talk with believers, the more you’ll realize what their most common arguments or assertions are. Then you can tell yourself, “I should really come up with the shortest, stickiest, most persuasive rebuttal possible for that point.” You can even try different rebuttals on different people and see which ones have the best effects. Arguments about religion – regardless of their outcome – can be fascinating anthropological studies. I am often surprised by what believers really think, and how their belief structures are built. Most of them are wacky, some of them are educated and novel, and some of them are just pitifully uninformed – like the parents who threatened to call in the FBI to deal with their atheist daughter. What does it take to become that kind of person? That’s fascinating.
4. Have fun. If it fits the situation, I try to make lots of jokes when arguing with a believer – and not always at the believer’s expense! I’ll fit in jokes about atheists and other topics, too.
5. Respect the other person. This can be hard. How do you respect an adult with a magical invisible friend? Sometimes you get lucky and argue with someone who has studied logic and philosophy and has some sophisticated arguments – I don’t find it hard to respect someone like Mark Linville or Peter van Inwagen. Other times, you’ll have to remind yourself that this person is probably skilled and knowledgeable about many things – just not their own religious beliefs. Remind yourself that you have many beliefs (about morality, politics, psychology, dating, whatever) that are probably really stupid because you haven’t taken the time to study ethical philosophy, political philosophy, psychology, and the science of social dynamics. As a last resort, you can respect the person on the grounds of determinism. If you had had the same genes, the same development, the same parents and friends, the same life events – then you would have been a believer, too. The believer is a product of genes and circumstances just like you are – you just got lucky and scored some genes and circumstances that lead you to have true beliefs about a very particular subject – gods. It’s not like the believer stepped out of the causal chain, considered all the evidence, and simply chose to cling to a comforting belief in an All-Powerful Protector King. Respect that they are a product of genes and environment just like you.
6. Be a team. Frustration comes easy when you view the believer as an opponent who refuses to go down when beaten. Not so when you view them as a partner or teammate in your search for truth. I think of an argument with a believer as a Socratic dialectic, in which the back-and-forth can help lead us to truth and clarify each other’s thinking – and that is something to which we both contribute. And if I phrase the dialogue in that way – “Well, the thing that confuses me about that is…” rather than “No, that’s a stupid argument because…” – then the ‘argument’ goes more smoothly and can indeed be transformed from a gladiatorial battle to a mutual journey for understanding. And that’s a lot less frustrating.

As you can see, these tactics will work just as well as advice for How to Argue with Atheists and Not Get Frustrated. And I think my advice is slightly better than Dave Barry’s.

But these things are easy to forget. If you find yourself getting frustrated in arguments with believers, come back to this post and read it again.

Kicked Out of the Boy Scouts for Being an Atheist

Posted on friendlyatheist.com
Kicked Out of the Boy Scouts for Being an Atheist | Friendly Atheist by Hemant Mehta

Kicked Out of the Boy Scouts for Being an Atheist
icon1 Posted by Hemant Mehta in GLBT, General, Lawsuits on June 25th, 2009 | 32 Comments

My friend Neil Polzin served on the board of directors for the Secular Student Alliance a couple years ago.

I got this message from him last night and it needs to be passed along.

The short version: He was fired from his job with the Boy Scouts of America… likely because they found out about his non-religious beliefs.

The letter from Neil (emphases mine):

“We have received information that has compelled us to revoke your registration. You must immediately sever any relationship you may have with the Boy Scouts of America.”

Today I received a letter from Marcus Mack at the San Gabriel Valley Council that started this way. What was my offense that makes me so inappropriate to be around children? Before your mind fills with thoughts of violence, violations of youth protection or any other deplorable action, it is simply because I am an atheist.

That’s the only reason for the revoking of my membership. I am being kicked out of the BSA because they feel that I am not a capable role model for children. Regardless of the 15 years I have spent in the scouts, any achievements or recognitions along the way.

