Here's another poster I made. This time, it's a graphic depiction of why it's important to keep state and church separate. I got the dollar graphic from the old Interwebz. :)

My Girlfriend's a Catholic

The topic of religion often comes up when couples are dating, often as an important criteria for pursuing a relationship further. How do two people with different ideas about religion agree on their different faiths, traditions, families and their opinons, marriage ceremonies, child-rearing and everything else that is affected by religion?

For instance, when a Jew is dating a Christian and the chemistry is otherwise good, how do they resolve that one believes Jesus to be their lord and savior, and the other doesn't even believe Jesus is the son of their common God? Sure, some people will ditch their earnestly-held faith and convert (which I find hilarious), but generally, I suspect if the differences are strong enough this becomes a dealbreaker for the relationship, or a source of unending argument, especially if the couple have kids. Do we send him to Hebrew school or Jesus Camp?

While I was raised a Catholic, I am an atheist who views religion like an anthropologist views the rituals of African Zulu or Maori ritual dance. I see all religion as erroneous inventions of fallible men trying to explain the unknown, and I understand that most people are religious. Personally, I'm no more offended by the Scientologist, the Jew, the Christian or the Muslim (ok I am more offended by Islam, generally). But you get the point, I think it's all nutty, and I don't really believe their stories, I just worry that THEY believe them...a little too much sometimes.

My girlfriend of 12 years, you may be surprised to learn, is a Catholic, having been raised exhaustively as a Catholic, attending Catholic girl's schools all the way till college (also Catholic).

How is it that one of the most atheist guys on the planet like me can be with a nice Catholic girl for that long without issue?

Well, the simple answer is, she's a terrible Catholic, but a great person (proving once again that ethics and religion are not one and the same).

Yes, she's a bloody-gawd-awful Catholic, and she'd be ex-communicated for any number of reasons, not the least of which is being with an atheist in an unmarried live-in relationship for 12+ years, and I am not her first atheist boyfriend. If that wasn't enough, we don't go to church on Sundays (and I work on Sunday as often as possible), we eat meat on good Friday, never give up anything for Lent (or his brother Larry) and did I mention she lives with an outspoken atheist with an ascerbic atheist blog?

She's also the biggest fag-hag ever...having grown-up in Hollywood and is well acclimated to gay people. Sure, I have gay friends too (one dear friend who I've known since 6th grade) and I understand the possible evolutionary reasons why straight people keep making gay people, but as a Catholic she technically claims belief in a Bible which condems gays to death in Leviticus. However, like most Christians, she simply ignores the Draconian parts of the Bible or the parts she doesn't know about. In large part, she is a product of her environment (progressive, liberal L.A.). She is personally modern and reasonable enough to understand why being gay is a normal part of the human experience, and it's yet another reason we get along great, since I am socially progressive myself.

If we were to have kids, I already mentioned that there would be no way in Hell I would raise them religious. That's a dealbreaker to me. The thing is, neither of us want kids. Things are hard enough at times, and I think neither of us really wants that kind of responsibility since we want to keep our freedom and financial flexibility, especially in this economy. There are simply enough kids in the world already. I've already had the vasectomy, and after 25+ years of birth control she can finally quit that. It worked out for both of us.

As for marriage, I'm very up front about not getting married, and I've written at length about it here in this blog. I've never married anyone and don't plan to. I find marriage to be a sloppy conflation of government and a private relationship, and I boycott marriage since not everyone enjoys this privilege....I want my gay friends to be able to get married too. I also hate the fact that straight couples under 62 cannot be domestic partners and are railroaded into marriage as an only option. Gay couples can be domestic partners but can't get married in CA. Marriage sucks, and I am not going to partake in this silly ritual....especially considering the ridiculous alimony laws. That said, there's no conflict about 'what kind of wedding to have' since we're not getting married. Also, we're living proof that we don't need to be married. Our 12+ year relationship has lasted longer than many married couples. If you're going to stay together, you don't need marriage, and if you're going to separate you shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. All logical roads lead to the fact that not getting married is the most flexible option. The only downside is that there is still discrimination against unmarried couples, which will change, eventually.

Speaking of marriage, I doubt you would have an atheist 'convert' to any religion just to be with a person, and chances are anyone with an atheist for enough time will lose their religion, as religion stands no chance against honest review. Religion only survives with the white noise of distraction, or simply running away from the argument and attempting to keep dissent silent.

We get along because while she labels herself as a Catholic (I call her an awful Catholic), we share the same ethical standards. Both of us are democrats, we're both socially progressive and are cool with the gays. We both enjoy sleeping in on Sundays and she doesn't get weirded out by my atheism...in fact, I think we agree on a lot of points, but she's not emotionally ready to totally give up her Catholicism, and I am ok with that too. Everyone deals with challenges to their religion in their own time. It took me a month to dump my religion when challenged, but our personalities are very different when it comes to confrontation.

Now, when quizzed on science, I can see where her Catholic education failed her. She had very little understanding of science and evolution, and thought the Sun went around the Earth! I've fixed all that, and she's a bright woman...she accepts evolution and I'm helping fix some of the holes in her religious-centric education. Some of that education comes during the holidays, when I explain the real Pagan origins of Christmas and Easter, and it's fun conversation on the way to family gatherings.

It was really funny when her family found out I was atheist. Her dad asked me to lead the prayer one Thanksgiving, and I said, 'you're asking the wrong guy' haha, but I refrained from explicitly stating my atheism at that moment, in front of everyone. There were no follow-up questions, and no more prayer requests. Once the alcohol was flowing, a crazy Englishman I didn't know raised a toast to atheism...I don't remember how it came up, but it was hilarious when three of us at the table outed ourselves and joined in on the toast. One of those toasters was the father-in-law of my girlfriend's sister! The look of shock was priceless (from me as well, to be sure), but we were all sufficiently imbued to make it a funny coming-out party.

After that point, when her parents were ok with with my non-belief, I think she understood that even if she lost her faith, things would be ok. People are people, and no matter what they label themselves, you can only really judge them based on what they say and what they do. Ethics, in the end, is what matters. Her parents never grilled me on my atheism, and never even brought it up. Sometimes I wonder if they truly absorbed what happened that Thanksgiving night, but I see no need to press the issue.

Ethical people don't need religion, and someone who is sufficiently irreligious is tantamount to an atheist, in practice. Like my girlfriend...she's such a bad Catholic that we agree on almost any ethical or social issue. It seems the more people ignore their religion, the more they're free to be truly ethical humans, considering moral dilemmas with compassion and logic, not the dictates of Bronze-Age shepherds.

I'm very glad my girlfiend is a terrible Catholic. Maybe someday she'll be a baby atheist, but I am not going to rush her. <3

-dB-

Humans Create Synthetic Life!

Science fiction, my dear readers, has once again become reality.

Dr. Craig Venter and his team of researchers at Synthetic Genomics have created the first self-replicating artificial life, after 15-years of exhaustive, iterative effort and some 40 million dollars invested.

This artificial life started on a computer as a million-character DNA sequence, with all the known processes needed for self-replication and a pretty blue signature color, among other parameters.

The new DNA molecule was later assembled using the 4-base proteins of DNA (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) from 50-80 character long snippets. These snippets were all put into a yeast carrier, where the base-pair proteins linked up and created the complete DNA sequence as designed.

Finally, the artificial DNA was inserted into a host bacteria (Mycoides), replacing the bacteria's original DNA with the artifical one. This new life basically 'booted up', which is to say, that bacteria became hardware driven by what was essentially totally custom software, complete with self-replication.

This new DNA sequence even had watermarks written on it for those who would want to independently verify this claim (since watermarks in DNA do not occur in nature). The watermarks were made possible via a code Venter and staff produced to write alphabetical characters into the DNA, spelling out whatever they wanted. Each team member had his or her name written into the code, and this would be expressed in every cell in the colony, ad infintum. In addition, there are three philosophical quotes and even a website URL for those who can 'break' the rest of the code.

Anyone who checks the DNA of this new artificial life can clearly see and prove its pedigree while they verify that indeed, humans really did create new life in the lab.

It was something humans had never done before.....they created life in the lab 'with ones and zeroes' as Dr. Venter put it. Now, there's one more new species to add to the world roster, and the first one with computer parents.

This is an incredible achievement, and no-doubt represents a huge paradigm change in what is possible from here on out. Drugs can be created now simply by designing and growing them, in self-replicating fashion, in house, and with amazing efficiency. Perhaps an artificial organism can be made which seeks out disease cells, from cancer to AIDS to the common cold. Flu vaccines can be made 99% faster than current technology allows, which by itself is incredible.

The sky's the limit. But, as is with any new technological advance, there will be fear. That's nothing new though, as throughout history, almost every human advance has been challenged, feared, perhaps outright shunned.

I'm sure we've all heard stories of the resistance to human autopsy, even anesthesia, or vaccination (there are many who still fear vaccination, and without good reason). Even birth-control in 2010 remains controversial for those stuck in the Bronze age or blindly following the ravings of Bronze-age shepherds (religion).

Any new technology can potentially be used for bad things, granted. Though it's no reason to forge ahead with technology governed by ethics. We must always work to prevent abuses whether it's using technology or sticks and stones.

As it is, humans are already inventive enough to find ways to kill each other...even if relegated to their bare hands. However, technology can save millions. We have to consider the tremendous benefit that technology has had and work to reform its abuses, and make it safer as we go. We've seen through history how the understanding of germ theory and vaccination has made it possible for literally millions of people to live with much less risk of preventable disease. However, we also see the ignorance of the anti-vax crowd reducing herd immunity, and actually helping to bring back diseases such as Measles, Mumps, Rubella or Polio which were nearly eradicated in most developed nations.

