We Are Not Broken

I read a lovely blog post.  It is about people with disabilities.  Please read it.

My comment on this:

I grew up with a learning disability.  I was teased, bullied.  But I've succeeded beyond what any of those people who made fun of me, or even most of the teachers and guidance counselors could.  My son has autism spectrum disorder.  Family, friends, strangers in the supermarket, all would try to tell me how to handle him, how to raise him, how to "fix" him.  He is not "broken".  He never was.  He is his own person.  He is my son.  

Atheism+. Why I Am More Resolved Than Before To Support It

Jen McCreight quit blogging yesterday.  This from Almost Diamonds who wrote a post explaining some of the reason why.

I'm angry that Jen has been pushed to the point where she has to stop blogging.  She's done so much, especially with the SSA, to help advance atheism.  The detractors say that those who support Atheism+ are trying to take over the atheist movement, that we are being hateful and divisive, that we are not thinking critically and are letting our emotions cloud our judgement.  

Of course it is emotional.  We are enraged and appalled at the misogyny that has become so apparent in the past year.  We aren't automatons, but human.  Using our anger at the misogynists and others like them in the atheists movement to try to build something better is good, as Greta Christian says in her book.  

Anger can motivate people to right wrongs and gain rights and recognition in society.  We want to be seen as atheists who do more than just attack religion.  We want to take this movement to the masses, as it were, beyond the atheist community, by working openly, and publicly on important social issues that, until now, religion or other organizations have owned.  At least, that's what I would like to see.  I think many who support Atheism+ feel this way too.

The people who drove Jen away want to attack anyone who doesn't agree with them.  It can't, and won't, stand.  But, I'm not going to attack those people, I'm going to ignore them.  They aren't worth my time.  Instead, I'm going to do something positive and try to make Atheism+ a thing that will unite all those atheists who want to focus on social issues instead of just bashing religion and slapping ourselves on the backs for how much more clever we are than theists.  

Atheism+: Doing Good Without God.

It's been said that getting atheists to agree on something is like herding cats.  I'd say it's more like trying to herd cats into a tub of water.  Atheists tend to be an inquisitive bunch; an intellectually bunch.  We reject dogma and the authority that goes along with it, hence we are loathed to being told what to do and what to think.  You could say we are fiercely independent (at least I say that we are).  

Given all that, you can see why trying to get a consensus about where to go for breakfast might be hard enough, never mind were we should all stand on a particular social issue.  And that's the real issue in getting us all to band together for a common cause: we don't like to be told what we should think or feel.

Still, being openminded and skeptical (yes, they do go hand in hand) we are able to listen to each other and really consider what each one of us has to say.  This attitude tends to lead to civilized debates, respect for each other's rights to express ideas, and compromise, or at least it should.  I believe that it can and that it does.

The atheist/humanist/secular/(add your own label here) movements have much more in common than they do differences.   Most of us in these movements (and most of us identify with more than one) understand this and this has allowed us to begin to come together in the past few years in greater numbers and with great effect in support of issues that we all feel that we have a stake in.

Still, there is an ugly side to us as well.  Anti-feminism has shown its self to be much more prevalent that most of us imagined it was.  This is both bad and good.  It is bad, for the obvious reason that it shows that we all are not as enlightened as we'd like to be.  It is bad because it distracts us from working together to achieve our common goals.

It is good, however, that this is now out in the open.  You can't tackle a problem until you can first acknowledge it.  Also, it is an opportunity to clean house, as it were.  By exposing the misogynists in our midst ( actually they tend to expose themselves) we can shame them into recognizing  their misplace sense of privilege or shun them from our ranks.  It is vital that we do so because we have the fight of our lives with the religious and social conservitives on our hands.

This is where Atheism+ comes in.  The new movement is not an attempt to establish an atheist dogma, as some try to claim.  Atheism+ is an attempt to bring together atheists who believe that we have a responsibility to go beyond fighting against superstition or fighting for the separation of church and state.  We strongly believe that we have a responsibility as atheists to fight for social justice for everyone, theist and non-theist, the superstitious and the skeptical, the religious and the non-believers.  

