Who gets your vote?

As if celebrating the holidays isn’t hectic enough for most people, we atheists have to decide which days to celebrate and how.  Thanksgiving and Veteran’s Day are easy ones – they’re good secular values.  I celebrate the secular version of Christmas – celebrating the spirit of giving – but I often have to explain my views to confused onlookers.

I can imagine it would be even tougher for an interfaith couple.  The Washington Post is hosting a forum to discuss the issue.

Perhaps your atheist husband wants that manger scene off the mantel. Your Hindu wife is uncomfortable with the Hebrew blessings before dinner. Your Muslim mother-in-law doesn’t want her grandkids sitting on Santa’s lap.

The holidays can be a minefield for interfaith couples, unearthing disparities that lay mercifully buried throughout the rest of the year. Because the tree isn’t just about the tree, of course. Like the menorah, or Iftar feasts at sundown during Ramadan, it’s about family and ritual, identity and culture.

Apparently 25% of married adults in America are married to someone of a different faith – a number that goes up to 37% if you count different protestant denominations.

Do you think it’s easier or harder when one of the pair is an atheist?  In that situation it’s not just a disagreement about which religion to believe, but a rejection of all religion.

What would you do?

My friend Hemant Mehta (FriendlyAtheist) had a great interview with blogger Nancy Duke on the Chicago Coalition of Reason billboard, atheism, and religion.  The questions gave away her semi-hostile position, but I feel like Hemant did a great job answering in a positive way:

ND: What is ChriFSMas?
HM: Christmas for the Flying Spaghetti Monster followers.

ND: Are you equating Jesus to a Flying Spaghetti Monster? That doesn’t sound like a “Friendly Atheist.” In fact, it sounds a little mean.
HM: Well, the ChriFSMas thing is just a play on words, but there is a FSM movement where the argument is: There’s as much evidence for a Flying Spaghetti Monster as there is for any other God. So, why not worship the former and not the latter? It’s tongue-in-cheek, but I think it makes a good point. In any case, I think Christmas is a good time for everyone to give presents and spend time with loved ones. It’s not limited to Christians.

Oof.  She’s clearly looking for a fight.  An interesting exchange came near the end:

ND: One more question and then a few quick hits to wrap it up. You mentioned that after research, you couldn’t find evidence to support any of your previous religious ideas. But isn’t that the point? Isn’t faith supposed to be based in a belief of not needing evidence, not needing proof? It wouldn’t be faith if you needed evidence and facts, because that’s called science. So, why use science or atheism or anything else to debunk religion when religion is based on embracing something you cannot prove, i.e. faith?

HM: Yes, relying on faith is the opposite of relying on evidence. However, I was always taught my beliefs as if they were facts. I don’t know of any Christian churches that say, “We believe Jesus resurrected after three days but we don’t actually know that for sure.” No, they say it as if it were true and proven and factual.

I discovered at 14 that my beliefs, which I always believed were factual, were just ideas that people of my faith shared and there was no good reason to believe any of it was true. I guess I discovered that my faith was indeed faith. And I decided I wanted to rely on things that were evidence-based and actually factual. That led me to atheism. It doesn’t say that God doesn’t exist, but atheism says that there’s no good evidence for God’s existence, so why bother believing in one. To me, that’s honest.

Bewildering image and caption:

---

Facts are fun! …
Sometimes.

This meme is what we need to combat in America, and Hemant does a good job explaining why he dismissed faith.  It’s not a reason to belive something is true.  It’s funny that both sides are saying “there’s no evidence for this belief!” but meaning it in completely opposite ways.  It is central to our arguments that people need reasons to assert something as true.  If they don’t accept that basic tenant of thinking, literally any belief is acceptable.

A big distinction that I make time and time again is that we’re never looking for proof – we’re looking for a reasonable amount of evidence to support the level of belief.  It would be a positive step if churches did what Hemant suggested – admit their own uncertainty and instead use stories as non-authoritative metaphors about life.

I’m a bit puzzled – and concerned – that Duke had a small clipart of someone pointing to a chart with the caption: “Facts are fun! … Sometimes.”  What in the world is that supposed to convey?  In context of the discussion – it was right next to the above blockquote – it wasn’t saying that sometimes the world isn’t as we wish it to be.  No, it seems to be dismissing the very value of facts when assessing a worldview.  “Facts are great unless they contradict my beliefs!”

How do you respond to such brazen disregard for logical thinking?

[Update:] You raise the point that this might be a Poe, especially given the “Keeping democracy intact since 1912″ slogan. If it’s satire, it’s remarkably subtle. I’m looking into it. What do you guys think?

Just in case you wanted another opportunity to discuss the vandalism of atheist ads, there’s another incident in Boston:

It… kind of makes sense? Not completely sure what they were going for.

