Thankyou for sharing your feelings, Monica. I'm sorry you were so upset. Among the most imporatnt things about the actions and media you describe is the very fact that you and other regular everyday religious people take them so personally. Sadly, although you would not make fun of atheism there are many Christians who would gladly denounce it, ridicule it and tear it to pieces. Some of us feel the need to respond in kind. It's unfortunate.

For the benefit of others, this is David Mills' video. It was his way of taking up the Blasphemy Challenge.

In brief, the Challenge is an invitation to publicly deny the Holy Spirit, precisely because the Bible says that doing so prevents one from ever being forgiven (Mark 3:29). It's a commitment to disbelief in response to those who say that everyone's a believer underneath, or that we should worship God just in case he exists. It's also an ongoing opportunity for atheists to declare themselves and show their numbers in the face of the majority religion of the Western world.

David Mills went past declarations and desecrated a Bible to show that it holds no special value to him. All the things he said and did were calculated to put him beyond "saving". That's how confident he is that the Christian God does not exist. It's not intended as an insult to Christians, but to Christianity itself. To individual Christians it is simply an emphatic statement of disagreement.

This brings us back to you, Monica.
- Were you upset because Mills somehow did God or Jesus an injury by soiling their supposed words? What possible harm could a mortal do to those two?
- Were you upset because Mills damned himself? If so, that's considerate of you, but Mills is quite confident that he cannot be damned in this way. He's an adult and he can make his own decisions.
- Were you upset because you have learned to revere physical Bibles as they contain the word of God? Whatever is written in a book, Monica, it's still just a book. The words transcend the paper. That's why burning books never accomplishes anything.
- Were you upset because Mills attacked your beliefs directly? Then keep in mind that he did not attack you. His ultimate message to Christians themselves was simply, "I think you are wrong." Not stupid, not bad, not dangerous, just wrong. Anyone can be wrong; this is not an insult at all. (I will admit, as he would, that he was very rude about saying it.)

It's the same idea with the ">Imagine No Religion poster. Religion is the target, not religious people. Nobody expects the general populace to suddenly turn extremist en masse and join Al Qaeda or the Westboro Baptist Church.

The poster makes two points:
- Some atrocities are committed explicitly in the name of religion. Whether by Muslim terrorists now or Japanese generals in WWII (under the banner of their god-emperor Hirohito) or Catholic and Protestant soldiers in the Thirty Years War or by island tribes millenia ago, religion has many deaths to answer for. While of course atrocities are also committed for other causes unrelated to religion, lack of religion by itself is not motivation to do any such thing.
- Those who fly planes into buildings and ruin soldiers' funerals are working from exactly the same basic texts as other religious people. Only the interpretations are different. While not everyone chooses the interpretations which lead to violence and bigotry, they are always available. Those who defend their religions as valid, justified and in need of protection sadly make it easier for the extremists within those religions to do the same with their own versions.

You have every right to be offended by whatever strikes you that way, but there's no reason to be personally insulted. It's not our intention to upset you, either; that achieves nothing. We're just trying to make points forcefully and encourage people to think.

Christians remain tireless in selling the Bible to the masses, hence the continued hotel-room deposits by the Gideons. They just realise that some people might not accept the whole thing at once.

Believing in a god counts as religion all right, but what they're really talking about is organised religion.

Many people with Christian backgrounds maintain a core belief in God and sometimes Jesus while rejecting the majority of church dogma and no longer attending services. The pastor you mention is targeting these people with his statement, doing his best to reach them where they are and encourage them to be more devout. His hope is that they will eventually find their way back to church, preferably his church.

On the flip side, there are also those who no longer believe at all and yet go to church regularly, out of loyalty or tradition or sense of community or what have you. Perhaps they just enjoy the ceremony and the music. Some call themselves "cultural Christians".

- SmartLX

Sapient and Explorologist Settle Lawsuit Explorologist Ltd. and an online critic have settled their legal battle over a YouTube video challenging Uri Geller's claims about his mental powers.

