Miss California Speaks at Christian College

April 30, 2009 By Guest Contributor 34 Comments

It’s two of your favorite things in one place: Liberty University and Miss California Carrie Prejean.

Prejean talks about her “persecution” at the 3:10 mark:

I liked how she says she’s not sure if the whole Perez Hilton question was a setup… Then later says she had to choose his name from a jar. That’s called “randomness,” not a “setup.” Hilton didn’t know who his question would be directed to.

And you have to love one of Prejean’s final lines. After talking about how marriage is under attack by the homosexuals, she adds:

“It’s all about tolerance.”


Filed Under: General, GLBT 34 Comments

How Small Is Our World?

April 30, 2009 By Guest Contributor 21 Comments

This is just awe-inspiring and it comes from the Friendly Atheist Forums.

Click on this link, really take some time and look at those images. Understand the scales of magnitude as best you can.

It’s amazing how insignificant we are in the grand scheme of the universe.

Forumite Chal quoted the extremely relevant Carl Sagan:

Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

Pale blue dot? That’s putting it generously.

I don’t know very much about astronomy. But seeing that sort of visual makes me want to soak up as much information about the subject as I can.

It really does make the idea of a personal God who watches over you seem so… small. There’s so much more going on out there that we don’t know about.

(via FA Forums — Thanks to what for starting the thread.)

Filed Under: General, Science 21 Comments

Black Agnostic Wants to Leave Church

April 30, 2009 By Guest Contributor 13 Comments

This letter to Salon‘s advice columnist Cary Tennis will be familiar to a lot of readers:

I am an African-American male who, after several years of being a conservative, evangelical Christian, now considers myself to be a “Jesus-admiring, agnostic humanist” who also attends weekly church services at a predominantly African-American Missionary Baptist congregation with my conservative Christian wife. In light of this, I have long agonized over the idea of announcing my philosophical position to my Christian spouse, family and friends.

He’s risking a lot by coming out. But perhaps he’ll be worse off if he keeps this to himself.

Tennis actually has good advice at first:

Now, of course, in a way your wife does love exactly who you are. I feel sure that there is something about your questioning nature, your rational mind, your courage, your clear-eyed vision, that she does love deeply. Nonetheless, when we reveal who we really are, it changes the nature of love. It changes how we are loved, and for what. She can no longer love you as a churchgoing man if you stop going to church.

And there is the frightening possibility hovering at the edges that our lover might not love us at all, but only the false self we have presented. We do love characters in movies and books that are not real. Why should we not fall in love with other invented characters? For that matter, how could anyone love our true self if we have kept our true self secret?

So you risk a lot. But you risk it for the biggest prize of all: to be loved for who you really are.

Of course, Tennis screws it all up with his last couple paragraphs.

One commenter raises a point that makes this man’s case unique, though, addressing the cultural issues that are a part of the black atheist’s quandary:

… I know how gut-wrenching such a separation will be because the black Protestant community is not just a place one goes to worship, it literally can become the social center of one’s life. Voluntarily cutting himself off from his religious community is like suffering a cherem. It’s worse than excommunication; it’s literally a social exclusion which could seriously damage his marriage and literally leave him isolate…

So how would you advice this person?

Should he come out and be honest?

Should he suck it up and keep his cultural ties to church even if he doesn’t believe in God?

Normally, I’m all for people coming out as atheists. This twist makes it a lot harder, though, and I’m not so quick to think I know the answer.

(via Racialicious — Thanks to Eliza for the link!)

Filed Under: General 13 Comments

Greydon Square is an Atheist Icon?

April 30, 2009 By Guest Contributor 13 Comments

Martin Cizmar of the Phoenix New Times has a feature article on atheist rapper Greydon Square:

Without a doubt, Greydon Square is as contradictory and complex a figure as you’ll find making music in Phoenix. Not that most people know all that stuff. Internationally — and this ASU student you’ve probably never heard of has an international fan base — he’s known chiefly as “that atheist rapper.”

Thanks to name-checking by Richard Dawkins (for organized atheists, the equivalent of an Oprah endorsement) and a somewhat hilarious/puzzling/scary Web drama, he’s the major atheist in rap music.