It is not only that I can’t ever go to my home troop growing up and visit. Along with making it impossible to volunteer for the scouts in any capacity, It also eliminates me from my current paid position as Aquatics Director at Camp Cherry Valley. I am being kicked out AND fired for being an atheist by my employer.

This has been the policy of the BSA for years, to discriminate against homosexuals and the godless. It is an easy policy to look past, because most do not know anyone it has affected. It keeps people in the closet about their personal beliefs or habits, and gives an example of discrimination being ok to the many children in scouts. It is now directly affecting me, along with the hundreds of cubs I was set to swim, kayak and snorkel with this summer. Just as it has effected so many others in the past.

There is an appeals process in the scouts, one that I plan on following over the upcoming weeks. I know that over the years I have had a great effect on my peers and youth in the scouts and in life, as they have had on me. Any examples of this I would be very grateful for you to write about (scout related or not). I do not know if it will be enough to have any change in outcome, but I want the executives to see how this policy negatively affects scouters and scouting. If you feel this is wrong as I do, send your letters to Marcus Mack (Scout Executive/CEO SGVC 3450 East Sierra Madre Blvd Pasadena, CA 91107), and also make a point to express your viewpoint to him if you are at the council offices. Please also send me a copy (digital or print) so I may include it in my appeal to national.

It is easy to say that without scouts I would not be who I am today. It has given me so much, and so I have tried to give back over the last 7 years as an adult. That looks to be no longer possible due to blatant discrimination on the behalf of the BSA.

Neil Polzin

The BSA has a habit of kicking out qualified individuals because of their religious beliefs and sexual orientation. All the stories I’ve read about, though, involve people in voluntary positions. I’m not sure what the legal situation is when we’re talking about paid staff.

John Hagee - Glenn Beck - Bible Prophecies

Pastor John Hagee, pastor of Cornerstone Church, which has a membership of over 19,000, talks with host Glenn Beck about the signs of the end times, Islam, Christianity, Israel, Jews, the United States of America, Iran, Iraq and Russia and how they relate to prophecies in the Bible. He describes in detail how that many of the events happening today were predicted to happen thousands of years ago by God's prophets, along with events that will occur in the near future. Hagee was named "Humanitarian Of The Year by B'Nai Brith and is a leading authority on the subject of Bible Prophecy.

Atheism. The New Calling

Penn & Teller Disprove God in 38 Seconds

RDF TV - The Baloney Detection Kit - Michael Shermer

The first video from RDF TV!

With a sea of information coming at us from all directions, how do we sift out the misinformation and bogus claims, and get to the truth? Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine lays out a "Baloney Detection Kit," ten questions we should ask when encountering a claim.

If you enjoy the video, and would like to help us make more videos like this, please consider donating $1 (or any other amount you'd like) to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Donate here:
http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org

Presented by The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
( http://RichardDawkinsFoundation.org )
Directed by Josh Timonen
Produced by Maureen Norton
Animation by Pew 36 Animation Studios
( http://www.pew36.co.uk/ )
Music by Neal Acree
( http://www.nealacree.com/ )
Post Production Sound by Sound Satisfaction
( http://www.soundsatisfaction.com/ )
Supervising Sound Editor / Re-Recording Mixer - Gary J. Coppola, C.A.S.
Sound Editor - Ben Rauscher
Production Assistant - Graham Immel
(c) 2009 Upper Branch Productions, Inc.

Proudly shot on Red One #4809 - http://red.com

Rock Music and the Occult

This TV preacher uses irrefutable logic to prove that only the Christian's god is real.

"Have you ever seen somebody working on a fence and takes a hammer and hit their thumb and go "Awww... Buddha!" You ever see them do that? How many hit a gold ball like I hit a golf ball and they go "Ohhh... Mohammed!" Why do they call that name? You know what they do? They go "Jesus Christ!" "Jesus Christ!" Why do they call that name? Because I believe when a person gets hurt or they get angry, they wanna blame who? They want to blame God.