I fully expect people will fear Dr. Venter's artifical self-replicating bacteria just as humans have generally geared the unknown, and progress always is a step through the unknown. In the right hands, this will be an amazing tool for good and will benefit us all...it's going to be world-changing.

Some will accuse humans of 'playing god', but this was exactly the same sort of argument used to prevent child-bearing women from having the benefit of pain-relieving anesthesia, or have the choice of a medical procedure called abortion. It's the same religious dogma and fear-mongering which argued against human autopsy, or birth-control, even the equality of women, gays and minorities.

Even powered flight by the Wright Brothers in 1903 was seen as unnecessary by some, after all, if 'God' wanted us to fly, wouldn't we have wings? Thankfully, the anti-technology crowd was sufficiently ignored then just as we need to ignore it now in the purview of scientific understanding.

Until theists and those who invoke 'god' can bring any kind of rigor into their wild claims of space-fairies, they have no business making commentary about what their vaunted space-fairies say about real-world discoveries and the scientific method. Similarly, I don't care what someone thinks Vishnu, Zoroaster or the Galactic Overlord Xenu has to say about euthanasia or birth-control, and I don't care what some crazy loon believes Jesus has to say about artificial life.

On Discovery's 'Creating Synthetic Life: Your Questions Answered' special, they had a Catholic priest weighing in briefly on the repercussions of synthetic life, a man way out of his league surrounded by real scientists, or at least people who operate in the real world. The steely reception he got from the scientists around him was obvious to me, and the cold reception was appropriate. Nobody cares what a cabal of fairy-tale believers who routinely harbor known child-molestors has to say about science. Religion is simply irrelevant to anything in the natural world, given that their wild claims are completely unproved and unfounded. What a 'god' thinks of the affairs of science doesn't even begin to matter till someone can make a rational case that a god(s) even exists.

Those who seriously make claims about what a purported space-pixie has to say about science is a madman at the table of reason, and needs to be shown the door. Religion should have no place, no say and no control over science. What we find when religion gets involved, at any time in human history, is that religion invariably retards progress, and is always dragged into modernity after being pummeled into submission. Even when roundly defeated, religion tends to linger like a virulent mind-virus in the minds of otherwise reasonable people.

Superstitious mysticism has nothing to say regarding the affairs of real-world understanding. We need to noy only ignore the religious when it comes to matters of the natural world and scientific discovery, we need to ridicule them early and often when they pretend to speak for some super-diety which exists outside spacetime. We need to stop paying lip-service to the ravings of madmen out of a misguided sense of 'tolerance' or 'balance'. Otherwise, I fully expect to hear the Raelians, the Scientologists and everyone else weigh-in on this issue too (without all that giggling, I mean).

This doesn't mean that ethical concerns don't matter or shouldn't be discussed....just that our ethical concerns should be based in the real-world. This is why 'religion' and ethics are two different words, and one does not require or infer the existence of the other.

I applaud this latest success in our collective enterprise to further our understanding of the world around us. Dr. J. Craig Venter and everyone at Synthetic Genomics has made an amazing breakthrough, and this is truly *a historic moment in human history!

I can't wait to see what you and others do with this amazing new technology in the near future.

Sources:

Discovery Science Channel's 'Creating Synthetic Life'
Discovery Science Channel's 'Creating Synthetic Life: Your Questions Answered with Paula Zahn'
The Guardian (UK): Interview with Dr. J. Craig Venter


---


*'an' historic is wrong. The 'H' sound in 'historic' is not silent, and thus, you would use the indefinite article 'a' in front of 'historic', since the indefinite article 'a' or 'an' is based on the sound of the following word and whether that 'sound' is a vowel or consonant.

Therefore, 'a historic' is correct. Likewise, 'an honor' is correct. The 'h' in 'honor' is silent, and thus has an 'o' sound at the beginning which is a vowel sound. An honorable, an onion, an uncle.

More examples: A universe, an umbrella. An orangutan, a one-time event, an octopus.

-dB-

Harlan Ellison

I just discovered a new person today, and he's fucking awesome.

Watching Sundance channel today, I caught a biography partway through the broadcast called, 'Dreams With Sharp Teeth' about Harlan Ellison. I laughed at his ascerbic wit and colorful language, cheered his direct confrontation with opposing ideas, applauded his progressive, free-thinking worldview and heartily agreed with his full-frontal assault on the decline of American intellectualism (and apparent celebration thereof).

It wasn't till *after* all this that I discovered on the show that he's an unapologetic atheist who has fearlessly proclaimed his stance for years. This guy is a firecracker, and I love it. Here's an Ellison quote from the documentary,

Video excerpt from 'An Evening of Lively Argument'. M.I.T., Oct. 6th, 2001.

"See first of all I gotta tell ya I was raised a Jew, I am an atheist. I am not an agnostic, I am not one of the wusses that says 'well maybe'. You know. If there were a god, by now she'd have hit me with a bolt of lightning in the ass long since. So, I am an atheist. I'm a card-carrying, fully-bound, right out there atheist. Ok? Ok. And I know most of you are too but you don't want to cop to it because you're afraid everybody is going to say, 'Don't you believe in the Second Coming?'. I don't even believe in the first fucking-coming!'

Quoted from the 'Dreams With Sharp Teeth' interview:

"I find nothing more ridiculous and annoying than some guy who runs a 100 yards...runs a kickoff....back 105 yards from the endzone and drops to his knees and thanks God. Well that's foolish. God didn't do it he did it. Because if God did that for him you mean god was against the other team? God is that mean-spirited that he has nothing better to do on Sunday afternoon, then beat the crap out of a bunch of poor football players?"

Truth be told, he reminds me of myself in a way, and watching Harlan, I felt an unusual emotion: relief. There are people out there who aren't afraid to be the only dissenter in the room, and he's done it for years and in a refreshingly fearless manner. There is no time for fear or political correctness.

Harlan Ellison is a case study for the sharply-made point (the documentary is seemingly named to that effect), and the world needs people like him as much as the gentler types. I've commented on this at length in my recent blogs on 'tone'. People need to get over 'tone' and listen to content. I cannot count how many times someone rejected valid information simply because of tone, and continued to plod-on being wrong about some mundane topic, correction, pseudo-science, silly belief, etc.

What do I like about him? He says it like it is, or at the very least, how he sees it...unmitigated by nice language, religion, permission or the hurt feelings of dissenters, many of whom have no business making any informed contribution to the matter being discussed.

One anecdote I especially enjoyed from the biography was Harlan relating a story about an episode he wrote for Star Trek. He had described in the script some 'runes' which were part of the set, but apparently the set builder didn't know the word 'rune' and apparently could not spell 'ruin' properly. Instead of making stones with runic inscriptions on them, the setbuilder made 'ruins', or crumbling remnants of structures which weren't even in the script.

So, when people insist on accuracy in language, it's because language is the vehicle by which we communicate. That Star Trek set-designer, when confronted by a word he didn't understand, apparently didn't have the humility or intellectual curiosity to look up or verify the meaning of this word in the script. This mistake directly caused a waste of time, resources and effort, probably caused a lot of embarrassment, some choice words from Harlan no doubt and could possibly have cost a few people their jobs.

Words matter. Accuracy matters...even if it offends people to discover that they're wrong. Better to discover the mistake early and avoid a bigger mistake later.

I'm sad to say I'm only discovering Harlan Ellison now, but better late than never. That said, at least now I have a huge new list of books I can add to my Kindle for iPhone, and I have a lot of catching up to do. (Any recommendations as to which of his books to read first are welcomed).

I'll close with one more quote from Harlan's insightful interview:

"As long as you can blame everything on some unseen deity, you don't ever have to be responsible for your own behavior."

Hear, hear.

-dB-

The New Atheists: Does Tone Matter?

As an outspoken and somewhat aggressive atheist who finds it effective to sometimes use ridicule to make strong points against often dishonest opponents, I often get the complaint that my 'tone' is objectionable...even from those who are also atheists or skeptics.

Often, we find ourselves in the skeptical community divided about 'tone', where some complain that the 'New Atheists' are too harsh, too polemic, and too sharp with our points to reach the masses. I've heard about this 'tone' argument pointed at Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Vic Stenger, the Rational Response Squad, Massimo Pigliucci, Aron Ra of YouTube fame and many other outspoken non-believers.

But, how harsh is too harsh, and why the focus on TONE over the actual points being made?

My response to that is this: Tone matters, but various tones are needed. Those who complain about tone might think they're just trying to make us 'nicer' in response to some imaginary, honest and sensitive listener with an ear for nuance, while ignoring the fact that many theists aren't actually thinking, but bleating and repeating verse or beliefs, never having reviewed them and not honestly listening to critiques of their ridiculous claims.

In effect, focusing so much on 'tone' makes many atheist arguments less effective, and creates an unnecessary divide between the 'New Atheists' and those who are more passively atheist or who eschew the term 'atheist' altogether but share the non-theist position. The last thing atheists need is senseless subdivision. We need unity in this movement against irrationalism and religiosity now more than ever.

As we know, not everyone learns at the same rate or in the same manner. In matters of mass delusion such as religion, this de-conversion problem isn't merely about a lapse in logic. If this were the case, the person holding delusional beliefs such as 'god' would simply have the illogic of it explained which would instantly result in dismissal of erroneous belief(s), and we'd all talk about something else.

Such is not the case.

First, the mass-delusion of religion is not merely a logical sticking point but a deep-seated emotional issue. This emotional defense comes out of an almost blind defense of tradition, family and familiar ritual, and lives in a compartmentalized part of the religious mind often impervious to logical review. This is why the term 'freethinker' is so important, as a freethinker is someone whose views on religion transcend ritual, authority and tradition, but scrutinize religion openly and 'freely'. Someone who protects his religion in a bubble exempt from logic is by definition not a freethinker.

