Considering ragequitting the atheist movement

I'm unhappy with the way I see other atheists behaving toward one another on the internet.  When I look at my Twitter feed, I don't see a group of rational adults promoting skeptical inquiry and working together to improve society.  I see a bunch of bratty, cliquish teenagers starting fights in the schoolyard, taunting people who aren't like them, and spreading nasty rumors to hurt their social rivals.  And I'm sick of it.

I'm sick of all the feuding between people who want to harshly criticize religious ideas for their absurdity and those who want to buddy up with religious progressives who reject the more barbaric doctrines of their faith.  I'm sick of all the feuding between feminists who call out harassment and people who call them "professional victims."  I'm sick of this damned-if-we-do, damned-if-we-don't double bind about criticizing Islam the way we do Christianity.  I'm sick of seeing someone being relentlessly heckled day and night by persistent trolls-stalkers because she came up with an idea the slobbering masses didn't like.

You know what?  I like hanging out with people who share interests with me, be they atheists, agnostics, humanists, or religious adherents. I like volunteering at food pantries and soup kitchens, donating blood, working out, and playing video games.  I'm going to take a break from the blogosphere and focus on those things for now.  I don't have anything new to say, and there's no sense in my adding to the deafening noise in this movement.  I haven't seen anything new to read in a while, and I'm going to stop wasting my time following the drama.

So, on that note: deuces, TTFN, YOLO, and adios.

Put a gun to an atheist's head...

(Cross-posted to Skeptic Freethought)


My fellow Skeptic Freethought blogger Astrid drew attention to this heartwarming tweet this afternoon:

Sorry, kiddo. That's not God I'd be talking to. I'd be talking to the psychopath holding the gun. Though, hey, I'm pragmatic. I might say just about anything to get you to put the gun down.

If the only way you can get an atheist to pay lip service to your God is with a gun to their head, you might want to seriously reconsider the merits of your faith.

Petition the White House: Pressure Indonesia to free Aan!

I recently posted about the infuriating case of Alexander Aan, an Indonesian atheist who was thrown in prison and slapped with a $10,000 fine for blasphemous postings on Facebook.  He's also received numerous death threats, and some fundamentalist Muslims are calling for him to be executed.

Now there's a petition out on the White House's We the People service to pressure Obama to take a stand and call out Indonesia on this injustice.  If it gets 25,000 signatures, it will end up on his desk in the Oval Office.  It's currently at about 3100, so there's a long way to go.  Go. Sign. It.

In my opinion, any person who values freedom of expression, be they atheist or not, should be signing this.

As I said in my post on Skeptic Freethought about this issue: If you are an atheist and have ever expressed your views online, you would be a criminal in Indonesia.  Atheism should not be a crime anywhere.

I don't always agree with JT Eberhard, but...

... he occasionally says something that absolutely knocks it out of the park:

“The good news is that this life you lucked into is your own, and the only rewards or punishments, the only real heaven and the only true hell, are the results of your own actions between now and when you die. You have an opportunity to live in a way so that when your time is up you will have discovered heaven long before you found death.”

Drawing by Jen McCreight

If that isn't a positive message that atheists can rally around, I don't know what is.

The different flavors of atheism, revisited

(Cross-posted to Skeptic Freethought)

Despite what The Oatmeal may think, this isn't every atheist's idea of a good time.

For better or for worse, some people like to categorize. I can be one of those people at times.


PZ Myers recently posted a list of taxa that he believes describe different personalities within the atheist movement; I did something similar on my blog last fall, though with a slightly different focus. PZ focused on patterns of thought, while I looked at patterns of behavior (I also marked each of mine with a card suit for symbolism). Here’s an executive summary of both of our lists:

PZ’s Taxa:

• Scientific Atheist: Knows that there is no god due to total lack of empirical evidence for one. Sometimes a little too arrogant.
• Philosophical Atheist: Doesn't believe in god because believing in one requires making unfounded assumptions. Sometimes overly long-winded.
• Political Atheist: Motivated to fight the political and legal battles to make the world a better place for atheists. Sometimes makes compromises that other atheists don’t like.
• Humanist: Altruistic do-gooder who wants to help people in the name of godlessness. Sometimes “pragmatically fickle” and may join up with liberal churches instead of expressly atheist organizations.