EFF and Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, LLP, represent Brian Sapient, who uploaded an excerpt from a documentary that critiqued Geller's performances and abilities to YouTube. Explorologist claimed the clip infringed its copyrights. More information about the case is available here.  Here is a previous post from Sapient on the court case.

The agreement should allow the healthy debate about the existence of 'supernatural powers' to continue without interference. As part of the legal settlement, Explorologist has agreed to license the disputed footage under a non-commercial Creative Commons license, preempting future legal battles over the fair use of the material. A monetary settlement was also reached.

Nothing yet adequately addresses the reality of a rational universe, Jack, not even gods.

You're a little too focused on the multiple-universe hypothesis. It's not intended to be authoratively substituted for Creation myths in the same way as the theory of evolution can be substituted for religious accounts of the origin of modern animals. There's really no evidence for it yet, whereas evolution is supported by vast amounts.

The point of infinite multiple universes in these discussions is that there is at least one conceivable alternative to the hypothesis that an intelligent being created this particular universe to exact specifications, and therefore the theistic or deistic view cannot be presented as the only possible way. It's the standard response to the classic argument from ignorance, or as Dawkins puts it, the "argument from personal incredulity".

In simple terms, theists will often try to prove the existence of gods by pointing to something amazing and rhetorically asking, "How else could that possibly have happened?" The obvious response, in general form: "Like this, for example." Multiple universes are one such "this".

One other alternative hypothesis which serves the above purpose is that the universe is eternal in both directions, going back before the Big Bang. This removes the need for it to be created, or to emerge, or whatever, at all. Again, no evidence yet, but not impossible and therefore lethal to any attempted proof by elimination of a god's necessity.

But let's go in another direction. We'll take your stated view a bit further and reject as implausible (though not impossible) any unintelligent, undirected origins for our universe conceived so far, including the multiple-universe idea.

Where does that leave us? With an intelligent or directed origin, facilitated by an entity which can be satisfactorily described as a god. But then where did the god come from? If no undirected origin will suffice for a collection of matter and energy capable of behaving rationally (in the absence of a clear definition of "rationally" in this context, I would have used "predictably"), what undirected origin would suffice for a fully-formed intelligent entity with the unimaginable power and knowledge required to start (and, for a theist, maintain) a rational universe? Such an entity would be even harder to make without directed labour!

One solution to this is to posit an even more powerful entity to make the god; let's call it an uber-god. If you do this, however, the uber-god itself has to have been brought about by an uber-uber-god, and so on. An infinite regress is set in motion, and we're soon drowning in ubers.

Another solution is to posit an undirected origin for the god, or a lack of origin in the case of an eternal god. But what such solution cannot then be applied directly to the universe, eliminating the necessity of the god and making for a simpler hypothesis all round?

The origin of the universe is a profound mystery indeed. It remains so because the god hypothesis is an inadequate explanation; it requires an even grander explanation for itself, or it forces you to find a viable alternative which can then replace it.

- SmartLX

(This is an excellent follow-up question to two of the Great Big Arguments. Read them here and here for some background.)

I recently read a few blog posts regarding Atheist Nexus, a social site on the Ning platform for atheists. Apparently, not everybody agrees with some of the decisions made by the operators of this group.  Sound familiar?  It's nice to know that  some people have their noses up everybody's asses and not just ours...but I digress. We set up a group there months ago which hasn't been utilized since the main site serves a similar function, but if you are into that format, please feel free to register at rationalresponders.ning.com. If there proves to be enough interest, we would be willing to spend the money necessary to improve the format over there. If you have already registered at Atheist Nexus, you can use the same login info.

,

Kelly

Hehe...this article from Slate.com encapsulated the insanity that has forever gripped the anti-abortion movement. The double-speak required to pass this recent bit of legislation is beyond Orwellian. According to this recent mandate, abortion "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Huh? Can you run that by me one more time? An implanted embryo is whole, separate, and unique? Then why does a mere separation of the placenta from the uterine wall inevitably result in death? Whether it happens via mechanical methods or spontaneously, it seems to be a near certainty that until the point of viability, which is somewhere between 20 and 28 weeks, detaching this supposedly whole and separate human being will result in its demise.