Alas, religion is not the product of logic, but primary socialization of trusting children, brainwashing and inculcation, societal reinforcement of demonstrably false ideas and a protection of investment and an unwillingless to face the truth despite a discomfiting cognitive dissonance.

Explain to a rational adult that you hold a dear belief that you are, in fact, an elf and you will be met with peals of laughter, derision, outright mockery and endless ridicule. No matter how deeply-held your belief, it'll simply be rejected on all fronts, and with various tones....but all leading to the same end result: denial and rejection. Your claim could be subject to review by scientists who could sequence your DNA, observation that you do not resemble an elf in any fashion, and counter-evidence that you in fact are Homo Sapiens with a specific lineage which can be traced to specific geographic locales.

Does tone matter to the recipient of said ridicule? Sure, and it probably scales with the lack of evidence. The person on the recieving end of this ridicule, and who honestly believes himself to be an elf, would much rather people simply believed him so he could get on with the business of actually being an elf, unopposed and unchallenged, as he believes himself (or she believes herself) to be. The elf-boy knows he cannot prove his claim, so his *only* recourse is to simply attempt to silence his critics and hang out with those who either avoid the subject or accept it without evidence.

The point here is that with enough ridicule, the silly ideas can't survive unless they're proven sufficiently to attract support. Those who practice science and deal with real data don't care about tone....they either verify or falsify their claims. You can bet their harshest critics are often other scientists. It's not about tone, it's about content. Those who complain about tone are simply trying to make criticism more bearable in a vacuum of evidence.

Tell enough people that you are Jesus and the holy and all-powerful son of God and you'll generally be laughed at or deemed crazy (often with very harsh tone), and this is in a culture where most Americans (and much of the world) believe in God.

Why are most Christians so quick to harshly reject the claim from some who might say, 'I am Jesus' or better yet, 'I am God' so harshly, and yet protect other nutty ideas about religion that their fellow believers claim? It's funny how some ridiculous claims are sacrosanct, and yet theists will openly and harshly reject other claims, even in the purview of their belief-system.

Go ahead, name your kid 'God', and see how people react and what kind of tone they use. Name him 'Jesus' and it's ok (as long as it's pronounced 'hay zoos' and the child appears Hispanic). Insist on people calling your kid 'Jee-zus' and you'll be in for a tough road ahead. Why the inconsistency? It's just people with silly beliefs arbitrarily protecting them based on culture and blind-tradition, and yet properly skeptical of claims which lie outside the immediate protection of their established religion.

Why the tonal difference between the treatment of the god-claim and elf-claim?

The God myth is popular in our English-speaking, largely-Christian culture, and people claiming to be Elves isn't. There are enough adults who believe in a God with a son named Jesus that this nutball idea has wide support with more 'converts' being made every day as innocent, trusting children are lied to about how the world works, from well-meaning but delusional parents.

Popular religious memes get un-due protection from scrutiny, are blindly defended by many, there's a built-in rule against doubt or scrutiny and there's public pressure to slander or silence the 'opposition' (whether that's perceived as atheists, sciences such as evolution, secularism in general, etc.). The American government even gets involved, violating the Constitution to promoting certain religions (Christianity) and religion over irreligion, such as the National Day of Prayer tradition. Incidentally, this unconstitutional government-endorsed religious favoritism was roundly defeated in a recent case; The Freedom From Religion Foundaton (FFRF.org) vs. President Obama. The ruling was made by Judge Barbara Crabb in yet another victory for secularism, and ultimately, for all Americans. If there's no freedom from religion then people can hardly expect to have freedom *of* religion, as the forefathers intended and the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees.

As Sam Harris said, (paraphrased), the 'moderates' out there provide comfort and cover for the fundamentalists. There is nobody providing cover for the 'I am an Elf' claim, nor is there cover for any god someone will invent next week. Popularity in effect lends support to a silly idea, but as we know historically, popularity is not a measure of validity. The ideas that the Earth was flat and the center of the Universe were no less wrong when they were popular than they are today.

Why then, with all the evil that comes from religion, are some skeptics so afraid of 'offending' theists with tone? This is exactly what unfounded claims need: skeptical inquiry, harsh and unrelenting review, unmitigated investigation and yes, sometimes ridicule is useful and effective. Some people simply won't respond to a review which is too obtuse, or too indirect, or too 'nice'. We can directly see how crazy some people get when their beliefs remain unchallenged too long, after all, how do people get to believe they are Jesus in the first place? They've clearly held a belief that a God exists, and somehow warped the religion they were taught into something else....a mutant form if you will.

Most children in America and in some other countries are also taught that Santa Claus is 'true', and invariably, they find out that Santa Claus is just a lie at a fairly young age. No matter how gently you put it, kids will generally react badly to this harsh reality...not because they don't understand the illogic of a guy in a red suit traveling around the world in one night or squeezing down chimneys (even where there's no chimney to be found), but because they suddenly *do* understand. The phenomenon we're seeing is an emotional reaction to a sudden realization (often accompanied by tears), a spontaneous change in worldview, a loss of investment, etc.

Adults are no different when confronted with devastating arguments about their god-beliefs, other than the fact that most are less resilient than children finding out that there's no Santa Claus. Instead of bursting into tears (which can sometimes happen), they act out in other ways...often harnessing their political, manipulative or even physical power to silence or distract the messenger from saying something that offends them, and threatens their investment in the dangerous mind-virus we call religion.

Once someone reaches adulthood, it can be very difficult to deprogram that person and bring them back to reality. Adults become set in their ways, are not as used to being challenged, and often have learned bad habits with regard to critical-thinking or lack critical-thinking skills. Adults who believe in fairy tales, while they may be able to operate a computer or solve math problems, often have a sense of investment in their bad ideas, and instead of thinking logically, often resort to a blind defense of home and hearth rather than thinking they were wrong all those years. Facing false beliefs late in life takes a unique combination of courage and intellectual honesty. Children will cry and then get over Santa Claus...but adults can linger in a quagmire of silly beliefs for years before they're able to shake certain delusions.

That said, the elf story is true. In high-school, some poor kid who had been clearly deluded by his parents gave an empassioned oral report about the fact that he was an Elf. At the end of the report the class erupted in peals of laughter....and at the time, I was a good Christian boy who believed that an all-powerful space-pixie sent himself down in the form of his own son to die for my sins, which is just as laughable.

So yes, tone matters, but not for the reasons often claimed. Tone matters because different 'tones' are effective for different people.

If your style of skeptical review is to be gentle, nice and not create too much of a stir but instead gently plant seeds, so be it. You will get through to earnest truth-seekers, but some will intimate you, talk over you, lead you through logical ruses (if you let them) and play all kinds of intellectually dishonest tricks. You will get through to some, but be completely ineffective with others.

Likewise, the world needs people who charge in head-on, tackle ideas without any mitigating softness and slay delusion wherever they find it. The hard-charging new atheist might turn off the delicate believers who might be swayed with a gentle demeanor, but they will often get through to those who are sufficiently embarrassed into re-thinking their position, because few people enjoy looking silly or stupid in public. It's the same motivation which causes people to double-check their zippers when leaving a restroom or make sure they don't have toilet paper stuck to the bottom of their shoes. People go to great lengths to avoid ridicule, and crazy ideas about super-pixies are not in any sense exempt.

This is why I usually find it pointless to argue with raving fundies in private. I've found their arguments are often way more ridiculous when they think nobody's looking...but debate them in public where you can point out every dishonest ruse, every disingenuous strawman and every ignored point and you will find the Fundy either runs for the hills or backs down, because they will eventually look stupid or dishonest if you challenge every unfounded assertion they try to build upon. This seems harsh, but remember, people hate feeling\looking stupid, even when it's a result of their own dishonesty (or stupidity). If you point out the errors in someone's argument often enough (and in front of an audience), the dishonest person holding the clearly disproven views should eventually back down, or at least lose credibility.

The no-nonsense, aggressive (new atheist) approach works wonders for these belligerent and aggressive theists, who think that putting atheists on the defensive is a good tactic to 'defend' theism. Those refuting religious claims need a a certain amount of intestinal fortitude to deal not only with someone who believes irrational ideas, but who uses dishonest techniques or might simply talk over you or make unfounded assertions on top of assertions, if not challenged early and often when these mistakes are made.

Remember, just being an atheist is already offensive to most theists, and according to most Bibles, is reason enough for you to land in someone's Hell. You may as well speak your mind. I recommend avoiding Ad-Hominem (character attacks), but be relentless in your intellectual review of any idea you find objectionable. Don't fall for ruses or distractions, don't let people talk over or silence you, and don't let them run away until you've made your closing statement.

Arguing with theists can be comical sometimes....as the closer you get to driving home a devastating point, the more they wriggle away. It's also comical that some theists complain about the New Atheists not being 'nice' while their very holy books have slandered non-believers for thousands of years....the Koran even recommends that the 'Infidel' (non-believer), be slayed wherever they are found. Arguing against theists isn't just about ideas, in a sense it's about divesting people of dangerous mind-viruses which cause real harm in the world in often unforseeable ways.

It's important to vehemently and forcefully resist this nonsense, because people are going to keep believing crazy stuff until there's a critical mass of people who don't believe it and are out of the closet about it. Only then will some of these ideas fall out of favor, but it takes effort. The reason we New Atheists seem so loud and strident, is because generally, we're the ones with the gumption to actually speak loudly against the hordes of believers who have been under-opposed for too long. It's not for the faint-of-heart. As more people speak up, a wider variety of voices will be heard, and perhaps the debate itself will dull as religion ceases to be so important (and dangerous) a force to reckon with.