My friend Hemant over at FriendlyAtheist pointed out a hilarious coincidence that the vandals could have exploited: If they put a single period in the web address, instead of going to the Boston Coalition of Reason, visitors find themselves at the Church of Resurrection website. Almost as funny as when people make a mistake trying to get to Whitehouse.gov…

The Indianapolis Public School system has a policy to ban certain websites from being viewed at school.  I certainly hated it when I was in high school (we found ways to bypass it if course) but it’s a reasonable idea.  And the list of subjects banned is pretty straightforward: Pornography, Social Networking, Atheism and “Alternative Spirituality”, Games –

Wait, what?  Sites on ‘alternative spirituality’ are banned?  From the policy (pdf hosted on FFRF website):

“Sites that promote and provide information on religions such as Wicca, Witchcraft or Satanism.  Occult Practices, atheistic views, voodoo rituals or other forms of mysticism are represented here…  This category includes sites which discuss or deal with paranormal or unexplained events.”  [emphasis mine]

Any site addressing LGBT issues or sexual identity is also banned – great idea for the kids going through confusing times, right?

Ok, first of all, I don’t know why “atheistic views” are in the same category as Satanism.  But ignoring that idiocy, this is hugely discriminatory.  “Normal” religious sites are allowed, but not the “scary minority” religious views.  I could understand if all religious sites were banned but there’s no way to justify banning only some.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is on the case, writing a letter to the superintendent and urging people to voice their concerns.

What is so threatening about our billboard ads?

I don’t understand why religious individuals get so offended by the words “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.” or “Millions are good without God.” They have an absolute right to be offended and an absolute right to speak out against our peaceful message. What they don’t have is the right to stifle our speech.

First they vandalized the billboard in Moscow, Idaho. Twice.

Now, the Cincinnati Coalition of Reason billboard is being taken down and moved because the landowner leasing the space was receiving multiple threats.

Around 2:00 PM yesterday, the United Coalition of Reason, which paid $3,875.00 for a one-month run of the billboard, was contacted by Lamar Advertising of Cincinnati. Lamar reported that the landowner of the site had been threatened over the billboard’s message and wanted it taken down. Lamar only leases the land the billboard stands on.

“We weren’t given the landowner’s name or precise details,” reported Fred Edwords, national director of the United Coalition of Reason. “Nor did we pursue them. It was sufficient to learn that this person had received multiple, significant threats and that Lamar would act quickly to alleviate the problem.”

Edwords added: “Lamar was most apologetic to us regarding the situation. It was a development they hadn’t expected. Nor had we. Nothing like this has ever happened to us before.”

I think everyone involved is handling the situation well – the Cincinnati CoR is concerned for the owner, the advertising company will accommodate the move, and it sounds as though everyone is being civil and reasonable.

Oh, except the people making threats. Seriously, what’s their problem?

On Sunday, November 1st, plainclothes and uniformed police who had been called in earlier by officials of the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago (EHSC) dragged out, maced and arrested a man for videotaping Sunsara Taylor as she stood near her seat and made a statement before the start of that morning’s program about the shameful cancellation of her long planned talk to EHSC that day on the topic “Morality without Gods.”

The shocking incident took place at the insistence of the president of EHSC. About 40 people witnessed the videographer being brutalized by the police in the foyer of the facility. An attorney demanded that the police stop brutalizing him when five officers piled on him as he lay face down on the floor. 6 police cars arrived within minutes.

The day before, during a workshop on the same premises which the president and other board members of the EHS were at, Sunsara explained very clearly that she would be attending the opening of the EHS’s Sunday gathering and giving the EHS the opportunity to do the right thing and allow her talk to go forward, up until the last minute. If the EHS still refused to let her give her talk, she explained that she would leave and give her talk in “exile” at the nearby home of one of the EHS members.

This is being discussed over at Pharyngula and Friendly Atheist already, but this story is so weird that I think it deserves continued publicity.

It doesn’t seem like anyone knows the reason why the police arrested this man. What a mess.

Update: There is another version of events in the comments. Hopefully there will be something official put up soon.

Students and community members filled the Woodburn Hall auditorium Monday for a debate about the controversial Bloomington Transit bus advertisement, which says “You can be good without God.”

The debate featured Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, who discussed the merits of the atheist ad campaign with Dan Waugh, pastor of Adult Ministries at the Evangelical Community Church in Bloomington.

“There is no absolute moral guideline in the Bible,” Barker said in his opening remarks. “If you are motivated to be a good person because of the promise of heaven, that shows how little you think of others.”

The debate was highlighted by varying moments of humor and tension. Barker drew surprised gasps from some audience members when he called out Waugh for practicing faith in vain, calling his God a “petty, vain, insecure, egotistical being.”

Barker’s arguments centered around the idea that morality is a human trait, defined by the goal of minimizing harm. He said that there is no purpose of life, only purpose in life.

Waugh responded by saying “good is a function of purpose. If there is no God, then all that is left is nature, and nature cannot communicate meaning or purpose.”