I guess that settles it!

Gareth Branwyn (who sent me the link to this video) told me this preacher's line of reasoning reminds him of his grandfather's argument against hippies. Gareth's grandpappy used to say, "If God had wanted men to have long hair, he would have given it to them."

The preacher also shares many other equally profound insights with his rapt audience: Satan uses LPs to control people, and burn victims are lucky because they've gotten a taste of hell.

(Thanks, Gareth!)

Why do so many believe in Jesus? Because they don’t actually know what the Bible says.

It's very sad that people who believe in myths don't understand their own myths. But you got to admit its really funny that people who don't believe in the myths, have read their books, and know more about their myths than they do. We gave up the belief in the myths do to education. If only they would actually read their books.

Why do so many believe in Jesus? Because they don’t actually know what the Bible says. « the BEattitude

Why do so many believe in Jesus? Because they don’t actually know what the Bible says.
By theBEattitude

The majority of Christians in America are biblically illiterate. This is kind of a big deal considering the Bible is the foundation and basis for their belief system and reason for living. Does anyone else find it odd that so many Christians are willfully illiterate to something so pivotal in their lives?
Here are a few statistics:

* 93% of Americans have a Bible.1
* Only half of Americans can even name one of the Gospels.1
* The majority of Americans don’t know that Genesis is the first book of the Bible.1
* 60% of evangelicals think Jesus was born in Jerusalem rather than Bethlehem.1
* 22% of high school students think Moses was one of Jesus’ disciples.1
* Half of High School seniors think Sodom and Gomorrah were a married couple.1
* 1 in 10 Americans believe that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.1
* 60% of Americans can’t name 5 of the ten commandments.1
* Given thirteen basic teachings from the Bible, only 1% of adult believers embraced all thirteen as being biblical perspectives.2
* One-third of college attending Christians could not put the following in order: Abraham, the Old Testament prophets, the death of Christ, and Pentecost.3
* One-third could also not identify Matthew as an apostle from a list of New Testament names.3

Many Americans continue to believe that a Jewish man from 2,000 years ago was God’s son … simply because someone told them so when they were a child. This is the equivalent to believing in Santa Claus as an adult. If you choose to worship Jesus every Sunday, at least take the time to read the book about him. Otherwise you’re nothing more than a lemming.
[1] Various sources listed in this Politics Daily article, “Why a Real ‘Year of the Bible’ Would Horrify Its Sponsors“
[2] Barna Research Online, “Discipleship Insights Revealed in New Book by George Barna.”
[3] Gary M. Burge, “The Greatest Story Never Read: Recovering biblical literacy in the church.”

Why I am Unconvinced that there is a god

nogod

Why I am Unconvinced that there is a god
1999

Because there is no proof, not one shred, that a god of any sort exists. Be honest... there is no physical evidence. If there were evidence, there wouldn't be any need for faith. There is also no evidence of heaven, hell, a devil or demons, or angels, or an afterlife.

Because there is no need, or use for, a god. A god is not necessary to explain the origins of things, or people, or morality-- there are rational, worldly explanations that actually make sense.

Because we cannot speculate on what a god is made of, or how he came into existence. We cannot imagine how he creates things and people, knows everything, or why he did what he allegedly did. Because a god just doesn't make sense.

Because a good god would be useless if he were not powerful, and a powerful god would not deserve worship unless he is good-- but there is no all powerful, good god, otherwise there would be no imperfection or suffering in the world.

Because the bible, the most widespread "proof" of god, is unreliable as a source of accurate information. It is internally inconsistent and contradictory, historically wrong, and filled with deep moral problems. The bible cannot be considered or consulted in the question of whether or not there is a god. It is no evidence at all.

Because the history of god-belief is rife with ignorance, superstition, intolerance, persecution, cruelty and hatred. Those people believed just as firmly in their faith as anyone alive today. This makes it more likely that religion was invented by people who wanted to control other people.