Historically, many of us with unpopular ideas have often been silenced, often on pain of oppression, injury or death. I am sure many more would love to silence us again, but those days are long gone (at least in most of the world). Enjoy the various tonalities in this symphony we call the skeptical movement....the fact that we're being heard is something to celebrate, not argue about.

dB

Hal Bidlack: Can a deist (or theist) be a (good) skeptic?

I'm a fan of podcasts, especially podcasts relating to skepticism and atheism.

I just listened to a skeptically-oriented podcast called 'Skepticality' (episode 57) as I've been working my way through past episodes. This particular show featured Dr. Hal Bidlack, an esteemed-member of the James Randi Educational foundation which holds a yearly gathering of skeptics called 'The Amazing Meeting' aka 'TAM'.

James 'The Amazing' Randi plied his early trade as a magician and illusionist, but like Harry Houdini of our time, he's also a lifelong skeptic. Randi appeared on the Johnny Carson show numerous times and has traveled around the world debunking false claims and woo such as those perpetuated by spoon-bender Uri Geller, faith 'healers' such as Peter Popoff and self-proclaimed 'psychics' such as Sylvia Browne.

Most famously, The Randi Foundation has for a long time offered the Million Dollar Challenge to anyone (including Geller, Popoff and Browne) who can prove claimed supernatural abilities under controlled, mututually agreed-upon conditions. Nobody has claimed the million dollars, much less even passed the screening process.

As Master of Ceremonies for the Randi Foundation's 'Amazing Meeting', Hal Bidlack is a self-labeled skeptic who also calls himself a 'deist'. Therein lies the conflict. How is it that a self-labeled deist is also Master of Ceremonies at one of the most famous skeptical organizations in the world? Please note, this is not to say he shouldn't be Master of Ceremonies, nor is my intent to infer that he shouldn't be welcome in any sense...the skeptical community needs all the members it can get.

My question is, how can someone (not just Hal) call himself a skeptic but manage to hold the idea that some kind of 'God' exists or existed in the past?

Let's clarify what a 'deist' is. A deist believes that there is a non-intervening God....and that basically a 'God' of some undefined sort basically spun the Universe into motion and stopped answering phone calls...forever.

In this episode of Skepticality, Bidlack has a monologue. Here are some quotes relating to his deism and his understandable lamentation about conflicts with skepticism. You might spot why I take issue with his stance on his deism and how his insecurity about this causes him to be a bit disenfranchised with the 'skeptical movement'....

'...and thus it pains me to find myself increasingly uncomfortable in the company of skeptics who seem intent sometimes to bring an opposite and equal fundamentalist passion to issues of faith. At TAM 5 no less than three well-intentioned individuals attempted to save me from my non-atheism (one even had pamphlets)....and they did so with no less ardor than the religious zealots bring to their cause'.

The astute reader will see that Hal is basically inferring that these atheists are akin to a religion, even making note of their pamphleteering. Medical doctors and pharmacists hand out pamphlets too, but I digress.

Atheism is merely a rejection or lack of theism, and it's a response to a claim. The deist may cover 'how it began' with a god, but a non-intervening God is effectively the same as 'no god', in practice, just like atheism would be justified to the claim that God simply 'went away for a few billion years but is coming back'.

Naturally, any God who would take the time to prove itself would be thoughtfully considered, but the evidence is just not there and likely won't be coming anytime soon. Dr. Bidlack is employing the fallacy of extremes here, thinking there is some safe middle ground between atheism/theism, which for him is deism. However, I don't consider the position of atheist any more 'extremist' than the position of 'a-Zeusist' or 'a-SantaClausist'. Therefore, there is no more 'zealotry' in rejecting the wild claim of 'God exists' than one would reject the claim that 'Shukulakamaka the invisible gas-god of inner Jupiter exists'. Comparing atheists to zealots is simply misguided, and belies the sensitivity Hal has about his deism.

'And thus a great passion in my life, skepticism, is becoming a more and more difficult path. I find myself more and more drawn to the mission and yet more and more estranged from those who walk with me.'

'It is not without irony to note that the methods of religious extremists pushed moderates away from a particular faith. And within the skeptical movement, those who insist that atheism is the only single correct worldview and that it must be the lens with which all critical issues are viewed, well they pushed me away'.

The mistake Hal makes here is how he mis-characterizes atheism or atheists, in that we hold an absolute position. He commits a strawman fallacy.

A correctly-held skeptical and provisional rejection of an untestable, incoherent claim is by no means any form of extremism, any more than not believing in green-spotted Cephalopods from planet Venus is a form of extremism. When faced with a wild, untested claim, the innocent bystander rejecting the claim is not an extremist but instead, a person employing healthy skepticism. After all, there cannot both 'be a god' and 'not be a god' concurrently. Either there is or there isn't, and thus far, all the evidence lacking for any god claim leaves atheism as not an extreme 'position' but a reasonable default.

Likewise, abolitionists were not extremists in their opposition to slavery any more than those who supported women's rights were 'extremist' in their response to the oppression of women.

Hal Bidlack spoke at TAM 4 in 2006, in support of his deism, interwoven with emotional appeals and even, a sense that he knows his deism isn't rational. This is all well and good, but there's no reason to complain about atheists being 'too critical' of his notably irrational deism....this is what skeptics do! They scrutinize claims....and if one holds a claim which is 'off limits' it becomes little more than special pleading.

Here's an excerpt from the introduction:

'...if you are keeping score, appeal to emotion will be a recurring one for me today. But as we are all friends here, I shall chance it. I suspect that only a very few are able to move through life with unwavering belief systems. I am not one of those people. I am in many things, inconsistent'.

Without going into the whole speech, suffice it to say that Hal's reasons for deism are more appeals to emotion than rationality as he gives empassioned recollections of his wife's battle with cancer and his direct experience with the aftermath of the 911 attacks.

Speaking generally, it's ok to simply define your faith as a compartmentalized view you have about the supernatural without trying to rationalize it or attempting to paint skeptics with the same brush as zealots. Atheists and the religious are not two 'extremes' on a scale other than one is simply rejecting the claim of the rest, exactly in the same way most theists reject every other religious claim they hear.

Attacking the default and reasonable position of atheism as some kind of ruse will only result in more and more intense skeptical review of your own ideas which don't hold water. It's far more honest and direct for the theist to simply admit where he's inconsistent and deal with the compatible issues...in Hal's case, his shared skepticism with those that, 'walk with him' as he puts it.

Of course, one can practice skepticism and be a deist. One can also be a skeptic and be a theist, such as the Christian who may work as a scientific researcher...using his skeptical brain at work, but using a religious part of his compartmentalized brain in church. But, there is a caveat. If one holds certain beliefs 'off-limits' from his skepticism, then at best, that person is simply inconsistent and not as good of a skeptic as he/she could be.

Theists of all types manage to operate microwave ovens, drive cars, solve puzzles, patent inventions and reject some pseudoscience, scams and assorted woo. However, theists by definition accept some supernatural claims as 'Truth®' or they wouldn't be theists. Theists have varying levels of skepticism, but by definition employ 'exceptions' which allows them to maintain the cognitive dissonance that is religion in a modern world. In Dr. Bidlack's case, he may consider himself a good skeptic, but his appeal for exemption with regard to his Deism is nothing less than a fallacy of special pleading.

While some theists may call themselves 'skeptics', they're just not consistent, since by definition a theist who believes in an untestable 'god' hasn't discovered or managed to emotionally accept the reasons a god cannot exist, as defined.

Some people in general will be better skeptics than others and the degree to which skepticism is practiced varies wildly. Likewise, some intellectually brave or honest theists will actually be able to overcome the emotional draw of their religion. I say 'brave' because challenging what you genuinely believe to be the creator of the Universe is no small task. I know, because I did it, and it took a brave and honest intellectual view to do that.

It's sort of like finally standing up to the large and over-developed high-school bully and discovering he's a total wimp or in the case of God, he's not even there. The Wizard of Oz is the same story, and most of us are familiar with that. Suddenly, the bully-problem is gone, but that doesn't change the amount of fear and trepidation which preceded that confrontation. Often, the fear and emotional issues are worse than the problem itself.

My own Christianity was challenged by the first atheist I debated at age 20, and it took about a month for me to fully reject the belief, after a lot of debate, late-night Bible reading and sleepless angst. This was me being skeptical about my *own* views, as difficult as it was, and being consistent. How could I be a good skeptic but call my own irrational beliefs 'off-limits' for emotion or any other reason?

If you're going to call yourself a skeptic and yet knowingly hold an irrational, unfalsifiable belief in a 'God' which you insist is outside the scope of science....and if said God cannot be explained coherently or rationally and is more of an appeal to emotion than logical theory, than you are simply putting your skepticism on hold for this particular idea. In THAT instance, you are not a skeptic (or not an honest or consistent one).

Those who knowingly hold irrational beliefs shouldn't resort to emotional appeals or special pleading. At least, they should expect other skeptics to openly review these vulnerable ideas. Those who somehow think both theism and atheism are 'extremes' fall into the split the difference fallacy, as if the 'Truth' lies between two. Is there a middle ground between the claim of Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the rejection of this claim as true? How about the claim that men should own slaves, and the rejection of this idea based on the notion that humans should be treated equally?

Let's not insult atheists by implying that they're somehow 'militant' (taking up arms) or misrepresent atheism as some 'absolute' position when you hold a belief in a space-pixie due to an appeal to ignorance or emotion. This is a mere distraction, and doesn't weaken atheism (which is simply a reponse to a claim) but instead belies an insecurity in whatever you're trying to protect from scrutiny.