My Taxa:

• Agitating Anti-theist (spade): Sees religion as an enemy to be vanquished, and fights its advances tooth and claw.
• Incredulous Inquirer (club): Skeptical toward religion, but wants to discuss rather than fight.
• Mainstream Materialist (diamond): Doesn't believe in god, stops worrying, and enjoys life.
• Diplomatic Disbeliever (heart): Strives to form friendly alliances with open-minded religious people.

Many people who read either or both of these posts may find themselves identifying with more than one category. They’re archetypes, and very few people strictly belong to any one of them. Each one of us has a different story behind how we realized we were atheists, how we came to join up with other atheists in this ever-evolving movement, and where we’d like to see the movement go.


And yet I unfortunately continually see bickering among these different “kinds” of atheists, the most vitriolic of which occurs on the internet. Atheists call one another “bullies” and “accommodationists” and accuse one another of dogmatism and “Tinkerbellism” over different approaches toward the movement. We see nasty exchanges of ad-hominems and passive-aggressive head shaking on Twitter because one party is either too critical or not critical enough of religion for the other party’s tastes.


Don’t get me wrong; I think that atheists who speak out in the name of atheism should be willing to defend why they say, and if an atheist says or does something reprehensible then others can and should call him or her out on it. But let’s try to keep it civil.


A diversity of perspectives and approaches toward living without religion is, in my opinion, healthy for the movement. We need people who uncompromisingly fight for the truth, we need people who make nice with theists, and we need average citizens who aren’t full-time activists to show the general public that we do walk among them. This movement isn’t one-size-fits-all.

Idiots vandalize church with "athiest" graffiti

I don't often use foul language on this blog, but: you fucking dumbasses.

Nice "use" of unnecessary "quotes" there.

Apparently someone thought it was a good idea to tag a church with spraypainted messages promoting atheism.  Well, except that these brilliant vandals couldn't even spell "atheism" right.

Creative spelling, eh?

At this point, no one knows whether the people who did this were really atheists or just anti-authority trolls looking to have some fun at someone else's expense.

Yeah, that'll convince 'em.

I really hope that whoever did this didn't honestly think they were helping the atheist movement at all.

(via Friendly Atheist)

Atheists: let Leah Libresco be whatever she wants to be

Recent news has caused quite a stir in the atheist blogosphere: Leah of Unequally Yoked has decided that she's no longer an atheist, but a Catholic now.

Hemant of Friendly Atheist is taking this at face value without passing judgment, but others such as Jen McCreight and PZ Myers are calling it a shame:

Jen outlines her reasons for feeling this way, and PZ cautions his readers to at least be intellectually honest:

We are, after all, supposed to be the logical ones.  It would be ironic for atheists to resort to fallacy when a voice in our community converts to Christianity.  But we're all human and prone to that sort of groupthink when someone defects from our group.

My two cents: I'm going to just take the news of her conversion at face value and assume that she's neither trolling nor doing this as an experiment. Given that, then I'll say what I'd say to any friend, family member, or acquaintance who decided to convert to a religion: while I don't support your conversion, I support you wholeheartedly in your freedom to do so without harassment.

We've read too many horror stories of the crap people have to take from their friends and family when they come out as atheists; none of us should aspire to be like that when one of us decides to go the other way.

I haven't talked to Leah in person or read very many of her blog posts, but she seems smart.  She'll figure her beliefs out on her own.  And if she decides that she needs to believe in the Christian god in order for the universe to make sense to her, then so be it.  As Thomas Jefferson once said, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Rallying against the atheist bogeyman

Sometimes I think that certain other atheists are exaggerating when they claim that American society at large is out to get them.  This suspicion is usually proven wrong.  The past few weeks have been no exception.

It's official: "atheist" is a dirty word

It's a sad realization we've come to time and time again as godless Americans: to be an atheist is inherently offensive.  It's bad enough that we're labeled "angry" or "militant" for applying critical reasoning to people's deeply-held religious beliefs; now it's apparent that we can't even publicly announce our existence.

A group of atheists in Pennsylvania decided to steer away from the "your religion is a myth" theme of recent billboard campaigns and come up with the most innocuous message they could think of to advertise their group's existence:

This was apparently too controversial to appear on the side of a bus.  I'm shocked, but at the same time not as shocked as I probably should be.  Public displays of godlessness fit right into the worst fears of people who believe agents of Satan are lurking around every corner.

