atheism-news « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Atheist Billboards: What Good Do They Do?

mtbraddick — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:35:49 +0000

One of the more well-known atheist groups in the U.S. is American Atheists, a nonprofit lobbying group that works to fights for secular thought nationwide. This group doesn’t always get positive attention, in fact they get plenty of negative publicity, but nonetheless they’re a very pivotal voice in the movement for secularism. Being a figure at the forefront of a movement, it seems that position tends to get people divided on how they view your contributions and philosophies, and American Atheists I would say definitely fits that bill.

While their primary work comes in lawsuits fighting against religious prejudice creeping into the public/government sphere, the thing they do that seems to attract the most attention on a regular basis is their outdoor billboards and advertisements that they regularly spend money on. Back before Christmas, they made a big stink when they forked over what was likely a significant amount of money for a billboard in Times Square comparing the myth of Santa Claus to Jesus. Fox News covered the billboard pretty extensively, with notable prime-time pundit Bill O’Reilly even taking the time to confrontAmerican Atheist President Dave Silverman on his show about the billboard and the debate between religious representation in government and secularism.

Now, American Atheists has put up yet another billboard, this time in San Diego. Here’s what it looks like:

Image via American Atheists Online

Now in general, there’s not a whole lot that’s directly or obviously offensive about this billboard, compared to others they’ve done that somewhat mock other people’s beliefs. So this is a step in the right direction in my opinion. Nonetheless, I’m still confused about a few things. For one, can American Atheists really point to objective stats and figures that show these billboard are effective? For that matter, what’s the goal of these in the first place? Pure publicity, I suppose, would be one answer; a counterpoint to the endless bombardment of religious messages we get in daily life could be another. Yet, I just don’t quite get the point.

What’s more, this billboard went up in San Diego, a metro city in liberally-aligned California. While I’m sure people prescribing to religion still outnumber atheists in that particular city, I have a feeling their freethought & humanist population is fairly well-represented for a metro area of its size. Just some quick cursory searching lead me to multiple atheist groups for the San Diego area, including the Atheist Coalition of San Diego and the San Diego Chapter of the United Coalition of Reason. Wouldn’t the point of these billboards be to target believers instead of those who are already of a secular persuasion? Then why bother putting it up in a place where there’s already progress being made? Why not in a metro area in the South?

What do you guys think? Do billboards like these do any good, or are they just a waste of American Atheists’ money?

Glimpse Into Ugandan Atheist Movements Reveals Surprises for Westerners

mtbraddick — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:55:08 +0000

Image via brookesb on Flickr

Patheos yesterday published a very extensive and interesting article on the trials and tribulations of the atheist & freethinker movement in the troubled African country of Uganda, and it has to rank among the most surprising, and most enlightening looks at religion I’ve come across. Atheism and freethought in the International community seems to get overlooked with some regularity here in America, and this great piece from Hemant Mehta is definitely a must-read. It paints a picture of a movement that’s struggling with a host of issues, many of which might be unfamiliar to atheists like myself in the West, but also some difficulties that we know all too well.

The stats on how religious Uganda is can be pretty overwhelming to take in. It’s a country where Christianity is polled as a vast majority, coupled with a small percentage of Muslims and then almost minuscule numbers of other minority religions and atheists. The intensely religious climate has apparently nonetheless inspired a small group of atheists who are willing to do their best to combat the negative effects of superstitious thought and practice, with some thankfully positive thoughts.

While Christianity does make up the majority of the country, you’re probably going to be shocked to find out that a startling number of people in Uganda regularly practice witchcraft and mysticism. This is in conjunction with Christian doctrine, believe it or not, and the logic behind it is pretty simple, almost funny. Leading Ugandan atheist figure James “Fat Boy” Onen explains:

Witchcraft is viewed as the flip side to religion, and witchcraft is the handiwork of the Devil — so belief in the efficacy of witchcraft is tied to belief in the existence of God. To deny the efficacy of witchcraft was to deny Christianity and the existence of God and the Devil.

