Mid-June Rehash: Dolphin/cephalopod copulation, divine search warrants, and criminalizing atheism!

I'm hopefully getting back in the swing of this blogging thing again.  This time I'm shooting for making mid-month rehashes of stories from around the internet a regular feature.  Let's do this.

Is that an octopus on your genitals, or are you just ha... wait, what?

So, in case any of you haven't seen it yet, this image started going viral yesterday:

Photo credit: Joan Gonzalvo

Best comment I've seen so far: "That's gotta suck."

(via Ed Yong)

Mid-month absurdity: Divine revelation is now probable cause?

Last year, a self-proclaimed psychic told the Sheriff's Office of Liberty County, Texas, that a local couple had 25 to 30 dismembered children buried on their property.  This prompted a raid on their home by deputies and put the couple in the media spotlight internationally (largely because the Sheriff's Office tipped off the media before executing the search warrant).

As it turns out, the couple weren't really serial killers and didn't even have one dismembered child buried in their yard, let alone 25 to 30 of them.  Now they're (rightfully) suing the Liberty County Sheriff's Office for defaming them and ransacking their home on the word of a charlatan.

The charlatan in question had this to say for herself:

“They up front asked me how I got the information, and I am a reverend. I am a prophet and I get my information from Jesus and the angels, and I told them that I had 32 angels with me and they were giving me the information and then it went from there,” she said.

Jesus and 32 angels told her about it? Must be legit.

(via Ken at Popehat)

Atheism gets you 2 1/2 years in prison in Indonesia

I hope by now that all of you who love freedom have heard of what's happening to Alexander Aan of Indonesia.  If not, go read up on it.

He's going to prison and will spend the next 2 and a half years locked up with dangerous criminals for asserting God's non-existence on an atheist group page on Facebook.  He also has to pay a fine of roughly $10,600 US.

Islamic extremists, however, seem to think that the sentence is too lenient; some of them feel that he's committed a capital crime.

“These atheists should be beheaded, that’s what they deserve,” wrote a man who identified himself as Putra Tama, a Muslim from neighboring Jambi province.

The Islamic Society Forum (FUI), an umbrella group for several hard-line groups, said that a five-year jail term for Aan would not suffice.

“He deserves the death penalty, even if he decides to repent. What he has done cannot be tolerated,” said Muhammad al-Khaththath, FUI’s secretary-general.

“It is important to prevent this group from spreading atheism in this country,” he added.

That doesn't bode well for him; how many Islamic extremists are going to be sharing a cell block with him?  It's morbid, but I wouldn't be surprised some righteous zealot sticks him with a shiv in the name of God.


At any rate, it isn't even legal to be an atheist in Indonesia.  You can choose from a laundry list of state-approved religions, but "none of the above" isn't an option.

Note to self: don't go to Indonesia.

If you're interested, the Atheist Alliance International is collecting donations for a legal fund to help Aan fight this ridiculous conviction.  If you want to contribute to that specific fund, make sure you tick the appropriate box before donating.

(via Friendly Atheist)

Atheism gets you jail time in the UK, too?

Indonesia doesn't exactly have the world's most permissive religious freedom laws, but surely nothing like that would happen in a bastion of liberty like a Western nation, right?

Yeah.  Wrong.

John Richards, an elderly man living in Boston (a small town on the eastern coast of England), has a sign hanging in his window proclaiming religion as fairy tales for adults.

Recently, the local police informed him that he could be arrested for it if it offends anybody and he refuses to take it down.

Unlike in Indonesia, I highly doubt an arrest in this case would result in any kind of conviction.  I hope.

(also via Friendly Atheist)

Recommended Reading: The Merely Real

I may have linked to her old blog as recommended reading last year, but Chana Messinger has a new blog that she updates frequently, writing about all sorts of interesting topics like feminism, skepticism, and occasionally food.  Go check it out.

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.

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.

Why some people don't accept evolution: a layperson's perspective

(Cross-posted to Skeptic Freethought)

I’ll come right out and say that I am not especially well-educated in science. I studied the liberal arts in college and never took a course beyond Intro to Biology. I do think that I gained a fundamental literacy of the science through my minimal classroom study (and copious independent reading as a child), to the point that I can understand what science journalists and bloggers are talking about even without being able to make sense of the raw data myself.

Image credit: Ethan Hein

I do understand, at the most basic level, how evolution works and why it works, even if I can’t wrap my head around the intricate processes that drive it. I’d be out of my league attempting to teach it to someone or to debate a creationist on it (a position in which we atheists too often find ourselves, as if we’re all PhD biologists in the minds of creationists).