Which is why we make our own purpose and meaning. Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

A few years ago I had the house to myself as my parents were on holiday. In their bedroom there was a touch-lamp. The first day I was alone, I was certain that the lamp wasn’t on. If it had been, I would have noticed it as I walked past the bedroom regularly, and I would have surely turned it off. The following day, however, I noticed that it was on. Nobody was in the house to turn it on. What could it have been?

I could have concluded, quickly, that it was ghost. But that would be dismissing all other possibilities. What I did consider was that the temperatures in Adelaide had soared to the mid-40s on this particular day. That absolutely had the ability to cause the touch-lamp to malfunction. Electronics and heat are notorious for interacting. Here, what seems more plausible, a real-world, material explanation, or one that appeals to the supernatural?

It’s worth reading the whole thing.

Australian atheists are under attack, with the websites of both the Atheist Foundation of Australia and the Global Atheist Convention knocked offline in a major cyber attack yesterday afternoon.

The “distributed denial of service” attacks flooded the websites with traffic, forcing them offline about 5.20pm yesterday.

As of this morning, the foundation had still not been able to restore the websites.

The attacks may be related to the Global Atheist Convention, which is being held in Melbourne in March next year. Speakers include Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and comedy writer Catherine Deveny.

A film which doesn’t tell you what to believe, but asks you what you believe. A little more than three-years ago, a journalist named, Nathan Lang, our storyteller, along with a few buddies, also journalists, set out on an expedition of sorts. They were in search of the meaning of God, which if you know them, is peculiar because Nathan, at least, is not religious. But they would do it by way of exploring what God looks like to us, or in other words, how we view God.

Follow along as they construct a curious Box and take it to iconic street corners and small towns, across the country. Inside The Box, there’s a stool, a drawing table, a sketchpad and pencils, plus microphones and cameras to record all the action. The Box, which becomes a main character in its own story, is a vessel for people to step inside and answer the two, fundamental questions the film asserts: What does God mean to you? What does God look like to you? What happens next is a complete wildcard. Some people draw. Some people get angry. Everyone who goes in there is moved to self-expression.

It’s an intimate peek inside our feelings – which is all we’ve got, since it’s impossible to come by facts about God. Then with the help of an engaging collection of theologians, scholars and an archeologist, we analyze the answers and drawings. Why do we have these images and ideas in our heads? Is this really God? This expedition leads down an evocative trail from our twenty-first century perspectives to the roots of our inspirations. One cannot help but be transported inside The Box and once inside, as the filmmaker finds out, one cannot help being transformed by the experience. God In The Box offers you a unique window to examine the views of others and a mirror to examine your own.

Here’s the trailer:

It started to bother me greatly that God’s institutions—ones He was supposed to be guiding—were often more corrupt than their secular counterparts. If these churches were infused and guided by the Holy Spirit, shouldn’t it follow that they would function in a morally superior fashion than a corporation or government entity?

In general, I was finding this wasn’t the case. I started to see that religious institutions are more susceptible to corruption than their secular counterparts because of their reliance on God, and not human checks and balances, for governance.

—William Lobdell, Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America—and Found Unexpected Peace (2009), p. 161

Indeed, you would think that God’s institutions would be morally superior to secular institutions — just like you would expect God’s people to be morally superior to be secular folks. But as we all know, that has not been the case. And far too often, the situation is reversed.

Then again, it’s not at all surprising from the perspective that it’s all bunk.

A man decided to check his answer (being “no”), which caused him to be arrested. Here is his email to the authorities:

On Friday 18th September 2009 at 3.45pm I was confronted with a questionnaire which I understand was lawfully pinned to the wall on London Bridge railway station, platforms 1 and 2, inviting members of the public to participate by ticking the appropriate box.

The question, “Does God Exist”, was very straight forward, and “No” was obviously the correct answer. I was particularly concerned that vulnerable people exposed to the alternative answers of “Yes” and “Probably” were at risk of exploitation by individuals who might attach a set of rules and obligations to those who hope that some super-being will take responsibility for their lives, or intervene in some other way.

I felt the offered answer “Probably”, to be particularly sinister. It was for this reason I chose to engage with the questionnaire and ensure that the correct answer was ticked. As a result of responding to this questionnaire I was arrested by a plain clothes police officer. Two other plain clothes police officers were in attendance. I was informed that I had been seen ticking the correct answer on CCTV.

As I sat caged in the back of the police van I counted 6 police officers who were attending this incident, which was presented to me as being criminal damage. My tick was entirely within the specified “No” box, and the questionnaire was not damaged in any way. Interestingly the arresting police officer spent much of his time ticking similar multiple choice boxes on a questionnaire of his own. I understand that I am required to pay an £80 penalty notice fine, or attend court. I am left with little choice but to ask that this matter be dealt with by the court.

If you’d like to take the quiz without being arrested, you can do so on their website.