I agree with the author of this article: Abortions should be renamed "separations," and those who choose separation should no longer be held accountable for the consequences. After all, it is a "whole, separate, unique, and living human being."

Quote:

read more

This month's issue of Psychology Today has an interesting piece that reminded me of everybody's dear friend, Vox Day. He asserts in his blog and his book on many occasions that atheists are more likely to suffer from what he terms "social autism"--disorders such as Asperger's Syndrome or mild forms of autism. He bases this on informal internet surveys that questioned people on their personality traits. But is the correlation really there, or is this just another attempt to disparage atheists?

"It's All Geek to Me" by Benjamin Nugent discusses the difference between the systematizing brains of so-called "nerds" and the empathic brains of the more socially inclined. Although nerds, the "intellectually gifted but socially awkward" (p.39), do share some traits of those with ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorders) but not to a severe enough degree to be classified as a pathology. In fact, the behavior can be brought on solely by parenting style according to Dr. Mel Levine, and the socially inept can be taught the skills necessary for more intuitive social interactions. This is where nerdiness differs from ASD. ASD is persistent despite attempts at socialization.

read more

In a recent study, researchers have found that people with higher concentrations of serotonin receptors were more likely to be religious or the nebulous "spiritual." This is interesting because it would explain the connection between transcendent experiences and the use of psychotropic drugs and also the inverse correlation between religiosity and depression. Check it out for yourself:

Quote:

Of Serotonin and Spirituality
Scientists see a biological underpinning for religiosity, and it is related to the neurotransmitter serotonin.
 

Serotonin, the brain chemical crucial to mood and motivation, also shapes personality to make you susceptible to spiritual experiences. A team of Swedish researchers has found that the presence of a receptor that regulates general serotonin activity in the brain correlates with people's capacity for transcendence, the ability to apprehend phenomena that cannot be explained objectively. Scientists have long suspected that serotonin influences spirituality because drugs known to alter serotonin such as LSD also induce mystical experiences. But now they have proof from brain scans linking the capacity for spirituality with a major biological element.

read more

Well, kind of. In animated form.

The SheVibe poster is finished. I guess now I'm an atheist super-hero or something. Like Wonder Woman. Except less clothing. Hmmmm....*having thoughts about what kind of weapon I would have. Like a Reason Ray or something that would suddenly make people logical*

Anyway, I anticipate the usual reaction from the prudes and sexually repressed people. May I say in advance that not only do I not care what you think, I find both the "You're hurting women everywhere" and the "Truly rational people would never submit to a base desire such as...sex" complaints equally ludicrous, and I'll only laugh at you, so save your time and the bandwidth needed to tell me what a horrible person I am. After all, I am the Official Spokesperson of Atheists Everywhere At All TimesTM and something like this will only harm "The Cause." As you can see, I'm already aware of this. Don't make me shoot you with my Logic Laser.

For the rest of you (ie the human beings who accept that sex is a biological function and physical attraction is coupled with that), enjoy. I've got to get back to plotting my nefarious plan to destroy the public image of atheists and women.

read more

Deny: "to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true". Dude didn't have a leg to stand on.

I don't know about the worst attempted proof I've ever heard (probably something about impossibly pretty sunsets), but here's my favourite bad one, courtesy of a well-known YouTube evangelist.

Here's a paraphrasing: If I say something will happen after an infinite amount of time, will it ever happen? No. Could there have been an infinite amount of time before the present? No, because if there were then we would never have reached the present. Therefore there has only been a finite amount of time, and God started it off.

The central problem is that infinity can end at a given instant. An infinite amount of time can have passed before the present if time extends backwards to negative infinity, rather than starting at a definite point. The same way positive infinity can start at a given number, e.g. (4,5,6,...), negative infinity can end at a given number, e.g. (...-1,0,1,2,3,4). Imagine two arrows starting in the same spot and pointing in opposite directions.