They talk about his altercation with Brian Sapient at last summer’s AHA convention, too.

The most prominent event was an altercation with his former manager, Brian Sapient, founder of the Rational Response Squad, a militant atheist organization. Accounts vary, but in a dispute about CD sales at a secular humanist convention in Washington, D.C., Greydon assaulted Sapient, for which he was put on probation. The event touched off a firestorm of online bickering among everyone involved.

It wasn’t a pretty scenario. And it put a damper on the convention for several of the students who were there. The Secular Student Alliance had paid for him to travel to and perform at the convention. That never happened because of his fight.

I’m actually surprised the New Times found Greydon. He promised to pay us back for not performing. He hasn’t kept that promise and he hasn’t responded to any of our emails.

It’s too bad. He’s a talented guy who has severed the ties he had with national atheist organizations when he could’ve been the king.

Filed Under: Fine Arts, General 13 Comments

Believing in the Face of Contradiction

April 30, 2009 By 21 Comments

This post is by Jesse Galef, who works for the American Humanist Association. He usually blogs at Rant & Reason.

Jesse will now be a regular contributor to this site, so please welcome him to the group!

…

PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne each have posts mocking BioLogos, the Templeton Foundation-funded website by Francis Collins. Myers describes it as “fluffy bunnies and pious weasels to reconcile science and faith. It’s a rich vein of the worst of pseudo-scientific apologetics, and I am stunned by it — not because I am impressed by the substance, but because it is such a target-rich environment.”

Indeed, I’m almost paralyzed by the choices. Let’s start with their answer to the Problem of Evil/Suffering. They actually have a section titled “A God Who is Great but Mysterious“:

One response to the problem of evil that is necessary but ambivalent is to acknowledge that God’s ways are not our ways. God is greater than we are, with purposes that may differ greatly from ours. Even though we may not be able to see any reasons for our suffering, it is always possible that a God of such wisdom and creative power might have reasons for the existence of evil that are simply beyond human understanding.

This tactic has always impressed me for its sheer audacity. They admit that their observations don’t fit with their beliefs, and yet they consider it MORE evidence that God is greater and higher than we can imagine.

A friend of mine told me that faith is so simple a child can understand it but so complex the smartest scholar cannot. She was not amused by my earnest follow-up question on why faith only makes sense to those without critical thinking skills.

This is one of my biggest objections to the notion of faith. When a theory makes no sense or is contradicted by evidence, we should discard it. But with faith, you’re considered even more virtuous for believing in the face of contradiction!

Our lives are improved when we observe reality and adapt to it.  We observe that medicine is the best way to cure disease, and we’re able to keep our children alive.  We observe that species change over time, and we gain new understanding of our world and its workings.  We observe that people of other faiths (or none) can be good people, and we have a more harmonious society.

I once had a debate over whether we can blame religion for the actions of religious adherents – or is it just being abused by dangerous individuals who deserve the real blame.  While those people are at fault as well, I say that any belief system which actively encourages people to ignore opposing views and evidence can be held responsible for the negative consequences.

I think the line most offensive to me is from John 20:29 — “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

How much more blatant can you get?

Filed Under: General, Jesse Galef, Science 21 Comments

Bible Extra Credit Professor Gets Admonished

April 30, 2009 By Guest Contributor 18 Comments

The other day, I posted about Professor Sophia Wilberscheid of Indian River State College in Fort Pierce, Florida who put an extra credit question dealing with Bible knowledge on a final exam for Introduction to Computer Applications for Business.

There’s been a resolution to the story, courtesy of James Kirley of the TCPalm newspaper.

An Indian River State College teacher’s extra credit question on a final exam wound up as discussion on a Web site devoted to atheism, prompting school authorities to require the teacher to take extra training on how to administer tests.

“Our policy requires teachers to adhere to the course content for testing,” said Michelle Abaldo, IRSC director of institutional advancement. “The instructor acknowledged that she did not adhere to that policy.”

The student who called out the professor actually spoke very highly of her.

So the professor was properly admonished. No further punishments needed — as long as she doesn’t do it again.

If only all cases of Christians injecting religion into places it doesn’t belong were handled this smoothly.