Feminism, gay rights, separation of church and state are just a few of the issues that most of us feel are important and that we are doing a good job of brining to the forefront of the social and political forums.  

We have already begun to raise our profile in the general public’s minds.  Just this year we had the Reason Rally, which made the national news.  We also have many good organizations supporting critical thinking and humanist issues such as the Secular Student Alliance, CFI, FFRF, American Atheists, the JREF, and American Humanists.  

Except for American Atheists and the Secular Student Alliance, most of these, while they might have many atheists as members, are not atheistic groups.  What Atheism+ is, or can be, is a way for those of us who self-identify as atheists to get out and fight for social issues in public where we can meet "average" people and have them get to know us.  It will allow us to be seen as people who care for others, who do good things.  This is vitally important if atheists hope to ever become accepted by a society that currently sees us a amoral, selfish, heartless.

I urge those of you want to fight for social justice for everyone, who want to fight against misogyny, racism, bigotry, homophobia, poverty, and ignorance to consider joining the Atheist+ movement.  Talk about it with your friends and family (if they are still talking to you, that is), write about it, blog about it, tweet about it, set your Facebook profile picture to the Atheists+ symbol (see below), join the Atheist+ forum.

Let's show the world that we are not only good without God, but we do good without God.

 

Use me as your profile picture on Facebook, Google+, Twitter, or any other site of your choice.

The Horrors Of Salvation - Part 2

Yesterday I talked about the horror behind the story of Noah.   I had considered expanding on the concept horror embodied in the idea of sacrifice found in the Bible by also talking about the who Jesus story, but decided to just keep it simple and stick to Noah.  I saw a comment on the Noah post that made me wish I had talked about Jesus.

 

It’s sad to hear that this is what the message of Christianity is becoming about. Dead religion will tell you one of two things about God…(1) He’s schizophrenic (He loves you but He hates you) or (2) He’s mysterious (nobody can figure Him out). But here is Jesus, who arrives later on as the Messiah. It is in Christ where God’s nature is revealed, and He is a God of Love.

Things may still be unclear about the Bible and there seems to be a lot of contradictions on God’s nature. But, the Cross made a significance, a proof, to how much God loves us (John 3:16). Hope that helps! 

Comment by tacticianjenro | September 2, 2012 | Reply

 

His argument is one made by many Christians to negate the nastiness of the Old Testament: that God suddenly became a merciful and loving god once he sent Jesus (or became Jesus, the Bible is a bit confusing on that point) to save us all.

 

Even if you grant that this argument is valid, the whole idea of sacrificing someone, someone who is supposedly innocent, is just as horrible and depraved as anything in the Old Testament.  Sure, it’s just one guy, not every person on earth, but the number of those sacrificed isn’t the issue.  The issue is the need for a blood sacrifice at all.  

 

I was raised Catholic.  I could never understand why God required a sacrifice to free us from sin.  If he is all powerful, why not just forgive our sins and be done with it?  The priests explained to me about Original Sin.  That didn't make any sense to me either.  Why would God punish every human who ever lived just because the first two people sinned?  Why not just forgive Adam and Eve their sins?  Or if He couldn't find it in his all loving heart to do that, why not just strike them both dead and be done with it?  He's God.  He could just make more.

 

The idea that Jesus, the only son of God, the innocent lamb, had to die just because the rest of us were sinning bastards is insane.  That isn't love, it is sadistic and cruel.  Worse, it is pointless.  If God is all powerful, then either forgive each of us our sins or smote us, don't go killing your only son, especially when he doesn't deserve it.

The idea that the god of the New Testament is now a loving, merciful god as opposed to the angry, vengful god of the Old Testament; that he is somehow a new and improved god, is absurd.  The sacrifice of Jesus is no different than asking Abraham to kill his son, or the killing of all the first born of Egypt.  It is just as cruel, just as horrible and depraved.  

The fact is, God, both the old and new versions, is a dick, pure and simple.  

 

The Horror Of Salvation

I saw this drawing on DeviantArt today.  

by Flora Turcniovic

While it is outwardly whimsical, at second glance it is full of horror.