Yes, I admire any skeptical work Hal Bidlack and other theist/deist skeptics might be doing and if he ran for office where I lived, I'd probably be glad to vote for him (since we agree on so much). However those who refuse to apply scrutiny to some of their own ideas are simply not being the best skeptics they could be, and shouldn't complain (or be surprised) when others enthusiastically review their ideas on their behalf.

There are some excellent defenders of church-state separation who believe in a God such as Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Does that make Rev. Lynn and his organization any less effective at defending church-state separation? No. Does that make them good skeptics? Debatable, but it's a different issue. I may disagree with Rev. Lynn about his God-belief, but I highly value the work he's doing to help promote church-state separation as guaranteed in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, if Barry Lynn were to make a claim that atheists are in some sense wrong or 'extreme', his own beliefs would come under intense scrutiny, and he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But, I would just as soon let sleeping dogs lie while he continues his valuable work with Americans United.

Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Sometimes, we find alliances in those who may not be just like us, but they are allies just the same. I for one accept and admire those who strive to be skeptics, even if they're not quite as skeptical as I'd like them to be. Some may feel I am being a bit hard on Hal and others who are allies in this skeptical movement, but my point here is that there are no exceptions. No idea is sacrosanct or exempt from scrutiny....yes, even the ideas of my fellow-allies in the skeptical movement. Believe me, I understand that we need every skeptic willing to help usher-in critical thinking....but we skeptics need to bear in mind that we are never personally exempt.

To be fair, I am sure there are atheists somewhere who don't believe humans landed on the moon, or that believe the tripe Jenny McCarthy spreads about the 'danger' of vaccines. Simply being an atheist doesn't mean one is inherently more skeptical, but calling one's self a 'skeptic' means you shouldn't make exceptions, no matter how uncomfortable it might be. I actually met an atheist once who was homophobic. I can assure you that this isn't common, but he seemed impervious to the scientifically-verified fact that homosexuality is congenital, cannot be 'changed' by mere suppression and exists almost always at a 10% baseline level in human populations and to varying degrees in other animal species as well.

As with anything, people have skeptical lapses, and there is often room for improvement. I applaud those who strive to be skeptical and who value critical-thinking, but none of us are immune from the critical eye of others...it's what keeps the 'critical' in critical thinking, and though it's sometimes painful, it keeps us honest.

Plus, it's something to talk about over lunch. ;)

-dB-

Haiti and Chile

The Earthquake in Haiti and Chile may be, depending on your worldview, a result of the impartial and inexorable movement of continental plates or perhaps the work of an angry god, but either way, the people in Haiti need our help. The non-god-infected amongst us can donate to secular charities knowing full well that our monies won't be spent on god-bothering whilst offering charity, or holding help ransom demanding Christian conversion or even worse, handing out useless solar-polared Bibles or taxing the relief efforts by showing up nearly empty-handed (like some Scientologists have been purported to do recently).

Haitians don't need your gods, they need help. Secular givers can visit Richard Dawkins's relief site to donate easily and painlessly through Paypal and other means:

GivingAid.RichardDawkins.net

Paypal is even waiving fees for donations.

In other news, Pat Robertson had this to say about the Haitian disaster:

They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal [...] ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other."

Ah yes, his usual douchery, and it's nothing new. Look Christians, if you feel your religion doesn't apply in 'natural disasters', then why credit your god with the good stuff? Likewise, if you do take seriously the idea that a god controls all, then he necessarily creates all earthquakes to his specifications....down to the location, timing and intensity....and yes, death toll.

Here's a little ditty from a book called the King James Bible, Isaiah 45:7...

'I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things'.

That's right, it's right there in the bible. God creates it all, and even if you read one of the new fancy copywritten versions of the Holey Babble which try to dumb down the embarrassment of this quote, the fact remains that an all-powerful, all-knowing creator can't *not* be in control and know everything which will happen, meaning he's probably not all that good, and not worthy of your faith.

That said, Pat Robertson's foundational beliefs are just wrong, and his wacky magical delusions can be safely ignored, as long as he isn't actually acting on his beliefs (or inciting others to act on them). We can safely ignore the lunacy of religion, but that's 'safe'. The best thing to do when you hear wild claims of divine credit is to treat it like the lunacy as it is....this sort of nutball thinking needs to be challenged, early and often. Not challenging it often enough provides as Sam Harris might put it, 'comfort and cover' for the nutjobs who say crazy things reading the same Bible as the fundies.

Just as a ranting toddler-God™ might create a beautiful puppy, he seemingly enjoys wanton destruction just as well, if not better.

No matter what you believe, expect to be challenged if what you're saying is without foundation...and no matter what, sometimes people need your help. Thankfully, there's a way to help the people of Haiti or Chile without wrapping it in Bibles and fairy tales.

-dB-

President Obama Was Raised by an Atheist

Despite the claims that Barack Obama is a radical Muslim, he claims to be a Christian and we should take him at his word, unless Christians around the world want to be called 'radical Muslims' too even if they insist on being Christians. By definition, a Christian merely needs to accept the divinity of Christ to qualify, but we know how difficult it is to get two Christians to agree on anything, right?

The more interesting fact here is that Obama's mother, who chiefly raised him during the absence of his father, is an atheist. According to Obama's book where he speaks about his mother's view on religion, she took an anthropological view...exposing him to many different religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and even the Bhagavad Gita, but remained herself a non-believer. Apparently, his father was a non-practicing Muslim as well and possibly an atheist, but it's clear to see the influence Obama's non-believing mother had on him with regard to his wider view on religion and the makeup of American voters.

Why do I say this? Obama is the first president in my 41-year living memory who actually acknowledges non-believers, and more than once. While I never heard him mention our significant majority in his presidential campaign, he did mention 'non-believers' in his inaugural speech, after he was elected. I can understand why he'd be a bit coy about mentioning his support for us until he had won the election, considering he also wanted to attract moderate-Christian voters and atheists are still a hated/misunderstood minority in America.

I am sure President Obama has to know that while non-believers are the fastest growing group among all the religious people in the U.S. We are a compelling audience which most-likely supports Obama among other socially-progressive candidates, and are not likely to be Bush or McCain/Palin supporters.

Obama recognized non-believers in the recent Ft.Hood, Texas tragedy in a recent weekly radio address, "They are Christians and Muslims, Hews and Hindus and nonbelievers."

Yes, we're here and Obama knows it. At last count, conservative estimates place atheists around 16% of the American population, which includes those who self-identify as non-religious or agnostic according to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). This sizeable minority outnumbers Catholics, gay, black and Jewish voters. It's a population that a savvy president should not ignore, and it seems Obama is one of the more savvy.

This is a big change from Bush Sr., who had this to say when questioned by atheist radio personality, Rob Sherman;

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Well actually, Bush is wrong (surprise). This is not one nation under god. That national motto and relgious vandalism on our currency was a recent development, only appearing on paper money in 1957, though it was on coins earlier. Before this divisive religious slogan, our money read, 'E Pluribus Unem' which means, 'From Many, One'. This is a much more inclusive slogan for *all* Americans.

In 2012, I suspect that the atheist population will be even bigger, maybe around 18% of Americans or more, especially since today's youth are leaving religion in droves are aren't sufficiently inculcated in the first-place. When nutters like Sarah Palin try to run in 2012 with their Draconian ideas about birth-control and sex-education and lack of science-understanding (evolution) it's not going to go over well.

By 2012, Obama should be able to more-freely support his atheist constituents as he's starting to do now and you can bet they will be voting for him in droves, assuming things go well.

An atheist alone does not a president make, but it sure helps not to have an anti-science fundagelical Crusader like Bush Jr. in office who thinks he's instrumental in Armaggeddon to attain the end-goal of his spiritual fairytale....something which doesn't bode well for any of us.

Thank you, President Obama, for recognizing the fastest-growing segment of the population...atheists (and for putting a science advisor back in the White House). This atheist just asks that you stay on track. It's a good sign that the new Universal Healthcare bill removed coverage for religions woo-woo like faith-healing or other religious 'treatment', but we need to shut down that Stupak Amendment, allowing abortion services to be covered. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and it's not the business of religion. Until religious people actually prove there actually IS a god, they have nothing to say about the real world, since they can't prove any of their claims. That said, abortion is the choice of the female, and it's between her and her doctor, and nobody else.

Let's hope that Palin runs in 2012...it'll be another sure victory for Obama and maybe we can fix some of the issues related to eight years of Bush.

Smart Cars: A New Forum

I've started a new smart-car forum at http://www.smartforums.info/, and I encourage everyone who's interested in these little cars to come join us.

After I was banned from a larger smart-forum (and I use the term smart specifically about the cars here), I decided to strike out on my own. Forums are like mini-governments...sometimes you run into a hapless dictator with no sense of reason or fairness, or those who let their underlings (moderators) stomp on everyone else with their personal biases.

While I have my biases and strong opinions as evidenced from my blog-history, free-speech and free-inquiry are vitally important to me both as an American and an atheist. I may disagree with some people and their posts, lifestyles, etc., but I recognize that everyone is different and that merely censoring certain 'controversial' issues does nothing to change that fact.

As one of my ancestors, Patrick Henry, once said: 'Give me liberty or give me death'. While I don't want to invite death, I can't abide anyone messing with my liberty, yes, even some silly moderator on a smart-car forum.

I would rather have a site with 10 people than be on a large-site plagued with Lockerators™ who lock any thread which tweaks their personal biases. As an atheist moderator on a motorcycle site, I've had long debates with Creationists in the off-topic section, and I never had to lock or delete threads or censor their posts.