On the surface, it’s stunningly reasonable to make this assumption, and I can’t blame the everyday Ugandan for making this leap. If God is real, then the Devil is real, and the Devil undeniably has power. It makes sense, but what I want to know is how do these people reconcile the teachings of Christianity with the sinful mistake of calling upon the Devil for aid? Mehta claims the answer lies in the poverty and hopelessness of the situation for many living in Uganda, and undoubtedly that’s a fair assessment.

What puzzles me about the situation presented is when we’re talking about witchcraft here, we’re not just talking about lighting a few candles in the graveyard down the street from your friend’s house, this is serious stuff. By serious, I mean substituting professional medical care for sorcery and, even more terrifyingly, child sacrifice. Yes, that’s right, slaughtering their own born and living children for favor with the spirits/the Devil/what-have-you. Which, coupled with the knowledge that 3/4th of the population thinks abortion is immoral, really makes you wonder… And, in case you thought this might just be incredibly outrageous and made up, the BBC actually covered this problem, So it’s not even like it’s a new development; this has been going on for some time.

It’s problems like that that the atheists in Uganda are confronting on a daily basis. All while trying to establish independent schools that emphasize science and math with little to no funding. And then there’s the issue of organizing all the small atheist groups in the country towards common goals and strategies, which is definitely a problem that we can relate to here in America. Judging by what’s presented by Mehta in this article, I’d say their efforts should be applauded as heroic.

Atheism 101... Taught by a Theology School?

mtbraddick — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 01:35:59 +0000

Image via Stockbyte/Getty Images

I was pleasantly surprised to find an article today that more or less perfectly embodies the types of conversations and discussions I’m wanting to have on Apostasy Now that I talked about in my very first post. It was almost unnerving, really, to have a textbook example just fall right in my lap like this, but I know when to accept a gift gracefully.

On this blog, we’re all for promoting tolerance and embracing new and exciting ideas, and I’m humbled to say that a small Jesuit school in Canada may be the early candidate for my Idea of the Year Award (not trademarked). The Regis College of Theology at the University of Toronto recently began a class entitled “Responding to 21st-Century Atheism,” according to the Washington Post, and is being billed as an effort to help bring awareness to atheist thought and philosophy.

It’s an attention-grabbing idea to start up a class at a thoroughly religious institution of learning that directly addresses atheism, but skeptics might first point to the class professor and ask questions about motivations and his lesson plans. I suppose that’s fair, but if you look at the words of the man himself, I’d say his intentions check out. Admittedly, I was somewhat annoyed to see Rev. Lewis stating in the article that atheism has become “militant, aggressive,” but here’s the quote that I think should probably get more attention:

“One idea for atheists to leave behind is that people who believe are stupid or naive. And perhaps we [believers] should leave behind the idea that an atheist is someone who is not ethical or a good person. A person can be a believer and be quite intelligent. A person can be an atheist and be quite a morally upright person.”

I admire Rev. Lewis for having the common sense to come out and say this. It’s a sentiment that people on both sides of the issue need to adapt, and so he’ll get my seal of approval for having the rationality to call for both sides of the issue to embrace understanding and tolerance while, perhaps more importantly, rejecting stereotyping and judgmental behavior.

The other big lesson to take away from this is to look at how the dissemination of knowledge and education flows in relation to nonbeliever and religious circles. A significant number of nonbelievers come out of backgrounds that were steeped in religion, and with that comes some level of familiarity with the philosophy of the religion you were raised in. On the reverse side, people who stay religious it seems don’t always have a detailed understanding or familiarity with the philosophies of atheism, humanism, and the like. Given that these admitted assumptions are true, I think it’s smart to encourage more classes and opportunities for people to learn more about nonbelief. It can only encourage more tolerance and give people better perspective.

Anyway, what do you think about the prospects of this class? Is it a step in the right direction, or a waste of time? Leave a comment and talk to me about it.

Apostasy Now, Apostasy Forever

mtbraddick — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 02:58:02 +0000

Image via Cindy Prins/Getty Images

Let me be the first to welcome to Apostasy Now.