There are other issues of course. Even if the universe were finite, there are plenty of theories for its origin which do not involve gods (and often point to very eccentric properties of early time). Even if it proved a god, it provides no link to the Christian god advocated in the video.

However it's the way the argument makes a pig's breakfast of high school mathematics which really stands out to me as an occasional maths tutor. You have to wonder whether the guy genuinely doesn't get it, or he just hopes the video will reach others who don't, in which case the video is pure sophistry. Considering that he doesn't allow any critical comments, let alone official video responses, I tend to think the latter.

- SmartLX

Just had to post this so that everybody knows that I am not finished with chapter 4, nor did I saw I was. I found that there was enough material to cut it into 2 posts, and not wanting to make it too long, decided to dissect the foundation of chapter 4--the immorality of atheists, or lack of definable morality--before delving into the specifics.

Geez Vox, you shouldn't be so hasty to jump to conclusions.

Author: RationalSquad
Added: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:52:57 -0800
Duration: 2259

Rook Hawkins intertviews Dr. Stephen Uhl author of Imagine No Superstition. Dr. Uhl visited the RRS house briefly for a short video chat on his life, atheism, religion, god, and his book. Check out www.imaginenosuperstition.com

Author: RationalSquad
Added: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:52:56 -0800
Duration: 657

On the RRS site MattShizzle explained a story about stray kittens at his house which he has taken in. The RRS house had some stray kittens last year that we tended to while living outside, here is some video of the event. Here is the link to the story on the RRS site: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14376

Author: RationalSquad
Added: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:52:56 -0800
Duration: 350

Kellym78 (Kelly O'Connor) at the American Humanist IHEU congress conference. Kelly was asked to be on a roundtable discussion with more passive atheists to discuss tone and methods for gaining a more secular future. Other participants included Matt Cherry (IHS), Greg Epstein (Rabbi Humanist Preacher kum bah ya guy), Jeffrey Nall (author), and Hemant Mehta (Friendly Atheist) as the moderator. This tape didn't record all of the presentation, and is simply some snippets from the first half of Kelly on stage. We hope to bring you more later upon receipt of the full length discussion.

…with none of the defining characteristics of a religion. It is because Vox Day says so in Chapter 4, entitled “The Religion of Reason.” Aside from the humorous comparison between an atheist politician and a “toothless, illiterate, homosexual Afro-Hispanic crack whore with a peg-leg,” his opening salvo misses the point when he adds in the footnote that “it appears that telling people how evil and stupid they are may not be the best way of convincing them….” (p. 61) The reason that atheists are distrusted and, in some cases, despised is not because of intellectual elitism and snobbery—it’s because atheism has been caricatured and stigmatized as a pseudo-Satanic cult in most popular media. It is still not socially acceptable to be as open with one’s non-belief as those who believe are. Walking or driving around with merchandise that announces one’s lack of superstitious belief still draws glares or snide remarks mixed in with the head shaking and sympathetic looks. Meanwhile, almost nobody looks askance at people wearing jewelry depicting crosses and dead crucified men, and Jesus fish are practically ubiquitous. Nonetheless, atheists are unpopular—just not for that reason. 

read more

It's always possible that there is evidence for the events in the Bible which hasn't yet been found. That doesn't mean it's definitely out there, and the uncertainty does not imply a 50% chance either. Extraordinary claims demand lots of real evidence.

Bryant Wood is better known outside the apologist community for another claim he made in 1990. He dated the destruction of the ancient city of Jericho to a period which meant that part of the Biblical chronology is accurate.

He was up against another dating by revered archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon. In the 1950s she placed it 150 years earlier. Wood's claims were immediately regarded as highly suspect, and eventually debunked completely by further discoveries in 1995. The evidence still supports Kenyon's date, which in turn supports the idea that the Old Testament is out of whack.