Censorship in most cases is just not necessary and eventually, everyone who wanted to say something said it. People come and go and they move on. Real life is the same way. If your friends can't bear your opinions then they're not really your friends. If someone's opinion can't be swayed by solid argumentation, then that person is unreasonable. Bottom line is, if you've got an opinion that's worth anything, it will stand to scrutiny. But as forums go, people are free to ignore conversations they don't enjoy just as they might in real-life.

As long as the discourse is civil and reasonable, I prefer to let people 'talk it out' and thus, my new site was inevitable in-light of the heavy-handed thread-locking and outright censorship which existed on the forum I was booted from. It's no wonder one of their moderators stepped down, and I can't say I blame him.

My new site is smartforums.info and although it's under construction (adding content and adjusting graphics), it's very much open for business and there's no charge or fee for vendors who want to advertise smart-related products and services.

On a lighter note, I'm selling smart-car decals through a great local aftermarket company called Smart Madness here in sunny SoCal. The decals are printed by a wide-format Roland printer with Max-brand eco-solvent inks. All decals have an over-laminate for maximum outdoor life, which is about 3-5 years.

This decal was inspired by wow, but was all hand-drawn by yours-truly. It's a funny acknowledgement of the tiny-size of the smart with a nod to Gnomish Engineering. World-of-Warcraft (wow) fans will be quite familiar with the concept, and the rest will still understand it too. 'The Power of Small' is something I've heard to describe the gnomes in wow and I've always loved this phrase. It's funny on many different levels, but it acknowledges what many non-smart drivers think we don't know, 'OMG THAT CAR IS SO TEENY!'. ;)





The decal below is a pumpkinized smart-car, part of a new set of decals I've made called Punkinheads™. The Punkinheads™ are a Mix-and-Match family (like the stick-figure familes you've seen on car windows) that are intended for cars but can stick almost anywhere.

Not-So-Smart Discrimination

I am a smart-car owner. The smart brand is referred to as 'smart', lowercase by design, one-word, as you might say 'Honda' or 'Mini'. This is a great little car, and the only micro-sub compact sold on American shores. It's a one-liter, 70 horsepower, mid-engine car which is easy to park and gets 41 mph highway...that's the best MPG of any gas-using car in America, right behind the hybrids but at about 10K less to buy. Available in the U.S. since early 2008, the smart has been making inroads through Roger Penske's smart dealers into the American consciousness.

As a member of the Smart Car of America Forums (SCOA), I participate with other enthusiastic owners about all things smart.....the questions we're asked, aftermarket accessories, everything regarding dealers, maintenance, perks and quirks with the car, etc.

Who buys smarts? My answer to this question might have be: 'progressive, out-of-the-box thinkers with a penchant for embracing new ideas, with a tendency toward size-economy and the green movement'. It ain't necessarily so.

Sadly, this blog is about discrimination, which is something atheists face every day. See if you agree.

On the SCOA forum, I happened to be browsing the off-topic threads and saw that some smart-owners had started threads about who among them might be gay, with another thread asking who their fellow vegetarians/vegans were. Reading the threads myself, it seemed people were playing nicely and simply voicing another common interest among a receptive, progressive audience of other forum members clearly open to new ideas.

That was, until I started the 'Who here is an atheist smart-owner' thread. Here's what I wrote:

'Ok, I've seen the separate Gay and Vegan smart-owner threads, very interesting!

Here's my question: How many atheists drive smarts?

Is there any correlation between our maverick embrace of a new automotive paradigm and those who self-describe as atheists/agnostics/secularists/non-religious or non-believers of some sort?

The car itself represents a lot in my opinion: a willingness to be different, a witting/unwitting embrace of the green-movement and less oil-dependence, some-degree of environmental conscience, a willingness to favor economy of size over the 'bigger is better' mentality (even with threat of derision), and a more liberal/progressive political population (I realize there will be exceptions).

My hypothesis is that atheists would be over-represented by smart-car owners (per-capita).

This is by no means a scientific poll, but I am curious to see the responses.

Thanks in advance'.

Reasonable enough, wouldn't you say? Just like the gay and vegan threads, it's natural to ask who among other out-of-the-box thinkers might have left traditional ideas like religion, right?

Wrong. The thread was immediately closed by an admin with this comment.

'Forget it.“The following topics and links are prohibited on Smart Car of America Forums: Religion, Death Penalty, and Politics”

Ok, since when does identifying as an atheist necessarily constitute a religious argument or even religion? Atheism by definition is the *rejection* of religion as it literally means 'without theism' from the Greek form, 'theos'. A-theos is literally 'without god or belief in god'.

Ostensibly, the forum admins are trying to avoid controversy which might lead to pages of in-fighting (which people can choose to ignore), but what good is a forum moderator if they can't even be bothered to moderate potentially volatile threads? Again, this was in the 'off-topic' section which should mean smart-owners are free to discuss issues, as long as it doesn't devolve into pure name-calling and threats, and these threads can be moderated.

Instead, the powers-that-be at SCOA seem to feel more comfortable with outright censorship based on the 'rules', but I would think censorship is far more volatile than moderating a 'potentially' controversial thread. Those who find these threads offensive always have the choice of ignoring them.

My post was merely an informal poll, like the vegan and gay threads, and was specifically posed to see who among my fellow-smart drivers shared my lack of belief in god(s). This rule, as applied, would necessarily mean that nobody could ever identify as any religion on the forum, ever.

Look what another admin said when I complained about censorship. Quoted in relevant part:

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

Ok, so the identifying as an atheist clearly doesn't fall into these categories, yet the thread about which smart-owners might be gay certainly *does*. Talk about selective application of rules. The reader will note that she had nothing to say in her defense after she was called out on this. Of course not. There is a clear double-standard at work.

My friends, this is a clear case of censorship, even if it's in the 'rules'. Sometimes, rules are wrong or too-broadly applied. After all, there used to be little rules about minorities being segregated from the majority, or women not being allowed to vote.

In this day and age, it's shocking that this still happens, but sadly not surprising. What's even more distressing is the lack of visible protests from other members who might be atheists or know agnostics, or understand the injustice that's happening. There were a few on that forum in support, but mostly....silence and thus, a form of complicity.

Here's what the smug admin had to say when I complained about the thread closure in a private message:

Whatever flood of protests you are hoping for is going the other way (by PM) – it has been positive for the action taken. You are, so far, alone in this.If you are in need of the support of atheists owning smarts, you are free to participate in atheist sites elsewhere, and ask the same question. As a start you might try something at groups.yahoo or groups.google*

* Full URL omitted to avoid linking.

I see. So it's ok for a smart-owner to ask, in an off-topic section, about who in the forum might be gay or vegan (controversial for many), even though talking about 'sexually-oriented' content is in clear violation of the forum rules. Why is it not permissible to ask who might be atheist even though by itself it's not a religious argument? Add to that the smug way in which the admin tries to convince me I am 'alone in this' which is probably why he thought he could get away with such a thing. You see, fellow non-believers...this is exactly why some theists feel they can abuse non-believers.. We seek fair treatment, but we still get abuse and discrimination because some feel that we're such an insignificant or silent minority that we just don't matter. This is exactly why we need to be out of that 'other closet' en-masse as we've seen with the success of the gay-movement.

Tell someone they can't talk about being 'African' or 'Italian' and there would be hell to pay. Tell someone they can't mention that they are a Christian or Jew and you'd see a backlash. Why is the mere mention of identification with 'atheism' seen as a 'religious' statement? By this logic, mentioning that you're abstinent would be sexual harassment?

This may all seem trivial, but it's still discrimination, and it's a reflection of the 'majority rules' scenario which has historically trampled on the rights of the minority, simply because it was smugly thought that the majority could get away with it. As long as people are cowed into silence, we will never have a collective voice, and this is why it's so important for minorities, especially the most-hated minority (atheists) all over the world to speak out, be heard, be seen.

When people realize how populous this abused minority is, they might think twice about being so cavalier with discrimination, even in the small, annoying ways which happen every day.

Sure, most of us on the SCOA drive 'smart' cars, but by no means should anyone assume that all of us are logical, forward-thinking, progressive or even smart. It makes me very glad I didn't 'become a member' and give them my hard-earned money....but apparently they think atheists are such a tiny, insignificant minority that our opinions and support just don't matter. ...even in such a tiny-sub group known as 'Smart-Car Owners of America'.

This is more than just discrimination on an obscure forum. It's a reflection of the world we all still live in, and a small core-sample of daily abuses.

I recommend that all of you who identify with labels such as atheist, agnostic, freethinker, secularist, rationalist, non-theist, etc. make yourselves known. The sooner people realize that they can't get away with blatant discrimination and abuse, the sooner we'll get the fair-treatment we're asking for.


-dB-

New Dawkins Book (and Other Thoughts).

Richard Dawkins's new book entitled, 'The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution' is being officially released today in the United States. I definitely plan to pick up a copy in case I run into one of the 40% of U.S. citizens Dawkins mentions who don't accept the fact of evolution (education time). It's also just a fascinating subject in general, and I am looking forward to the coverage of artifical selection relating to the domestication and breeding of our canine friends. Book review coming later!

I understand that evolution is out of the perview of atheism, but many who reject evolution do so because of conflicting ideas from their religion. That doesn't stop progressive theists from accepting evolution as they would accept the law of gravitation or atomic theory. And really, there doesn't need to be a conflict between theism and evolution. A liberal theist could just assume their 'god' started it all but that evolution was allowed to happen on its own. Not a logical argument for god, but it allows the theist the luxury to avoid the faith-arguments but still accept obvious scientific fact. There is a choice to be made here though, as most religions offer a creation myth that is expected to be taken seriously...because it's not like ministers, pastors and priests the world over are saying 'this part of the Bible is ok to reject but you must accept this part or burn in eternal hellfire forever'. Although, progressive-theism must do exactly that, reject large chunks of their holy books or be mired in medieval fundamentalism.