The Story of Noah's ark is often told as a story of salvation.  God has saved Noah, his family, and two of every creature from a world wide flood.  He sets them down in a new world with the sun shining and a rainbow in the sky.  It is given to us as a story hope and a lesson in God's unending love for us.  

In this story, God decided to destroy his creation.  It is claimed that he did the because humans had almost all become sinners, loving nothing but sin and debauchery.  So he decided to destroy them all, all except Noah and his family, who loved him and we good and decent people. 

What is overlooked in this story is the complete horror and incomprehensible death and destruction that was perpetrated by a vengeful, capricious god who thought nothing about wiping out almost every living thing on earth.   Even if you accept that everyone but Noah and his family were sinners, were they all so completely evil that they all deserved death?  Even if you accept this, what about the animals?   Were they all sinners as well? 

What this artwork shows is a glimpse of the horror of the wonton death and destruction that this "loving" God visited upon his creatures.  What about all of the people?  Can you imagine seeing millions of bodies floating in the ocean, stretching from horizon to horizon?  What this reveals is utter destruction and death on a scale unimaginable perpetrated by a vengful and evil god, one who's anger is far greater than his love, and who requires destruction and death in return for salvation.

This is the unacknowledged and overlooked horror of religion.  That message is that God will save us.  What is unspoken is that he is saving us from himself.

Another Church Experience

I went to my Son's church today to hear him sing in the choir.  They were really quite good.  The music was a mix of gospel and soul with some latin rhythms thrown in.  Of course, the lyrics were all "praise the Lord", and "Jesus" repeated ad nauseum.   

I could see that people were moved by the music; many singing and swaying to the beat.  It was inspiring.  Not inspiring in a spiritual way, but in a "isn't this great that we can all enjoy this together" kind of way.  I can understand why people would be moved to feel as if some kind of spirt was among them.  

I felt that too, but it wasn't a spirit of gods or angels or anything like that.  It was a spirit of belonging and sharing.  I've also felt the exact same feeling at rock and pop concerts.  When I saw Elton John, the crowd sang and swayed to the soulful lyrics of "Rocket Man" or "Candle in the Wind".  When I saw Simon and Garfunkel, it was "Bridge Over Troubled Water" and "59th Street Bridge Song (Feeling Groovey)".  When I saw  Paul Simon solo, it was "You Can Call Me Al"; Barry Manilow, "I Write the Songs"; Chicago, "Saturday in the Park".  

These musical experiences were all moving and inspiring because it allowed us, as an audience, as humans, to share common emotions of love, joy, tenderness, and excitement.  It is the spirit of togetherness and sharing of emotions that is at play here, not the spirit of the lord or any other supernatural entity.   Music unites us and allows us to share our humanness.  

The pastor (this was a Protestant service, in contrast to my last church experience) gave a sermon titles "The Dangerous People".  According to him, the people who are truly dangerous, "to themselves and others", are those who "think they know, but don't know" (his exact words, not mine). He said that we need to be willing to accept council and instruction from others.   He couched this in knowledge of the Bible, using Apollos and Paul from the New Testament as examples.  

He said that Apollos was a great preacher and very knowledgeble in the scriptures, but that he only knew of John the Baptist, and since he didn't know of Jesus, he was somehow dangerous to himself and to others.  How Apollos was dangerous he didn't say.  What he did say was that once he was told of the true way of Jesus, he learned from that and started preaching the gospel of Jesus.  That, somehow, was supposed to show us how we must listen to wise council and not assume that we know everything.  

He never said how we can differentiate good council from bad, truth from falsehood, only that we must be willing to admit that we don't know everything and to listen to those who know more.  He also didn't tell us who "those" are.  I found the message pretty muddled.  I suppose that you could take from this that we must be humble and open to new ideas, but I didn't get the feeling that this was what he really meant.  To me, he seemed to emphasize the idea of "dangerous people", but without ever letting us know how to tell "truth" from falsehood. 

One other thing that he said really struck me, because it was so self-contradicting.  He said that we have the liberty of praising and doing the will of God.  How can you do the will of an all powerful god and still have liberty?  This is subjugation disguised as liberty.   It is the same as saying that Americans value liberty, but then say that we are not real Americans if we don't say the Pledge of Allegiance, completely missing the fact that by pledging allegiance to anything, be it God or country, we are trading our liberty for servitude to some higher master.