Because theology has fought and resisted nearly every major scientific discovery. Instead of embracing new knowledge, religion fears it. Religion resist liberty and reform, and freedom of information and freedom of thought.

Because god-belief was invented in the earliest days of man's ignorance. People did not know anything yet. They thought the world was flat, that disease, hurricanes, earthquakes, thunder and droughts were all caused by gods. It is unbelievable that primitive man guessed wrongly about everything else, but discovered "the truth" about the origin of life. It is more believable that god(s) were invented by primitive people for the following reasons:

* to explain natural events that they couldn't understand
* they had an inability to cope with their fears of a death that was final and absolute
* they had a need to provide enforceable laws with divine penalties
* they had a child-like need to feel watched over and protected by a loving, powerful father-figure

Another reason for the continuation of religion is that the positions of power held by holy men depended on the beliefs of their followers.

Because everything that science has now described in detail were previously believed to be the exclusive handiwork of god-- from the origins of life, to the cause of natural phenomena (earthquakes, lightning and volcanoes, in fact all of the natural world), to the formation of stars and our own world, to the causes of mental illness and diseases...virtually everything you can think of. Religion retreats, loses ground, whenever a new fact is discovered. No new discovery HAS EVER supported a religious explanation of ANYTHING.

Because there is no evidence of communication with a god of any kind. Prayers are answered no more often than by flipping a coin, despite the fact it says in the bible that you need only ask, and ye shall receive. People report having a personal relationship with god, but they cannot demonstrate that this is not merely their imaginations and self-delusion.

I am unconvinced, and all the threats of eternal damnation cannot convince me.

I'm like Doubting Thomas... I'll believe when I put my hand in Christ's side.... until then, no. When someone can tell me the following, then it would at least be possible to accept the existence of a god:

What God is made of?

What is "spirit" made of?

Where are heaven and hell?

How did God make everything, and from what did he make it?

Where did God come from?

Why did God exist alone in an empty nothingness for an eternity before creating the universe?

How can he continue to exist without ingesting some sort of energy?

How can he exist in every point of the universe at once?

How can he know everything, past present and future?

Where are souls kept within our bodies?

Where were our 'eternal' souls before we were born, (or how can immortality begin at conception)?

When someone can provide these answers, then I could believe. Until then, my mind will not let me believe. I have no choice. I cannot accept that such an entity is possible.

The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. When you come to realize why you do not believe in Zeus, you will understand why I do not believe in your god.

Freedom, Reason, Cults...

Jesus The Corporate Shill

Jesus The Corporate Shill - watch more funny videos

Crimes Against Humanity

Why do atheists care about religion?

Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy. God non existence of.

Protect Internet Neutrality

2.0 Deconversion: The God Concept

When he releases the next episode I will post it, this is very good

Was the crucifixion of Jesus a sacrifice?

Was the crucifixion of Jesus a sacrifice?

Original Post @ http://www.examiner.com/

If Jesus was god, then the crucifixion was not a sacrifice.

If Jesus was not god, then it was a sacrifice, but it has no ultimate significance beyond being one of thousands of possibly inspiring stories of others who have died for various reasons, both noble and otherwise.

If Jesus never existed, then it's just a story.  If you can be inspired by that, then I can be inspired by Superman (and you can stop making fun of me for dressing like him!)

Now, the position of many Christians is that Jesus was wholly God, wholly human.  This is nonsensical, and you know it.  I am aware that this is one of the central tenants of the vast majority of Christian theologies, but it is absurd.  Trying to justify this in your mind, reveling in the mystery of it, is indicative of something awry.  It is to rationalize something absurd, mysterious, and impossible and call it a miracle.

But even if it were to be somehow true, then there are still some questions I have.  Did Jesus know he was God (as well as human)?