Incidentally, I am going to give Borders my business until the more conveniently-located Barnes and Noble has an atheist section where you'd find some of Dawkins's other books (such as 'The God Delusion'). We're too numerous as a minority group to be forced to buy our books alongside bibles, and atheism is most certainly not a 'religion' even though the term does deal with the rejection of theism. With the popularity of these books, and considering that they're probably going to get a lot more popular in the coming years, atheism deserves its own section in any bookstore. Hell at one time I could barely find any atheist books in stores and yet the religion section was huge. It's probably why I stopped going to bookstores altogether (though it's high-comedy to place the odd Bible in the science-fiction section). ;)

It's not like fundies are going to rush to buy books from the new-atheists, but the people they're trying to convince are quickly getting much better educated at taking down Bronze-age superstition, and the popularity of these books is telling. Fewer people are buying the whole religion thing, and more of them are actively resisting these crazy ideas.

With the Intertubes, good ideas spread fast and bad ideas are knocked down from every angle, not the least of which is Snopes helping to kill email chains with silly, repeated rumors and myths. I am surprised anyone could stay a Fundy very long if they feel compelled to talk about it at a young age because they'd be beleaguered by those willing to show them how they're wrong....in email, on blogs, YouTube, etc. The days of religious claims going unchallenged for years are over forever....even if parents try to shelter their kids in private-schools, the Internet is going to pounce all over silly beliefs and it doesn't generally have a delicate touch.

Usually I read new Kindle books on my iPhone with a wonderful little (free) app called, and you may have guessed, 'Kindle for iPhone'.

That's right, it's a port of the Kindle software you've read about for the Amazon Kindle, only Kindle for iPhone lets you read Kindle books with a backlight, which the real Kindle doesn't have (and sorely needs as an option you can toggle). You can read any Kindle book with 'Kindle for iPhone' so it's easy to buy new books with the 1-click feature at Amazon.com, just as you would with Kindle. I love it.

The variety of books on Kindle blows away any other e-reader, and being able to sneak into bed with the girlfriend and not wake her up while reading 'Infidel' by Ayaan Hirsi Ali or 'Stolen Innocence' by Elissa Wall was fantastic. Both of these books are escape-from-fundamentalist religion stories of sorts and are highly-recommended.

'Infidel' depicts the oppression of being an Ethioian Muslim and the horrific rituals and practices associated with that before Ayaan makes her escape, but not before she suffers the horrors of female castration and other indignities.

Wall's 'Stolen Innocence' delves into her experiences as a female in the Mormon Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS), where girls are 'placed' with their grooms at 14 (or younger) and whole communities live under the control of their 'prophet'. Wall was married off young, against her will to a boy she didn't even like...it's amazing people still live like this, and uplifting that some escape before lasting damage is done.

Whether you opt for hardback or a new Kindle book, there's a lot of resources to become educated enough to take on Fundies or apologists of any religion.

Evolution has nothing to do with atheism, but it seems fundies everywhere are attacking evolution as if somehow that leaves their crazy Creation-myth as the 'only' alternative. No doubt, Richard Dawkins's latest book will further arm your logical minds to combat some of the anti-evolution propaganda you'll encounter at some point, especially if you're an outspoken atheist.

America is (Not) a Christian Nation.

There are some who will go to any length to convince you of their brand of religion, including revising U.S. History. This is either an honestly mistaken belief due to an amazing historical ignorance or a lie perpetrated to convince others to embrace Christianity. Either way it's an anti-intellectual affront and needs to be confronted whenever it's repeated.

Our forefathers had the tremendous foresight to collectively forge the first-ever secular Constitution on the planet. The Constitution, our founding document, is godless. There is no mention of following any commandments, no religious decrees, no deference to commandments or Bibles. It's a secular governmental document, by the people and for the people, not by god(s) or for any god(s). Our founding fathers understood that unless we are free *from* religion we cannot enjoy religious freedom at all.

If you lived in pre-1776 England, you would not have had the choice of which religion you followed in the English church-state. In fact, the European witch-hunts were in full-swing at the time...admitting any kind of non-orthodoxy was still a life-risking proposition, let alone the deism of Thomas Jefferson or the atheism of James Madison.

The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution says it plainly;

'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free-exercise thereof'.

This means, in matters of religion, government is neutral. Religion nor atheism should be endorsed by any government-entity. Likewise, the government legal process should not include any kind of religious test, including swearing on a Koran, the Vedas, Talmud or Bible.

How would it feel to have an entire-courtroom see you refuse to swear on a Bible before your testimony even begins? This could affect the outcome of the trial if the jury or judge is very religious, and it's tantamount to an unconstitutional religious-test and is in clear-violation of the 1st-amendment. Yet, this happens every-day in America.

The removal of religious-oppression by government-entities such as courtrooms, public schools, presidential inaugurations, public monuments, etc. is *not* tantamount to atheism, as some might propose. It's simply neutrality. There should not be any government endorsement of religion or active rejection thereof as stated clearly in the 1st amendment.

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli explicitly states in Article 11 that America is not a Christian Nation.

'Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries'.

Some would claim that our money is 'evidence' that this is a 'Christian Nation' by virtue of the fact that it's been infected with the religious slogan; 'In God We Trust'. Similarly, our pledge also has 'Under God' in it, which some believe is further evidence that this nation was intended to be god-fearing.

It might surprise some to know that the religious-language on our money and in our pledge are recent developments, and were originally secular.

Our pledge was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, and did not originally include 'Under God'. The divisive 'Under God' was added in 1954 by President Eisenhower at the behest of Christian special-interest groups such as the Knights of Columbus. Here's the unblemished pledge before it was altered:

'I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible
with liberty and justice for all'.

One might note that the original pledge is all-inclusive. The addition of 'Under God' instantly forces everyone reciting the pledge to be 'under' something, subserviant to an unseen 'diety' which has dominion over all, and makes all non-Christians and non-believers second-class citizens. It's amazingly divisive and is a clear violation of the intentions of the forefathers and the 1st-amendment.

Our money has 'In God We Trust' on it, but this wasn't added until 1957 on paper money, though it was on coins earlier. Most likely, the 'In God We Trust' motto was a reaction to McCarthyism and the 'Red Scare' associated with communism and atheism. However, it's possible to be a communist without being an atheist and most atheists are decidedly not communists.

Prior to religious-prayer now on our currency the Latin motto was 'E Pluribus Unem', which literally translates to 'From Many, One'. This phrase is all-inclusive regardless of religious-association or lack thereof. 'In God We Trust' is divisive, simply because people worship different gods and some don't submit to any gods. Again, this religious-notion violates the intention of the founding fathers and the 1st-amendment, and forces non-Christians and the non-religious to be party to theist-oppression. Our secular democratic republic is not merely majority rule, but serves to protect the minority from the majority. Otherwise, Jim Crow laws would still be in force, and women would still be disallowed from the voting booth. In the same manner, it's not Constitutionally right to oppress non-Christians and non-religious Americans with conflicting religious whims of a Christian majority.

Removing the oppressive religious language unconstitutionally-inserted into our pledge, money, court-rooms, schools, public parks or any governmental agency is a return to government neutrality and secularism as the founding fathers rightly intended. This neutrality still allows freedom of religion. The difference is that government should not endorse any one religion over another, or endorse religion over irrelegion.

Our forefathers and early patriots sought to escape the church-state of England, and many died establishing and defending the new colonies and the first-ever secular Constitution. We as free Americans should uphold church-state separation and the 1st amendment, because if there's no freedom *from* religion then there is truly no freedom of religion. If we slip into a theocractic church-state again we'll be right back where started in 1775 England.

As is often said, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." -Thomas Jefferson

-dB-

Faith is Not a Choice (And How I Lost Mine).

First, let me state that people don't necessarily 'choose' their beliefs. Instead, they choose how critically (or not) they review new ideas and challenges to their existing beliefs. Atheists don't just 'choose' to dismiss their beliefs, so much as their logical mind eventually defeats their dogma, and a dismissal of the old-belief is inevitable. However, if you can convince someone of an idea before their logical minds are even formed, you're probably going to get the idea to sink-in, unfettered by opposition.

Sadly, children are convinced at a young age to believe in a 'god', and they lack the mental faculties and logical-prowess to protest in any effective manner, not to mention that they rely on their parents for everything. Imagine a six-year old who laughs off a parent's earnest description of god as 'nonsense', what kind of life would this kid have? As a matter of self-preservation, it's probably good that kinds don't protest too much early-on, for the same reason the child needs to listen when the parent warns against touching hot stoves or running into traffic. It's unfortunate that most kids taught religion at a young age are infected for life, and continue to hold ridiculous beliefs they pass on to their kids...so much so that when faced with a devastating logical challenge they will often react completely irrationally.

There's no reason at such a young age to think your parents are lying, deluded or downright bloody stupid. Kids just don't know any better. I knew one kid in school who thought he was an elf, simply because this is something his mom believed as well. He gave an oral report about it....and as funny as it was at the time, I find it kind of depressing now (but he did kinda look like an elf).

A child can see the clear problems with the very definition of things that contradict....like a square circle, or a big-small thing or something that is hot and cold...or other contradictory definitions. However, if you get them young enough, you can pretty much convince them of anything...you're an elf, there's an invisible space-spook watching your every move, and Santa delivers presents on Christmas eve to every kid in the world in one night. Sure, kids outgrow the notion of Santa Claus simply because adults don't really believe it, nor do older kids....but 'god' is a fairy tale most adults DO believe. When a child cries after discovering there's no Santa Claus...this is what some grown-people do when they discover there's no god....except it's all-too often preceded by anger and hostility toward the messenger. Adults seem to be much less resilient than children in this regard.