Seeking to lampoon the ridiculousness of it all, my fellow atheist blogger Astrid created an even less threatening image that's probably still too controversial to make the cut:

How abrasive, in-your-face, and militant is that?

When "reaching out" becomes "targeting"

This may come as news to some people: black atheists do exist.  There.  I hope that no one sustained any injuries when any stereotypes they held about atheists and/or black people came crashing down.

Now that we've established this fact, it should come as no surprise that said black atheists might want to reach out to other members of their racial demographic who are having doubts about religion.  And they've been doing exactly that, with the most innocuous advertising possible.  African Americans for Humanism launched a billboard campaign this month letting other nonbelievers know that they're not alone.

This, of course, makes some religious people very upset.  The headlines themselves are telling:

• "ATHEISTS’ ANTI-RELIGION BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN TARGETS AFRICAN AMERICANS"
• "Atheists Target Blacks During the Month of February"
• My personal favorite: "Atheist Billboard Targets African Americans: Satan Wants Black People In Hell and Not Believe In God"

Note the word choice here.  Atheists are targeting black people.  It's stated as though the two are non-overlapping circles, and that some godless outsiders are seeking to spread discord among the African American community.  The intention of the authors is clear: exploit racial tension to promote anti-atheist bigotry.  It's the exact opposite of what AAH's positive campaign seeks to accomplish.

(A big thanks to Dren Asselmeier for her many tweets on this topic!)

Santorum seeps into the church-state divide

In order to get elected, John F. Kennedy had to reassure the majority-Protestant electorate that he wasn't a Catholic theocratic mole who wanted to turn our country into a satellite state of the Vatican.  A half-century later, Rick Santorum is twisting JFK's words around to tell us how the concept of separation of church and state makes him nauseous:

He had said that he "almost threw up" after reading JFK's 1960 speech in which he declared his commitment to the separation of church and state.

Perhaps he'd also feel a little queasy if the Protestants he panders to called his Catholicism into question in the general election.  Secularism starts to look pretty good when you're the target of bigotry from the majority religion.

Isn't mocking the Prophet a crime in this country?

Last Halloween, a random Muslim man physically assaulted an atheist who marched in a parade dressed as a Zombie Muhammad.  Police were called and a court case ensued.  The perpetrator learned that you don't assault people for saying something you don't like, right?

Wrong.

It's bad enough that some Muslims take their religion seriously enough to get violent when someone satirizes it; worse yet is when our legal system decides that you were asking for it when you're the victim of such violence.

And what I'm frightened of is that they call it God's love

Cranston High School West in Rhode Island lost the court battle to keep its school prayer banner on display.  Not a big surprise, given the precedent that publicly funded schools have no business officially sanctioning prayer.

Secular activists are lauding the young Jessica Ahlquist for her central role in the push to remove the banner as well as having the courage to come out as an atheist to an intolerant community.

For those who haven't followed the story, here's an image of the offending banner:

At its core, the banner's message really is a good philosophy for the school's students: do your best to grow mentally, morally, and physically; be kind and helpful; be honest; be a good sport; be a good person in general.  I don't think anyone should have a problem with those values.

What is a problem is that they are encapsulated in a prayer.  The assertion that these virtues come from a "heavenly father" rather than within the individual implies that engaging in prayer is essential to being a good student.  No public school should be saying such a thing to its student body.
 

In this country people are free to practice whatever religion they choose, or no religion at all; this certainly applies to students and faculty at a public school.  The school itself, however, is not a person, and ought to be neutral on matters of religion.
*****

In the wake of the court's decision, the good Christians of Jessica's hometown are letting her know how they feel about her role in the lawsuit.  Sweet, benign messages about how they'll "pray for her" and hope that she opens her heart to Jesus, right?  At worst, a fire-and-brimstone warning about the eternal consequences of her atheism?

Wrong.  Her fellow students tweeted about jumping her after school, someone posted her home address on internet forums, and one "AJ St. Angelo" mused about murdering her.  Below are a few samples:

All of this venom and hatred over a banner that shouldn't have been put up in the first place. Read the rest of them on JesusFetusFajitaFishsticks, or catch up on the whole story over at Friendly Atheist.

[Recap] Adopt-an-Atheist, flogging as a tenet of Islam, atheists sending their kids to church, and... Newt was pro-science?

I've been more of an observer than a contributor these past several weeks.  My take on a few recent items in the news and blogosphere:

The Catholic League wants to help us this Christmas!