Even as a layperson (especially as a layperson?) I feel that scientific literacy is a vital part of being an informed citizen. I’m troubled by the widening knowledge gap I see between scientists and everybody else, and particularly by the anti-intellectual sentiment that is rising alongside populism.

Denial in favor of design

To many atheists (and even theists who are skeptics about most everything but gods), it may seem shocking and frustrating that so many people in the United States dismiss evolution as wild conjecture.

When we see the notion of “intelligent design” being taught alongside actual science in biology class as if the two had equal weight, our first reaction may leave a palm-shaped depression in our foreheads (or a forehead-shaped indentation in our desks).

Sure, there are a number of people so hopelessly dedicated to ancient origin stories that they don’t want evolution to be true. It would turn their entire world upside down were they to accept that they are part of a 3 billion year old solar-powered chemical reaction rather than a unique, purposeful creation apart from nature. It would mean to them that they are no better than their animal kin and take away all incentive for civilized behavior in their minds.

The threat of such a crisis of conscience has been used as an argument against evolution since Darwin first proposed it. It was used by the prosecution in the infamous John Scopes trial, and even today is rehashed and regurgitated by creationist groups like Answers in Genesis.

I'm not so sure that there's a way around this roadblock. How does one persuade a person to step over a ledge if said person is utterly convinced that they'll tread onto a slippery slope?

Framing it like a religion instead of science

There are others still who are taken in by deceitful rhetoric like "evolution is just a theory", people who don't believe the science because they don't understand it.

I suspect that a major reason why people don’t “get” evolution is that they try to understand the theory as something that it’s not: an infallible history that’s conveniently spelled out for them. Unfortunately, science doesn’t offer the romance or clarity of religious mythology, no matter how badly our human minds want it to (not to say it can’t be exciting in its own right if you embrace your inner nerd, but most don’t).

The narrative of Darwin on his epic odyssey through the harsh environment of the Galapagos, suddenly experiencing a “eureka!” moment as the idea of natural selection dawns on him, is false. It is nevertheless taught that way to schoolchildren to make the subject more fun (the same goes for the myth of Newton and the falling apple revealing to him the concept of gravity).

On the Origin of Species was a breakthrough 150 years ago, but it isn’t a sacred text. A century and a half of new discoveries have rendered it obsolete, and the biologists of the 2160s will likely say the same about our most cutting-edge scientific literature today.

Unfortunately, people don't seem to want an amendable explanation that says "We can't know for sure, but this is what most probably happened based on what we've found so far." It doesn't satisfy that desire for certainty that nags at all of us. It leaves room for doubt, and makes many people uncomfortable. No, people want an ironclad explanation that says "We know that this is what happened, for these irrefutable reasons."

Science can’t offer that. It’s driven by uncertainty – that’s what leads to new discoveries and new questions to be answered. Until the American public learns to accept that, how can we expect them to accept evolution?

Joining Skeptic Freethought!

As of today I'm officially a contributor at Skeptic Freethought, a group blog focused on the atheist, agnostic, freethinking, humanist, secular, and skeptic (AAFHSS) community and on student groups in particular.

I've got my own author page and everything!  Yes, I know I need a better photo, but the shot of me enjoying a pint of Magners in a London pub will have to do for now.

I'll be making my first-ever post there by the coming weekend.  For now, anyone interested should feel free to take a look at what the other contributors have written.

Is my mom over the fact that I'm an atheist?

My (Republican) mom, wonderful person that she is, recently sent me a spontaneous gift of three books she bought on Amazon. They're all by the same author, and she was inspired to get them for me after said author was a guest on (cue ominous music) Fox News.

Scared yet?  Don't be.

Knowledge vs. Belief: Open Letter to Agnostics

The postcard to the right was among the Sunday Secrets on Postsecret this week.  It may be a secret for the person who sent it in, but it's a sentiment many self-labeled agnostics openly express toward atheism.


I personally think that splitting hairs over such labels is pointless; the bottom line is that people who call themselves atheists and people who call themselves agnostics are all not theists, period.  They don't believe in the personal gods or metaphysical forces of the various religions.  The agnostics intent on distinguishing themselves from atheists focus their argument on the ideas that 1) Postulating that no gods exist is a belief, and 2) It is impossible to know that there is no higher power, especially if you make its definition sufficiently vague.