It’s funny, you could make the argument that starting a blog is pretty similar to starting a church. You want to artificially start a community of people, and you have to be attractive and interesting enough to hold people’s attention and somehow convince them to come back and visit again. And again. And again. Then, hopefully, you’ve built up a regular contingent of loyal followers who will blindly agree with everything you say and hinge on your every word as if it were, well, prophesy.

That’s more or less what my goals for this blog are, save for the blind loyalty part…

Every blog had a main topic of conversation, and this blog is dedicated to secular thought and practice in America. I’m not interested in catering to a specific audience of like-minded people who are going to clap their hands and nod approvingly at everything we say. But I also don’t want to be a troll, either. I don’t want to be a dick. I just want to talk. I want to have a conversation about secular philosophy and nonreligious practice in this country. I’m not quite sure where this conversation is going to take us, but we won’t find out unless we take those first steps, of course.

I want to create a forum that revolves around the broad topic of religion-free life and thought in America, and expounds on how that philosophy relates to everyday culture. On Apostasy Now, you’ll sometimes see news stories about things related to skepticism, debunking, science, and the like. Other times, I’ll be presenting you with personal stories and opinions from my own life, relating them to modern nonreligious thought and practice. You’ll even get in-depth analysis of pop culture and media, and how atheism & agnosticism fits into the modern landscape of creative arts.

A time or two, I’ll probably just end up shooting the shit and talking about whatever is on my mind. So be prepared for that, when it comes.

Apostasy Now!

why dawkins will not debate craig

Zhou (Chew) Hong Jie — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 02:46:00 +0000

Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a “theologian”. For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine”.

Craig’s latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to confront him in Oxford this October. I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and YouTubed accusations of cowardice. To this I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I’m looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury.

In an epitome of bullying presumption, Craig now proposes to place an empty chair on a stage in Oxford next week to symbolise my absence. The idea of cashing in on another’s name by conniving to share a stage with him is hardly new. But what are we to make of this attempt to turn my non-appearance into a self-promotion stunt? In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn’t only Oxford that won’t see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol.

But Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament. Anyone who criticises the divine bloodlust is loudly accused of unfairly ignoring the historical context, and of naive literalism towards what was never more than metaphor or myth. You would search far to find a modern preacher willing to defend God’s commandment, in Deuteronomy 20: 13-15, to kill all the men in a conquered city and to seize the women, children and livestock as plunder. And verses 16 and 17 are even worse:

“But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them”

You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered. He then notices the plight of the Canaanite children.

“But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel’s part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, ‘You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods’ (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.”

Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them?

“So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing.”

Oh, the poor soldiers. Let’s hope they received counselling after their traumatic experience. A later post by Craig is – if possible – even more shocking. Referring to his earlier article (above) he says:

“I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God’s command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land.[…] Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.
It is therefore completely misleading to characterise God’s command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair.”

So, apparently it was the Canaanites’ own fault for not running away. Right.

Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn’t, and I won’t. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.

And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig’s words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.

*******

This article is written by Richard Dawkins, under the title of Why I Refuse to debate with William Lane Craig and is printed in The Guardian yesterday, Singapore time.

Atheists Do It Better: Why Leaving Religion Leads to Better Sex

Freedom ! — Wed, 18 May 2011 10:42:35 +0000

A new study shows that religious people have as much sex as atheists, but with less sexual satisfaction and more guilt.

for more Click here

We Have Lost a Shining Beacon of Freethought...

Starbix — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:56:31 +0000

Goodbye Mr. Carlin, your work will continue to inspire many generations of freethinkers to come. I love the fact that my kids can still experience you on Thomas the Train. You will be sorely missed.

Here is one reason why I'm voting for Obama...

Starbix — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:14:03 +0000

And this is why I will definitely not be voting for McCain.

He blatantly ignores the fact that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, which was approved unanimously by the Senate and signed by President John Adams, states that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion“

Happy Towel Day!!!

Starbix — Sun, 25 May 2008 21:17:34 +0000

Don’t Panic. That’s right! It’s Towel Day! A day to remember and celebrate the life and works of Douglas Adams. You sass that hoopy Douglas Adams? There’s a frood who really knows where his towel is. The proper way to celebrate Towel Day is to take a towel with you everywhere you go all day. That is, of course, assuming that you don’t already take your towel with you everywhere. I would like to present my own Towel Day pictures with my older son Sebastian. These were all taken on our shopping trip to K-Mart.