The good folks over at the Catholic League know what a struggle it is for we atheists to keep up the charade day after day.  Deep down, we all want to admit to the world that we're really Christians, imprisoned by peer pressure that keeps us from weeping tears of joy over Baby Jesus every time we see a crèche.

Well, despair no more, my fellow atheists!  This season, let's all get adopted by a good Catholic who can show us the light!  I know it's what all of us have secretly wanted all our lives.

For those of you who really aren't "closeted Christians" and are still tired of people saying that you "believe in nothing, stand for nothing and are good for nothing", Ellen over at Skeptic Freethought has a much better idea: tell those well-meaning Christians to adopt a puppy!

Stop oppressing Maldivian Muslims by telling them that flogging women is wrong!

How dare those intolerant bigots at the U.N. offend the religious sensibilities of such a freedom-loving Muslim theocracy!

“This is a very serious problem. You can’t say flogging is a form of violence against women,” he said.

Nasheed explained that Pillay’s remarks were tantamount to proclaiming in the Indian parliament that “worshiping cows is so uncivilised.”

Tearing a woman's flesh from her bones with a whip really is the same thing as giving livestock undue reverence.  Why can't we just respect people's beliefs?

Atheists don't shelter their children from religion?

Apparently, scientists who don't believe in God still have a tendency to send their children to church.  While sometimes it's to satisfy the religious sensibilities of a believing spouse, that's not always the case - some atheist parents actually want their kids to be exposed to religion so they can evaluate it for themselves!

One of the most interesting findings, according to Ecklund, was that some atheist scientists want to expose their children to religion due to scientific reasoning.


"We thought that these individuals might be less inclined to introduce their children to religious traditions, but we found the exact opposite to be true," Ecklund said. "They want their children to have choices, and it is more consistent with their science identity to expose their children to all sources of knowledge."

Freethinkers supporting free thought?  Who'd have expected that?

For the record: my future kids will find the Bible and Qur'an on the same shelf as Greek and Norse mythology, though I might refrain from reading them certain stories from the first two until they're old enough not to be traumatized by the extreme violence.

Can we trade the current Newt for the 2006 edition?

A surprising revelation was tweeted this week, courtesy of Phil Plait: Newt Gingrich used to be pro-science!  Here's an excerpt of an interview from 2006 (emphasis and Q/A notations mine):

Q: Do you view evolution as "just a theory" or as the best explanation for how we came to be?A: Evolution certainly seems to express the closest understanding we can now have. But it's changing too. The current tree of life is not anything like a 19th-century Darwinian tree. We're learning a lot about how systems evolve and don't evolve. Cockroaches became successful several hundred million years ago and just stopped evolving.

Q: Where do you come down on teaching intelligent design in schools? Do you think the ruling in the Dover, Pennsylvania, case was appropriate?A: I believe evolution should be taught as science, and intelligent design should be taught as philosophy. Francis Collins's new book, The Language of God, is a fine statement that combines a belief in God with a belief in evolution. I do not know enough about the Dover case to critique the judge's decision, but I am generally cautious about unelected judges establishing community standards—that is the duty of elected officials.

Don't we all wish that GOP candidates could get away with that kind of talk today?  Unfortunately for us, they know their base and know how to pander to it.  If you don't proclaim evolution to be just a silly "theory" (in the vernacular sense, not the scientific sense), you just aren't electable.

Giving thanks, the humanist way

As an atheist, I don't have a god to thank for the "blessings" in my life.  There are many things I'm fortunate to have in my life: living in a region with abundant natural resources, dwelling in a relatively safe area without the daily threat of violent crime, and having good general health that's at least partly due to my genes, to name a few.  Absent belief in any higher being that chose these circumstances for me, I have to chalk them up to a mere accident of circumstance.

What I can be thankful for are the actions of other people that have had a positive impact in my life.  Some have done great gestures of generosity; others, small acts of kindness.  Some have done nice things for me intentionally; others have indirectly helped me while helping themselves.  Some have given material aid; others have given kind words, or a smile, or even a challenge for me to meet.

I give my thanks to every person whose actions have helped me get to where I am today: the family that raised and provided for me, the friends who were there for me throughout school, the teachers who challenged me to learn and think critically, the co-workers who brave the proverbial trenches by my side.  I give my thanks to my wife, who has helped me learn as much about myself as I have about her.  I give my thanks to the strangers who invented the tools I use to express myself, the generations of our civilization who have preserved free speech, and the soldiers who stand ready to protect this society.