Wood's latest claim rejects the widely accepted site of Ai, Et-Tell, which was evidently completely unoccupied at the supposed time of its conquest, and substitutes another site where apparently there was a population and a battle around the right time. It's currently difficult to find any mention of this claim at all outside of religious books and websites, and even they are waiting for more evidence before really shouting about it.

If and when a full archaeological case for Khirbet El-Maqatir as Ai is presented for approval by the larger scientific community, other archaeologists will do their best to rip it to pieces. That's not because it's Bible-related, it's because they do that to everything. That's how they find out what truly stands up to scrutiny.

If in fact Khirbet El-Maqatir were generally accepted as Ai, and there was a battle when the Bible says there was, it would be a very general boost in credibility for the historical aspects of the Old Testament. However it wouldn't say a thing about who did the fighting, where the people went afterwards or whether God and his chosen marauders had anything to do with it. The hypothesis that the stories of conquest are mythology loosely based on real local events would likely be advanced as much as the probability of the Biblical account's veracity.

It remains to be seen whether Wood's new claim will get that far.

- SmartLX

Firstly, congratulations on your newfound independence and on increasing your self-knowledge. It can sometimes take a reprieve from the constant background noise of belief to even imagine an alternative to it, even if it's already your position deep down.

You seem to have a good grasp of your situation. I don't know what religion your family adheres to (from the Revelation reference I presume it's some kind of Christianity) or how devout they all are, but the sudden revelation of an atheist in their midst (especially for the first time) will doubtless provoke strong reactions.

It will indeed occur to them that you think they've wasted a lot of effort over the years. It works both ways, too; they'll think you're wasting the effort you've put in all your life. All that work to save your soul, and you're just throwing it away. The important thing is to emphasise that it is nothing personal. Your problem is with the beliefs themselves, not your family. Rejecting the beliefs does not invalidate everything you and your family have done with their church - the socialising, the charity work, the philosophical discussions. Conversely, though, the work they have done does not by itself make the objects of their faith (God, a resurrected Jesus) real.

Your parents in particular may feel they have somehow failed you, and God, by bringing you up to be the kind of person who could reject God. It's not their fault, because all they did was bring you up to think about what you are told and examine things on their merits. This prevents you from living in blind faith, and if you continue to believe you are the best kind of believer: one equipped to defend the faith. There was always the possibility that you would come to the opposite conclusion, and that's the risk. They might find this idea reassuring.

There's one thing I really need to warn you about. Your family may be intelligent, but I get the impression that they aren't terribly familiar with non-belief. They will feel a tremendous urge to try their hand at apologetics to bring you back around.

You expect this, but here's the thing: most of them will not be very good at it. You'll get the most facile, intrinsically flawed arguments in existence thrown at you as if they're irrefutable. They do seem that way to them, because they've accepted them without really trying to test them. Your very delicate task will be to respond to each one as simply and patiently as you can without getting frustrated.

I invite anyone reading this to share their own experiences of coming out to their friends and families as an atheist. It can be every bit as bad as coming out as a homosexual, so some mutual support is always welcome.

- SmartLX

Well, I'm thinking that it's about time to return to the grind here. Sorry, I was suffering from massive drama overload both in my real life and online. Anyway, Vox Day has been on my mind so expect the next installment within a few days. I assume his cronies have already declared victory due to my extended absence, but rest assured that whether anybody likes it or not, I will complete this project if only because I have committed to it and abandoning it would be a concession of defeat in the eyes of his fanboys. That and the fact that there's an incredible amount of material waiting for a refutation. So, if anybody missed me--I'm back. If you didn't miss me, .

Also, I semi-announced this on the boards, but the magazine SheVibe, which is totally NSFW, is currently working on a full-size poster of me which I expect to be totally hawt, so when I have more info on it, I'll be letting you people know. For an idea of what it will be like, check out their Eye Candi or magazine covers sections of their site. (Although, going by what they're saying about it, it should be infinitely cooler. )

read more

Line breaks aren't working for you because the formatting in the answers isn't implemented for the question field (hint hint, powers that be).