Happy Towel Day!

————————————————————————————–

Starbix

“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams

A Poem To Commemorate The National Day Of Prayer...

Starbix — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:02:42 +0000

All credit for this goes to the great Cuttlefish.

It’s time to raise our voice in prayer,
And pray to–well, there’s no one there.
No god to urge to do our bidding;
Go on and pray–just know you’re kidding.

It’s time to all sit on our asses,
And pray forgiveness for trespasses
(Or is that to forgive our debtor?
Who cares, as long as we feel better.)

It’s time we all embrace god fully,
Feel all righteous, good, and holy–
Or be some atheistic jerk,
Roll up your god-damned sleeves, and work!

It’s time to say “I do not care
To join you in this day of prayer.”
Sure, a day off looks like fun,
But there is work that must be done.

Our problems will not fix themselves
There is no god to send in elves
To do the work of human ranks
So… join, today, in prayer? No thanks.

Also be sure to check out the National Day of Reason.

Starbix

“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams

Illinois Democrat seems to think atheists aren't worthy of civil rights.

Starbix — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:37:17 +0000

Last Wednesday in a House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield, Illinois Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) showed her true colors when she berated atheist Rob Sherman for daring to oppose giving $1,000,000 to a church. She informed him that “What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!” So apparently her religion and belief is so tenuous and paper-thin that children even knowing it exists is a dire threat. She also stated that “This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God.” Let’s look at a quote from Lincoln: “The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.” He later reinforced this position when he said “My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.” Rep. Davis then told Sherman “”Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.” She essentially told him that, because of his beliefs (or lack thereof), he was not afforded the rights given to every American citizen. This flies directly in the face of the Constitution. I think Cuttlefish summed it up nicely:

…I thought I saw an atheist, upon the witness stand
It couldn’t be! Not where I live! This is a Christian Land!
The Constitution guarantees my right to scream and shout;
As the Good Lord is my witness, I demanded “You! Get out!”

I thought I saw an atheist demand an equal voice;
I told him he could leave right now, and that could be his choice.
I said his view was dangerous–our children must not hear!
It goes against the Bible, which our government holds dear!

I thought I saw an atheist nod quietly, and sigh.
The odds were stacked against him, which no person can deny;
What happens when a person is denied his civil right?
I may have seen an atheist who’s now convinced to fight.

Starbix

“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams

A Prominent Atheist Loses My Respect.

Starbix — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:24:48 +0000

I didn’t think that my first real blog post would be one criticizing a fellow atheist. But that is exactly the position that I find myself in.

The current president of American Atheists, Ellen Johnson, has posted a video on the group’s website explaining her intent not to vote this November because politicians don’t pander to we atheists. If this weren’t a bad enough message, she is also encouraging all atheists to not vote. Yeah, that’ll show ‘em. Since when has someone made a difference in an election by doing nothing? All that does is lower the amount of voters who are not going to vote based on what the Bible says. Would she rather we leave it to the Religious Right to choose who the next leader of our country is? This is just bad logic. How should we expect to get noticed by doing nothing? This will not even be a blip on most politicians radars. You want to know how to get their attention? By making our presence felt, dammit! We atheists are finally coming to the public’s attention. With so many young people coming out as atheists should we really disenfranchise them by telling them not to vote? This may be their first election and she’s telling them to sit it out. You’ll get a lot more done working to change the system from within than trying to change it from the outside. We need to encourage every atheist and freethinker to get out and vote for the candidate that most closely aligns with their position on the issues. I don’t care who you vote for (I’d prefer you not vote for Ron Paul), but you do need to vote. In the interest of full disclosure I do plan on voting for Obama. I was planning to vote for Kucinich but, alas, that ship has sailed. Times are changing for us atheists. There is even an atheist congressman. We are finally getting more organized. Let’s not lose this advantage by sitting on our asses and doing nothing.

Starbix

“Individualists of the world! Disperse!”

-Source Unknown