Last month, my fellow HCCO member Derrick posted this Dial-A-Humanist message on the HCCO blog, discussing the benefits of adopting an "attitude of gratitude" (cheesy slogan, yes, but accurate).  It's something I thought about this evening as I sated myself with slow-cooked turkey breast, stuffing, yams, and pumpkin cheesecake.

We humans have one another thank for every good thing we have in our lives.  We're the ones who keep one another safe from danger.  We're the ones who work to secure food and resources for one another, and carve niches for one another in the economy.  We're the ones who challenge one another to succeed and help one another in times of need.  We're the ones whose kind words and companionship keeps one another happy.

Happy Thanksgiving, my fellow humans.

On the various "types" of atheists in today's secular movement

It has come to my attention more than once in the past that there are people out there who don't quite understand what it means to be an atheist.  A dictionary definition of the term only tells you what we don't believe; the connotations regarding what atheists do believe are many and diverse.

One of my newer readers, Chakam, commented that he believes atheists can be classified into two distinct categories.  To paraphrase his comment:

On one hand, we have the stereotypical vitriolic, "God-hating" atheists who seek only to disparage Christianity at every turn.  On the other, we have the rational, intellectual atheists who simply reject the idea of any supernatural entity in absence of convincing evidence.


I don't think that this assessment is entirely accurate, though his caricature of the vitriolic atheist is perhaps just an exaggeration of the truth regarding certain individuals.  I don't think it's as simple as he makes it - I think there are at least four broad categories one could use to describe the attitudes of different atheists toward religion.

I'm going to stick with four categories in this post.  Just for fun, I'll also assign each one a card suit* to symbolize the inherent attitude toward religion.  Also just for fun, I'll use alliteration.

*If you're not familiar with the symbolism behind the four traditional card suits, read up on it and you'll see why I thought they were appropriate here.  Remember, kids: cartomancy can't really predict your future.  Friends don't let friends fall for woo.

Apparently, atheists are driven by hate and anger

Religious folk reacted with the fury of Caps Lock when the University of Wisconsin's Secular Student Alliance affiliate sent a mass email inviting interested students to join.  Though many other student groups use the very same method to get the word out that they exist, some apparently found the existence of an atheist-agnostic-freethinker group offensive.

Then, this article turned up on my Google Sparks:

When natural man embraces atheism, you often end up with a ticking time bomb. The seething anger lies just beneath the surface for many atheists. Even for those “sophisticated atheists” who are able to put up a good front for the public, their “inner workings” are usually filled with rage against God and Christians.


In that sense, atheists unwittingly help to prove the truth of Christianity by their hatred for it. Jesus told his disciples, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.” (John 15:18) Real Christians don’t hate atheists. Real Christians love atheists. That is the supernatural grace of God at work in the life of a believer. Real atheists, on the other hand, have an inner hatred for Christ that gets directed at believers. That is the natural result of man rejecting God as His Creator.

Another choice segment:

If everyone in the world was an atheist, the population would shrink drastically and violently. Human arrogance and anger doesn’t put up with too much before it goes ballistic and begins to wipe out the “enemy.”

And then there's this gem:

If you are an atheist, here are 11 words you won't say from your heart unless you choose to open your mind to be a "freethinker" for Christ: "Lord Jesus, forgive me for my hatred toward You and others." Wow! You would rather die than sincerely pray those words wouldn't you? That's because a hatred for Jesus fills your heart, as it would mine without Christ. You tell yourself it is just unbelief in Jesus. That is only the "fruit of it." The "root of it" is hatred towards God.

Here I thought that the old "atheists hate God" argument had been beaten to death and beyond, and yet it pops up again on a major Christian news site.  I have to wonder if the author, Dan Delzell, has ever met, read the writings of, or heard a speech by an atheist; his understanding of how atheists think seems to come exclusively from the Bible.

I could write a long-winded post about how wrong his assertions are, and why they're wrong; that would be a waste of my time, as this topic has been covered in depth by those who have tread before me.  So I'll keep it short and sweet.

First off: atheists do not believe that any god exists.  You can't hate what doesn't exist.  I would hope that this isn't a difficult concept.  Now let's move on.