I've been learning quite a bit from my forays to church.  I've learned that there are some wonderful ideas out there about how we can be better people, but they always get watered down by the trappings of religion.  Instead of using the example of how we should be humble and admit that we don't have all the answers in order to think for ourselves so that we can learn and grow, it comes down to just having faith.  Well, you can't have faith and truly think for yourself, because to really think for yourself means to question everything, which faith can not allow.  

I find it almost sad to see such potential for real understanding of the human condition and the world we live in lost in a morass of faith, platitudes, and servitude to a "higher power".   This makes us compliant and docile, just like the sheep that the shepherd figure of Jesus requires us to be.

Dehumanizing Atheists

This vile piece of hate came to my attention the other day:

TeaPartyTony ‏@TeaPartyTony

Atheists are not technically human beings (they have no soul) therefore they are not protected by our nations laws and bill of rights.

Now, based on his other tweets, TeaPartyTony is nothing but a hate spewing, racist, misogynistic jerk.  I try to avoid these types, but what made this stand out for me was the part about Atheists having no souls.  

Given some of Tony's other tweets, he expects to see atheists burn in hell, but here he says we have no souls, so I guess we can't go to hell.  I doubt Tony sees the conflict between his two statements, but then again, I'm guessing that he probably doesn't care.  In either case, he is putting atheists in a class of people who he considers to be subhuman.   

This tactic of declaring those who you dislike as less than human goes back into antiquity.  We like to think of ourselves as good people, or at least as adhering to some kind of moral code.  To hurt or kill another human goes against most peoples' moral code, so when they find themselves in conflict with others outside their group they have to find a way to rationalize the hate they feel.  They need to make their opponents less than human, less like them.  This allows them to resolve the cognitive dissidence that they have to grapple with by treating another person badly.

Religion has a very effective way to dehumanize people.  It can claim that the hated group either have no souls, or more commonly, have souls that will be tormented in hell forever.  In this way, they become not so much less human, but less worthy of being treated like humans.  Using religion to dehumanize someone is even more effective than the usual method of just calling someone inhuman.  By claiming that their god has decreed that the hated person(s) are damned, all responsibility for hating, persecuting, hurting, and killing another human begin falls on the god, not his/her/its followers.

It is a very insidious, and very effective, way to justify treating others as less that deserving of the same rights that you have.

TeaPartyTony ‏@TeaPartyTony

Atheists are not technically human beings (they have no soul) therefore they are not protected by our nations laws and bill of rights.

What I Learned In Church Today

I went to church today because my son was in the choir.  I haven't been to church for a long time, and not a Catholic one for even longer.

Having been raised Catholic, the service itself was familiar enough, even after all these years, that I could ignore it.  The sermon, on the other hand, I listened to intently.  When I used to go to church, even as a kid, I remember always listening to the sermon.  I listened and I thought about what the priest had to say.  Today was no different.

He talked about desire.  There was some very well thought out and interesting points that he made.  He explained how desire run amok can lead to greed and he used the international banking crisis as an example.  I couldn't agree more.  Here was a perfect example of greed and how it can affect millions.  Here was a very humanistic call for equality and a curb on selfishness and the policies that promote it.  He contrasted that to a desire to do what is right for everyone.

This would have been a perfect sermon, but then, of course, he pushed that aside and said that the real positive role of desire is to know and see God.  Damn!  

This is where myself, and humanists like me, see the great difference between our goals of those of religions.  We seek to promote the positive aspects of humanity, like channeling our desires to do good for, not just ourselves, but others as well.  While most religions do see this as an important task, it is secondary to a desire to please God.  As far as I can see, this is just as selfish as the desire for personal gain.  It is replacing the desire for money and possessions with the desire to gain wealth in an afterlife that may not exist, and which certainly does no one here on earth any good

Now, if desiring to gain points in a possible afterlife leads you to do good here on earth, great, but there is still a selfishness to this that I thin can, and does, lead easily to arrogance.  Many believers use this thought of reward in heaven to make themselves, in their eyes, better than those who either don't believe as they do or don't believe at all.  This can easily lead to the extreme of believing, and worse, telling those people that they will burn for eternity in hell.  This dehumanizes those who disagree and breeds hate.