As usual I'm going to be very general here because I am not a scientist, but I will try to include key points you can google later.

The number one method young-Earth creationists use to make a young earth plausible in light of geological and paleontological realities is to exploit the most catastrophic world-changing event in the Bible set chronologically between Creation and Armageddon: Noah's flood. This is the raison d'etre of so-called flood geology.

The flood, they claim, carved out the Grand Canyon, wiped out all of the animals we only see today as fossils, and laid down all the strata in quick succession as sediment.
To put it mildly, there are a multitude of potential problems with this.

One is the rigid position of all animals worldwide in the strata. In the chaos of a planet overwhelmed by rushing water, why are all specimens in a given extinct species (say, trilobites) found in the same layer instead of all over the place?

There's one clever explanation that simple animals were drowned first, followed by successively more advanced animals who could fly or were more agile. So the higher they are the longer they held on, and the more evolved they "appear". However you'd expect millions of exceptions to this, for example a small reptile holding onto a floating log. There are many claims of objects found out of sequence, like petrified trees penetrating many strata, but no proven anomalies yet.

Radiocarbon dating is the most straightforward method of disproving the young earth. Using basic laws of nuclear physics, it regularly establishes the age of objects as tens of thousands to millions of years old. Even one such object would prove the earth to be least that old, but this happens all the dang time.

Therefore, of course, there's a huge effort by creationists to discredit radiocarbon dating completely and utterly. There are large margins of error sometimes, but when you're only trying to make sure something is older than six millennia, an error of millions of years out of greater millions hardly matters.

What many don't know is that there are many different forms of dating, based in principle on the initial carbon method but using other particles. Some of these have indeed been found unreliable and are no longer in use (and are publicised by some creationists to represent the whole field as a failure) but this does not reflect upon the methods still used.

Similar to this geological argument between young-earth creationists and everybody else is the astronomical argument. There are objects greater than 6000 light years away, such that if the universe were that young, light from them wouldn't have reached us yet.

One creationist has developed a bigger cousin to flood geology, namely white hole cosmology. WHC assigns different time speeds to different areas, so that six thousand years here is billions of years at the edge of the universe. Besides WHC, there are other ideas involving light moving faster than the speed of light itself. Needless to say, these ideas as applied in this way are without support in mainstream science.

The first thing I'd throw at them in your situation, Healy, is those distant objects in space. White hole cosmology isn't nearly as well-rehearsed as flood geology, and the responses tend to sound really cool in a sci-fi B-movie sort of way. It might be fun. Either that, or they might concede an old universe and concentrate on a young Earth, which is not a very stable position.

- SmartLX

Assuming your wife isn't very religious, I think I know why she's upset.

Since you're against theism, of course you wouldn't attend a church service if the only point was to worship, pray and donate. And you probably wouldn't go to christenings, first communions or confirmations either since the purpose of each is explicitly religious. But religion isn't why people attend other people's weddings and funerals.

They go to weddings to support and congratulate the newlyweds as they make a public commitment to each other. In front of their friends and families, never mind "in the sight of God". And they go to funerals to support the bereaved, or if they are the bereaved to get some emotional closure on their relationships with the deceased. In both cases, the gathering of friends and family is what makes it important. In either case, God and religion are the least important things.

By not coming to a friend's wedding, you're saying to them (regardless of what you intend) that your antitheism outweighs their friendship. They and your wife wouldn't be upset because you don't share the religion, they'd be upset because you're not there. Same with funerals. People you know would miss your support when they're grieving. Maybe you wouldn't be doing yourself a favour psychologically by missing a last chance to say goodbye to whoever's died.

I know it's painful, but at times like these you really need to think of others. Otherwise you come off looking incredibly self-centred. Sorry, buddy.

Just go in there, concentrate on the people you're there for and don't join in the prayers. Then go right back out and carry on doing whatever it is you do to combat theism. With a bit of progress, perhaps fewer of the weddings and funerals you attend will be held in churches or with priests.

- SmartLX