Secondly: one look at the sheer vastness of the universe shows us how insignificant we are on the scale of the cosmos.  We aren't our own "gods" - we are ephemeral chemical reactions on the surface of a speck of space dust who have managed to develop intelligence.  Realizing this fact is the exact opposite of arrogance.  You know what would be arrogant?  Believing that all of this was created just for little old young us.

Lastly, I will concede you one point: a lot of atheists do have a great deal of antipathy toward religion, especially so in the West toward Christianity.  However: this isn't because we're angry at some long dead (and possibly legendary) cult leader named Yeshua; it's because we think that organized religion (and the political power it wields) is an absolute farce.

One final note on the 11-word prayer: you won't hear a sincere prayer out of me because it is not possible to sincerely lie.  This argument, like the rest of the column, does not make sense.

2011 Rapture Redux and skepticism of religion

The now-infamous Harold Camping's latest predicted date for the End of All Things is tomorrow.  I'm personally looking forward to a relaxing weekend.

When the Rapture failed to occur five months ago, Camping backpedaled and said that it was obviously just a "spiritual" Rapture; the real fulfillment of the Book of Revelation wasn't due until October 21st.

It seems like the skeptic community and mainstream media alike made a bigger deal about his May 21st Armageddon prediction - granted, this is because Camping himself made a bigger deal about it.  I haven't seen much advertising from Family Radio regarding tomorrow's apocalypse, but the Freedom From Religion Foundation is wasting no time in capitalizing on it:

 

 (via Friendly Atheist)

The aim of their new billboard campaign is rather straightforward: promote skepticism of religion by drawing attention to the sheer lunacy of doomsday predictions.  Is the truly absurd thing here that Camping picked a specific date?  Or is it that he uses a madman's ramblings as the basis for not only his life, but his eighty million dollar business?

To borrow an analogy from Greta Christina: suppose an old man tells you that his electric hairdryer confided in him that the world is going to end on October 21st.  Which is the more appropriate response?

• That's silly.  Nobody knows when the world is going to end!
• That's silly.  Hairdryers can't talk!

Perhaps as more doomsday prophecies propagate in the public consciousness and are summarily and mercilessly debunked for the world to see, more people will start to question the belief systems that generated these prophecies in the first place.

Christian salvation as a protection racket

UK atheist blogger Rosa Rubicondior posted a humorous comparison between the sales pitches of religious proselytizers and mafia thugs.

I can't say the thought hasn't crossed my mind before - it's really the core argument behind Pascal's wager.  If you don't accept our offer, we can't guarantee that your kneecaps won't get broken with a baseball bat.  You wouldn't wanna take that chance, would ya?

Two offers you can't refuse.

I'll hear Christians swear up and down that the god they believe in loves us all as his children, and yet believe that this same being created a devil to tempt us to sin and a hell to eternally torture us in if we do not submit to his will.  He offers us a "free gift" of salvation in his extended right hand, and the flame of infinite suffering in the left behind his back.

If this being existed, the rational, self-preserving choice would be to show him the utmost respect; the righteous and moral choice, however, would be to resist this tyrant in the face of his eternal wrath.

I'm wondering if the reason some professed Christians struggle to keep the faith is the same reason people in mafia-controlled neighborhoods don't talk to the police.

[Weekly Recap] Atheism in the news, Atheist Ethicist, exoplanets, more blasphemy cases, and trolling!

I'm probably not going to have a lot of time to devote to blogging until December, so posting will be sparse until then.  I have to remind myself that I write on here for fun, so I shouldn't feel like I have to balance it with my responsibilities IRL.  These Weekly Recap posts will be on hiatus for the time being, replaced by me posting whenever the heck I feel like it.  An exciting new development, to be sure.

Don't worry, loyal readers: I've still got a handful of posts in draft that will be going up as soon as they're presentable, and I'll still occasionally be struck by inspiration for a spontaneous rant about something or other.

I might still have a few nights like this. (comic from xkcd)

Without further ado, here's the last Weekly Recap you'll ever see until I decide to start doing them again.

Atheism in the news

Journalists are talking about atheists more and more as time goes on, and it isn't always about lawsuits anymore.  Christians are freaking out that godlessness is becoming so popular in America.  We're being blamed (or credited?) for the rise of polarizing Religious Right political candidates like Perry and Bachmann.  The Houston Chronicle spotlighted local atheists in the Texas city for the good they do in the community.