Most humanists, on the other hand, believe in doing good for others simply because it is the right thing to do.  They expect no reward, no glory, just the satisfaction of doing what's right and helping others.  All without judgment, arrogance, or hate.

I Got Noticed!

I found a cool pic on FB and shared it there.  I also downloaded it so I could share it here.  I also sent it to PZ Myers because I thought that maybe he could use it for his Anti-Caterday post.  Before I could post it here, PZ actually used it for his Anti-Caterday post!  I know it's just a little thing, and it isn't the first time I've got a bit of extra traffic my way from a blogger (Skepchick)  who I greatly respect, but it is cool all the same.

 

 

Why Are You Offended? Why We Don't Care.

The Omaha Coalition for Reason recently put up a billboard here in Omaha.  The billboard simply says, "Don't Believe in God?  Join the Club."  It doesn't say, or even imply, a dislike or disdain for religion in general or Christianity in particular.  It just says that it is ok to not believe in God.  The message isn't aimed at the faithful, but at non-theists who might feel alone because everyone around them are believers.

Still, some Christians take offense at the billboard.   KMTV News quoted Emlyn Forsuh as saying, "I was raised to believe in god and now someone says they don't believe in god so I don't like it."  As the writer of this article say in response to Emlyn, "Too Damn Bad!"  

I've written about all the billboards around Omaha with quotes from God that I am exposed to.  If you read what I wrote there you'll see that I am offended at these billboards.  But I also say that we shouldn't try to have these billboards removed (as some Christians have tried, and succeeded at getting atheist billboards removed or not put up at all).  

Everyone has the right to free speech and if they are willing to pay to have a billboard put up to express their views, more power to them.  What none of us have is the right to not be offended.  Everyone is offended by something at some point.  So what?  There are people who are offended that Jews or blacks exist or have the same rights as they do.  That doesn't mean we have to put jews back in concentration camps or enslave blacks again just because someone is offended.

If you are offended about something, go ahead and say so, but don't expect others not to be offended that you are offended.  And definitely don't expect everyone to give a crap that you are offended.  In fact, rather than saying "too damn bad", I just say, "so what?".  

I'm offended at those Christian billboards.  I'm also offended by the junk mail and spam I get trying to sell me stuff.   So what?  My offense isn't your problem, unless, of course, you try to impose your beliefs or will upon me.  Then it becomes an equal rights issue because you are trying to force something upon me which I don't want, while insisting that your beliefs be free from reproach.  

So, put up your billboards, write your letters to the editor, blog about whatever you like.  Just don't expect others not be offended.  Your rights to believe to what you believe does not extend to having those beliefs respected.  I will (and do) gladly respect your right to your beliefs, but I do not have to respect your beliefs.  All beliefs and ideas are open to criticism and ridicule, including my own.  

If you don't respect my beliefs, fine.  Want to talk about it? Great.  Discussing and debating ideas are how we learn about each other.  But don't expect me not be offended by what you say, because I sure expect you to be offended by what I have to say.  

The Omaha Coalition of Reason Billboard

The Omaha Coalition of Reason  has put up this billboard on 72 St., one of the busiest in Omaha.  Surprisingly, I hadn't heard of the organization before.  The have a pretty good list of member groups, only one of which I was anyway involved in (I went to two meetings), Omaha Atheists.  

It's good to learn that there are other secular groups here in town.  My wife and I will have to go to some of the activities of these groups and support them in anyway we can.  Sure, it is great to blog about secular issues and discuss them on Facebook, Google+, and Twitter, but nothing beat good ol' fashioned face to face interaction.

You should check in your area and see what secular groups are there.  Get involved, even if it's just to donate a little of your time or money.  

"God is Just a Placeholder for Our Ignorance"

"God is just a placeholder for our ignorance."