If he did know he was god, then did he have all of the knowledge of god? If he did, then he knew that he would die on the cross--incarnated knowing so, in fact--and did nothing to stop it.  He knew he couldn't actually die, and that the crucifixion would be only symbolic, so how was it a sacrifice?  This seems no different than me playing some online game and sacrificing my character in order to allow the rest of the team win the mission (not that I know anything about such thing...).

And if he didn't have all the knowledge of god (or his divine powers for that matter!), then how could he be wholly god?  Sure, he might have been human in body but having the spirit of god mixed in there, but without all the knowledge then there is something of god missing, right? Perhaps God is holographic, and even a part contains the whole? I'm confused....

Now, if Jesus was just a guy, granted one that was possibly sanctioned and chosen by the real god as a messenger, then it was a sacrifice.  But how is it a sacrifice for us? How does a person dying two thousand years ago effect me in any other way than symbolically?  And even as a symbol, how does it provide salvation?  Further, salvation from what? (i'll deal with that tomorrow).

And if Jesus was just god, and not human at all (as some early Gnostic sects thought), then his death was not a death at all.  Then it was not a sacrifice at all.  There is no passion to the narrative, just symbolism.  Symbolism that god chose.  But why choose that symbol?  It seems to be a result of people who were used to the concept of sacrifice as a means to atone, like in the Old Testament laws about animal sacrifice and the smell of burnt offerings that are so pleasing to the lord.  Man, Yahweh must love barbecues.  But this neolithic idea should sound absurd to you.

I honestly do not see the significance of this supposedly historical event.  I do not understand how God sacrificing either an innocent person or himself (to himself, to make up for a rule he made due to a Fall that he orchestrated, mind you) is significant to me at all, even if it were true.  If I can see past this BS, I'm sure any real god could too.  This sounds like iron age mythology to me, no different than the other myths and fairy tales of human history.

Bozeman City job requirement raises privacy concerns (Serious WTF PRIVACY)

This is a serious WTF privacy violation.

Bozeman City job requirement raises privacy concerns - Montana's News Station - Fair. Accurate. To the Point. -

Bozeman City job requirement raises privacy concerns

Posted: June 17, 2009 03:50 PM

Updated: June 17, 2009 06:12 PM

Applying for a job with the City of Bozeman? You may be asked to provide more personal information than you expected.

That was the case for one person who applied for employment with the City. The anonymous viewer emailed the news station recently to express concern with a component of the city's background check policy, which states that to be considered for a job applicants must provide log-in information and passwords for social network sites in which they participate.

The requirement is included on a waiver statement applicants must sign, giving the City permission to conduct an investigation into the person's "background, references, character, past employment, education, credit history, criminal or police records."

"Please list any and all, current personal or business websites, web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc.," the City form states. There are then three lines where applicants can list the Web sites, their user names and log-in information and their passwords.

The requirement raises questions concerning applicants' privacy rights.

Article 2, Section 10 of the Montana Constitution reads "the right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest."

The City takes privacy rights very seriously, but this request balances those rights with the City's need to ensure employees will protect the public trust, according to city attorney Greg Sullivan.

"So, we have positions ranging from fire and police, which require people of high integrity for those positions, all the way down to the lifeguards and the folks that work in city hall here. So we do those types of investigations to make sure the people that we hire have the highest moral character and are a good fit for the City," Sullivan said.

Another concern the applicant raised was that by providing the City with a Facebook user name and password the City not only has access to the applicant's page but also to the pages belonging to all of the applicant's Facebook "friends."

"You know, I can understand that concern. One thing that's important for folks to understand about what we look for is none of the things that the federal constitution lists as protected things, we don't use those. We're not putting out this broad brush stroke of trying to find out all kinds of information about the person that we're not able to use or shouldn't use in the hiring process," Sullivan said.

When asked about creating a separate Bozeman Facebook page, then asking applicants to add the City as "friend," thus allowing the City to view the applicant's profile, Sullivan said officials could explore the option. This would limit the city to only view the page of the applicant.    

No one has ever removed his or her name from consideration for a job due to the request, Sullivan added.