It gives me hope that American culture is approaching a tipping point, after which being an "out" atheist will no longer be anything new, exciting, or scary in this country.

Hipster Hubble: "I was detecting exoplanets before you even knew how to look for them."

"HR 8799 c, d, and b? You've probably never heard of them."

It appears that the Hubble Space Telescope took some shots in 1998 which, processed using modern techniques, revealed planets orbiting other stars.  Have a look at Phil Plait's post about it at Bad Astronomy.

Each new planet we detect is another chance of finding one in its star's "Goldilocks Zone" capable of supporting life as we know it.

Saturday Spotlight: Atheist Ethicist

I link to Alonzo Fyfe's posts often enough that he really deserves a mention in this section.  Theists and atheists alike might benefit from his perspectives on controversial issues, which he addresses using facts and logic rather than ideology and emotional appeals.  He'll sometimes spice it up with a bit of sarcasm.

If you're looking for convenient answers, you might be disappointed; more often, you're left with inconvenient questions that you should have been asking yourself all along

Go read his blog, Atheist Ethicist, and see why I've become a persistent lurker there.  You might learn something, or your head might explode.

Trolling for Billboards

The infamous Blonde Nonbeliever gave me a good laugh this evening.  Ever get tired of those "You're going to hell!" billboards on the sides of Midwestern highways?  Her friend decided to prank call the phone number on one such billboard spotted on a road trip.  Hilarity ensues.

Godless Quote of the Week

"Arguing about religion strips religion of its special privileged status as the one idea that can never be questioned. And that helps all the goals we're working towards -- ending anti-atheist bigotry, separation of church and state, [ending] special legal exemptions for religious organizations.  Arguing about religion helps re-frame religion as an idea rather than an identity -- which makes believers more open to listening to our ideas."

- Greta Christina, in her talk at the Secular Student Alliance conference earlier this year.

Weekly Absurdity: Blasphemous cartoonist arrested in Turkey

Turkish cartoonist Bahadir Baruter might spend a year in prison for drawing this:

The area circled in red apparently contains a hidden message, proclaiming something to the effect of "There is no God and religion is a sham."  It might offend people, sure.  But is it a crime?

In Turkey it is.  As I said last week, don't take freedom of speech for granted.

In which I lay out my political principles for the world to see

The Heathen Republican often makes informative posts about the ideological differences between progressive and conservative atheists.  He recently posted a side by side comparison of the core principles of each viewpoint, mentioning their common points of contention.  This post will in part be a response to his, and in part be a statement of my own political views.

Though political quizzes are hardly an infallible gauge of opinion on complex issues, they tend to consistently plot me just about where my sentiments lie.  I'm near the center, on the left side of the axis, and more libertarian than I am liberal/progressive.

Sort of like this.  (politicalcompass.org)

I don't even like the two-dimensional plot much, but it's the most accurate, easy-to-digest model of a person's political views I've seen yet: personal freedom vs. restriction, economic freedom vs. restriction.  I personally think that foreign policy ought to be the third axis, but that's a discussion for another day.

Belated Weekly Recap: Strange Matter, evolution book ban, and honor killings in the UK?

I've been a bit busier than expected for the past week.  To tell the truth, I've mostly been out enjoying the fresh air with my wife and our dog, and just haven't had much time or energy left over to spend at the computer.  Blogging has consequently been on the back burner until now.

Posts going up within the week sometime in the near future (I swear upon Russell's Teapot):

You can't prove it's not there!

• a retrospective post about ten years of September Elevenths and the War on Terror
• a statement of my political principles as a left-libertarian centrist (partly a response to The Heathen Republican)
• a fun post in which I make up completely absurd claims and conspiracy theories
• possibly a Skeptic Freethought post as well, if I think I've come up with something worthy

At least I'm only 24 hours late on my Weekly Recap.  Let's do this.

Weekly Recap: Tea Party vs. libertarians, atheist wedding vows, Little Kropotkin, and education fail!

I'm a bit late getting my posts completed this weekend; I've been doing a lot of running around and have not had as much computer time as usual. My obligatory 9/11 decennial post will be up tomorrow or Tuesday.

Tea Partiers are not libertarians

Skeptic libertarian author Michael Shermer tweeted a link to this video highlighting the very different views of the psuedo-libertarian Tea Party "Patriots" and actual members of the Libertarian Party.