It's going to be confusing to a child when he/she is told that a god knows everything, is all-powerful and perfect and all-good and loving, but will let mommy's new baby die inside her tummy while the Duggars can pop out 19 of them without issue.

Why?

A kid's 'why' response oftens gets beaten-down early by those who find tough questions to be uncomfortable or threatening. A true-believer won't often call god evil or stupid or cruel as he should...instead people tend to make excuses for this evil space pixie. 'He's testing me. He's asking me to wait. Now is not the right time, I can't question him or his plan'.

Faith is not a choice, it's something you've been convinced of, usually at such a young age that it's out of the scope of your review process. It's internalized and often defended with territorial ferocity and irrational fervor. People routinely die or let others die merely because they're convinced of some fundamental deception about how the Universe works, and because being wrong can be so uncomfortable...moreso with a longer investment in an erroneous idea.

It behooves people to unravel their assumptions when reviewing ideas...including their own. How one responds to a challenge to one's beliefs is a test of courage, integrity and intellectual honesty.

Some people, when challenged on their belief in god, simply try to paint ruses and confuse or distract you, especially right before you trap them in unassailable logic (they can see it coming usually). Some will talk over you, or try to pressure you into shutting up, or threaten violence or change the subject or pretend to be distracted, or pretend 'evolution' or 'Darwinism' is on equal-footing with their god-belief in order to make it seem as if you're both in the same boat of religion. Nobody likes to feel stupid, but nothing makes people feel stupid faster than defending a barbaric, irrational religion with someone who can reason better than a child.

The courageous and intellectually honest-theist hears about the logical contradiction of how a loving god lets babies suffer and die and says, 'You're right, that's pretty crazy, I wouldn't let babies die if I were god'. This is an honest and no-nonsense response. This is how a *reasonable* person responds to the logical contradiction when pointed out. The reasonable theist, after being faced with this devastating argument from evil, should step back a bit and re-examine his faith on the spot and not make excuses for their killer god anymore than someone would be tolerated making excuses for Hitler or Stalin.

That's right, few of us would let babies suffer and die if we were god, because we're nicer and more logical than god. An all-powerful being, who knows everything and is *good* would simply not let this happen. Furthermore, god can't 'let' anything happen because he *makes* it happen...yes, if he's truly all-knowing, he knows everything for infinity past and future, meaning everything that happens is exactly to his plan: every miscarriage, holy war, epidemic, the rise of Hitler and venereal warts. All exactly to god's plan, and nothing that an all-powerful being wants can be denied, right?

Growing up, I was a devout Catholic, though in high-school my new circle of friends and experiences at various churches and youth-groups had me gravitating toward a more 'born again' Christianity. I prayed before meals and at night, read the Bible, made religious artwork (some of which I still have), communicated with God on a daily basis...asking him for stuff, thanking him, giving him credit or asking for guidance. I would acknowledge the cross in my room, and I distinctly remember playing guitar at a Christian youth-group I would attend on Tuesday nights...talking about God and religion and the Bible and such. The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy does not apply here (since some annoyed theists would simply deny that I was a 'real' Christian).

My family was Catholic (Irish-Italian) and my religion-primed brain readily accepted other hokum that my family believed: telekinesis, psychics, ghosts, Satanic lyrics embedded into backward-played records and other phenomenae. I actually destroyed my AC/DC album 'Back in Black' because I thought I heard 'Oh Lord Satan' in the lyrics when played backward. My mom was upset that we were Dungeons and Dragons fans, thinking it was somehow Satanic, and I remember my Dad being upset with certain art my brother made thinking it was Devilish or evil in some way. They weren't fanatics, but my family was definitely infected with religion, and they went back to be re-infected at our local Catholic church on a regular basis.

In 1989 at age 20, I was working with a somewhat zany yet brilliant software engineer at a new company making Nintendo games. He was my boss but our relationship was more like workmates/friends. We discussed everything under the sun while we worked into the wee hours making games...everything from Transcendental Meditation to the wonders of Indian food to how many fairies could dance on the head of a pin, and religion. He was a funny guy...not forceful in his atheism or high-pressure or anything, but questioned my logic when it came to my defense of a god-belief in his characteristically witty manner. I had never heard Christian apologetics, but I made plenty of apologist arguments and fallacies such as the argument from numbers (a lot of people believe it), Pascal's Wager (safe bet to believe rather than end up in Hell), and other unwitting apologist claptrap or outright fallacies.

This issue with Pascal's Wager is that it doesn't consider the fact that you lose a lot of time and resources praying to the wrong god if you end up in say, Islamic Hell or praying to a god which isn't even there. Argument from numbers doesn't work because the majority of people have been on the wrong side of a lot of issues (astronomy, slavery and civil rights, women's rights, etc.).

What happened was, his arguments made sense to me, but it internally embarrassed and infuriated me to be bested logically. I felt like a lawyer defending my client 'God'.

I knew that something was wrong. Either my client was a murderous and wantonly evil tyrant as he was saying it was depicted in the Bible, my client didn't exist as claimed or I needed to do more Bible-research and find explanations for this stuff.

Spurred by what I felt were logical defeats and seeking to defeat his arguments, I did some research. I looked up the Bible phrases he mentioned depicting god's killing sprees or when god's name is invoked by those on killing sprees. I checked out the babies being dashed on rocks, the hatred and recommended stoning of homosexuals, the condoning of slavery and instructions for keeping them, etc. Everything he generally mentioned about the Bible was shocking because I thought I knew my Bible, but more shocking when I verified the atrocities within the Bible! Suddenly, it was seeming like a whole different book. How come I didn't hear about this stuff in church? Why did we believe this whole book, but the priest only talked about the nicer stuff before the collection plates went out?

Then, it dawned on me. I was simply lied to, or those who were talking about the virtues of the Bible were either seriously omitting the bad parts, or were just as clueless about the bad parts as I was. It seemed that none of the atrocities of the Bible (aside from the snake-framing, the flood and Hell) were discussed, and since those who sit passively in church listening can't really stop a sermon to ask questions, nobody ever learned anything but what the priest felt like talking about unless they delved deep into their Bibles themselves (with a critical mind). No wonder the Catholic church banned reading the Bible for yourself in most of its history.

Within a month, I had rejected the Bible, and fired my client 'God'. I realized he didn't exist, and couldn't exist with all the evil in the world.

Isaiah 45:7 reads:

'I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.'

Well, of course. Either god made *everything* as claimed or he didn't. If he didn't, then he's just a co-god, where another god is making other stuff. This would mean he's not the 'only' god and certainly not all-powerful if he cannot stop evil or stop creating it. If god is *good* then he'd want to stop suffering. But, Isaiah 45:7 clearly states that God 'created evil' and thus he IS evil. If God is everything, he is as evil as he is good. He is the hangnail, the stillbirth, the AIDS epidemic, and the kid-diddling Catholic priest. Be relieved there's no god, because if he does exist he's an evil bastard.

Either way, within a month of meeting and discussing real issues with the first atheist I met, I rejected my belief. It took some courage (willing to face objections head-on without ruses or game-playing), integrity (willing to follow logic where it lead me) and intellectual honesty (willing to admit being wrong).

20 years of inculcation unraveled in a month. It was disturbing and difficult though. One does not release a lifelong faith without some kind of trauma...because I felt even reviewing the evidence put me in very bad stead with God, which I still believed in until I didn't. But, it's like going against a cult-leader. The more you resist, the angrier he is and the more you lose your support in the cult. Once you're out, you can see it was the best thing you ever did, but it gets harder (and scarier) before it gets better.

Giving up the idea of gods was a huge weight off of my mind and conscience. No more did I think a space-pixie was watching my every move. I had true privacy and I could finally sleep-in on Sunday without guilt. No longer did I accept any other crazy ideas which were predicated on god, or spirits, the devil, an afterlife, etc. I also released the crazy idea that Jewish people killed Jesus, as I no longer believed in Jesus as a diety who 'died for my sins'. Women were no more responsible for the downfall of mankind simply because they failed the talking snake apple-test framed by God. I was free to delve into the scientific wonders and explanations of the world such as evolution and astronomy, since I didn't have to experience a battle in my mind between Creation as explained in Genesis vs. the findings of science. I no longer had to lament how many times God ignored my desperate prayers, or answered insignificant ones, allowed gluttony for some while others starved or let some die while others thrive.

The injustice in the world is expected in a world without a god (and worse with god), but it's humans who can make things better. My mind was finally free of the crazy myths of Bronze-age desert nomads and I was free to take the world on its own terms, for better or worse. I had to rely on myself and my fellow humans without wasting energy appealing to some murderous space-pixie.

It was the most liberating experience I've ever had in my 41 years.

No matter how old you are, or how uncomfortable it is....always follow logic where it goes. Resisting, mental-trickery, ruses, semantic-games, all of those distract from the pursuit of truth and retard our collective progress. It will also make those who see through the ruses lose a lot of respect for the person's courage, integrity and intellectual honesty. If one avoids logic simply because it's uncomfortable, it's like the drug-addict or alcoholic who can't get clean because he wants to avoid withdrawl symptoms.

The beauty of being a good critical-thinker is that there's no truth with a capital 'T'. You're free to adjust as needed, honing your knowledge as new data comes in. In fact, the human enterprise relies on this process as we discover more about the Universe we live in...and we all benefit. Yes, even the young-Earth wack-a-doo Creationist who argues over the Internet about the dangers of EVILution probably doesn't comprehend the irony.

Sometimes, the truth hurts, but it's well worth it.

-dB-