I just thought this up.  It's not original really, at least not as a thought, but a search of google doesn't turn up that exact wording with the same context and meaning (although it does turn up this on Butterflies & Wheels, but that isn't exactly the same).  Yeah for me!  

I want to have buttons and bumper stickers made up with that on it.   Anyone know the best way (read cheapest) to do that?

A Born Again Atheist? It’s More Accurate Than The Christian Kind.

I saw a picture of this button on DeviantArt.  I liked it, but it got me thinking.

Born again Christians use the term "Born Again" to denote their belief that when they accept Jesus as their personal savior they are "born again" in spirit.  This phrase and concept is taken from  John 3:1-36,

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ...

To say, as the button above does, that an atheist is born again once they reject theism is not quite the same thing.  It is really more of a reversion.  

In Islam, converting to Islam is said to be actually reverting because of the Islamic believe that everyone is born a believer in the one true god, but later is lead astray.  Of course, this makes the erroneous (in my view) assumption that there is one true god.  

An atheist is someone who does not believe in any god/gods,  or any supernatural begins like angels, devils, demons, jinns, etc. So to say that you are a "born again" atheist is about as true statement as you can get since none of us are born with a belief in anything, never mind a god or gods.  These beliefs are usually learned or taught to us.  

That's not to say that, left to our own devices we wouldn't create a god or gods on our own to explain the world around us.  This is human psychology and is where religions come from in the first place.  We have evolved to see agency (a specific animated cause) in everything around us, perhaps from the survival need to see a predator instead of just a bunch of leaves or grass in the bushes.  Sure, we could assume that it is just a random pattern, but if it were a lion, we'd be lunchmeat.  Those of our ancestors who assumed that something living was there survived to reproduce and pass on this evolutionary trait.  

This need to see agency in the things around us also gave rise to giving agency to things unseen as well.  When trying to answer what is basically the meaning of life (which we all know is 42, of course), we naturally assigned agency to explain that as well.  A rain god must cause the rain.  A wind god must cause the wind.  Ditto for all of the other things in nature.  

Eventually, logic dictated that the gods must all be ruled by a god of superior power, just as we were ruled by a chieftain or king.  As time went on, logic again told us that our entire universe must have come from somewhere and that there had to be something even greater than the existing gods.  A creator god was born and eventually, this creator god not only ruled over the other gods, but completely did away for the need for them.  Everything could be explained as the actions of this one, all powerful god.

As time went by, our inquiry into the workings nature took on the form of ideas followed by testing.  This lead to the scientific method which then lead to amazingly accurate explanations and predictions of the workings of the universe.  The forces that controlled nature could now be explained without the need for god or gods.  This didn't preclude the actual existence of them, but eliminated the need for them to explain the things that they had always been needed for.

Once we saw that we could explain nature without having to resort to "god did it", many of use came to the belief that since there is no need for a god, there probably isn't a god at all.  

The need to explain the world we live in is universal.  The need to see agency is deeply ingrained in our brains.  This need has driven how we explain our world and has shaped the explanations that all the varied cultures have come up with, leading to all the different gods that have ever been postulated to exist.  But the agency we are wired to see doesn't actually exist.  It was evolved to protect us, not to explain anything.

While we are born with this need, we are not born with a belief of any kind.  Beliefs are shaped by those around us, by social settings.  Most of us accept those beliefs because they are reinforced by our inclination to see agency in non-animate things.  Even as children, we try to use reason and logic to make sense of the world around us, but reason is often trumped by socially enforced beliefs.  It is extremely difficult to shakes these beliefs, but when we let reason and logic guide us, we can finally let go of these beliefs and are "born again" into the state in which we were first born, a state of not knowing.  Then our minds are clear, pure, and ready to find the real answers to the meaning of life.

Atheist Images and Something That's Not

Understanding by ~AAtheist on deviantART

Einstein on God by ~AAtheist on deviantART

Robert Ingersoll on Bibilical morality by ~rationalhub on deviantART

Giant Mare's tail by ~Hyrotrioskjan on deviantART

Bambiraptor feinbergi by ~puntotu on deviantART

This is the different one:

DQD 01 by ~duongquocdinh on deviantART