It may get a bit strawman in some parts, but on the whole I'd say it's spot on. I'm certainly not happy about social conservatives commandeering the libertarian label (though I do not consider myself a true libertarian, I agree more with their views than I do with either major party) for their anti-liberty agenda, and I'm all for calling them out on it.

Godless Quote of the Week

Photo credit

"Each time I look to the stars while holding your hand, one fact runs through my mind. From the iron that courses through our veins, to the oxygen that fills our lungs, every piece of me, and every piece of you comes from those stars above us. How amazing it is to know that countless years ago the very atoms that make us both the individuals we are today were perhaps intertwined, interconnected, but most importantly... together."

This is an excerpt from an atheist redditor's wedding vows. I thought it was beautifully written, and I wish I'd been clever enough to pen something like this for my wedding. We had a Christian ceremony, but asked the minister to keep the preaching to a minimum and picked out cookie-cutter vows that didn't contain religious references.

Of course, the minister decided to troll me and insert the phrase "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" at the end of them; people who knew I was an agnostic at the time had a good laugh about that one.

(via Blonde Nonbeliever)

Sunday Subscription Site Suggestion

This week, I'd like my readers to take a look at The Humble Empiricist, a blog written by a Michigan atheist who goes by the name Kropotkin. It's mostly opinion articles, and she states her case in a straightforward, common sense manner. You can also see the video counterpart to her blog on her YouTube channel.

Weekly Absurdity: Buying iPads instead of hiring better teachers

The New York Times recently reported about the fact that the push for cutting-edge technology in classrooms hasn't improved students' learning in any measurable way. To make matters worse, school districts have been laying off teachers while simultaneously shelling out for this expensive technology.

It's not about how much you spend per pupil or what shiny new gadgets you have for your students to learn on. It's about the capable and driven person you have in front of the classroom leading them to skills and knowledge.

(via Secular Right)

Weekly Recap: An atheist asks for advice, The Brick Testament, and more billboard controversy!

I saw this in the local paper while at my parents' house.  It may be a cheesy advice column, but it's a good sign to see the atheist viewpoint getting more mainstream exposure.  I have to wonder if the article offended anyone like certain billboards did, however...

Bible stories, told with Legos!

I recently stumbled across The Brick Testament, a series of biblical illustrations creatively built from the versatile plastic blocks we remember from our childhood (or later in life, for that matter).

Nothing is held back.  No detail is too racy, too gory, too contradictory with other details to be acted out with little yellow people.  Go check it out.

Godless Quote of the Week

One attack I’ve heard theists make against atheists is, “So, you atheists think you know everything? You think you’re smart enough to know everything? You think science can figure out everything? There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt…” That quote is from my good friend Mr. Straw Man, but it’s an idea we hear all the time: atheists are arrogant and don’t think they need god, because they’ve got it all figured out. I think people who make that accusation are confusing style with content. I’m a loud, aggressive, strident, outspoken atheist, and I’m an asshole — but what I’m claiming is not in any way arrogant. It couldn’t be more humble. It’s just “I don’t know.”

- magician, skeptic, and crude humorist Penn Jillette, in the intro to his new book God, No!: Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales.

Sunday Subscription Suggestion

This week I'd like to spotlight Science Sushi, a blog that serves real, raw science without the usual jargon or speculative sensationalism.  The author, Christie Wilcox, is a proud nerd with an affinity for marine life and a penchant for mythbusting.

She infamously ignited a flamewar with proponents of the "organic" agriculture movement by writing a post debunking myths about the "organic" label, and held her ground like a boss.

Weekly Absurdity: Why is this still controversial?

Atheist and secular humanist organizations around the country have been putting up all manner of billboards over the past several months.  Unlike the intentionally incendiary ads sponsored by American Atheists earlier this year, these billboards have all contained a positive message: you don't need to believe in a higher power in order to lead a good life.

One such billboard sponsored by the Center for Inquiry went up in Grand Rapids, Michigan earlier this week:

How offensive!

This message has proven too controversial for many Christians' sensibilities (take a look at some of the comments on the news articles!).  The same billboard was apparently banned in Tennessee for its "offensive" message.  It's interesting how even extremist Christian messages don't cause the same level of controversy.

This, however, is perfectly acceptable.

I know that I've written on this subject before, but it still confounds me.  As always, insecure believers seem to see happy, friendly nonbelievers as the greatest threat to their religion's existence.

(via Friendly Atheist and Skeptic Freethought)