(via Atheism Examiner)

Filed Under: General 18 Comments

This Is What An Atheist Looks Like: Part 6

April 29, 2009 By Guest Contributor 11 Comments

Flickr user jaynedemarco is back with more of her nifty artwork. The theme is: “This is what an atheist looks like.”

Previous editions can be found here, here, here, here, and here.

Among the new additions:

Eddie Izzard (there’s a less manly version, too):

izzard2

Ani Difranco:

ani

Pat Tillman:

tillman

You can see the entire collection here.

(via Jayne DeMarco)

Filed Under: Fine Arts, General 11 Comments

How Seriously Should Religious Liberals Take Jesus?

April 29, 2009 By Guest Contributor 42 Comments

There are many religious liberals who insist that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. We should not trust what is written in the Old Testament — rather, we should only trust in and listen to Jesus.

But Jesus says a lot of things that are ridiculous and untrue.

So where do they draw the line? Is it possible for them to say, “Jesus was wrong” in these cases?

Godless Girl points out several Biblical passages that could pose problems for the “follow Jesus” crowd.

… in a few passages, we see Jesus shows no more wisdom about science, history, or mythology than his followers. Either he did not know, or he did not tell the whole truth. If he did not tell the whole truth, why should we trust what he says? If he did not know better, why should we think he was a sinless god?

She points to a number of passages.

In Luke 17:26-27, Jesus says Noah and the Ark and the Great Flood were real:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.

People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

In Matthew 12:40, Jesus states that they story of Jonah and the Whale is real:

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

In Mark 10:6, Jesus advocates Creationism, not Evolution:

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

In Matt 21:18-22, Jesus makes a fig tree wither and tells people they can make mountains move:

Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.

When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked.

Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”

So can liberal Christians unequivocally say Jesus didn’t know what he was talking about in these cases? Or do they say that his words, too, were open to interpretation?

And if that’s the case, why should we take anything Jesus says at face value?

(via Godless Girl)

Filed Under: General 42 Comments

When Should a Fetus Be Given Rights?

April 29, 2009 By 61 Comments

This guest post is by Jesse Galef, who works for the American Humanist Association. He usually blogs at Rant & Reason.

…

This is the second time this month I’ve agreed with Steven Waldman. Uncanny and unexpected.

In his piece on Beliefnet, he makes the case that our abortion policy shouldn’t focus on a distinct line between life and not-life. It’s a gradual process in which the embryo develops into a fetus and eventually into a conscious being.

[C]onsider this statistical couplet. According to a 2007 survey commissioned by a progressive think tank called Third Way, 69 percent of Americans believe abortion is the “taking of a human life,” but 72 percent believe it should be legal:

Let that soak in. Most people think abortion is taking a human life and yet favor the procedure being legal. How grotesque! Are we Americans utterly immoral?

Actually, what the data proclaim is something that politicians and activists can’t: Most Americans believe there are gradations of life. Some living things are more alive than others, and so the later in the pregnancy it gets, the more uncomfortable people become with the idea of ending it. But in reality they believe both that a life stirs very early on and that a one-week-old embryo is more “killable” than a nine-month-old fetus. For them, determining whether “life” begins at conception really doesn’t determine anything.

What we should protect is not just “human life” but consciousness and sentience. The more developed the consciousness, the more rights we should grant it. Humans deserve more respect than apes, which in turn deserve more respect than insects.

As a conscious entity, a woman should have right to control her own body — or protect her health if the pregnancy would put her in danger. But as a fetus develops consciousness, we should afford it more rights and protections as well. It becomes a balancing act with no clear-cut moral authority in the middle. But this isn’t reflected in policy discussions.

We debate whether we should have parental notification — not when we should have it. We question politicians on whether they’d provide government funding for abortion, not ever asking whether subsidies should be provided for early abortions but not late.

The debate has evolved that way in part because of the fundamentally religious nature of the pro-life activist position. The essential point about the position of pro-life activists — including the Catholic Church and conservative evangelicals — is not that they believe “life” begins at conception. It’s that they believe a life that God creates on Day One is morally equivalent to a life at month one or month nine or 18 years.

I’ve usually heard this position linked to the existence of a soul. As I’ve previously written, I find the notion of souls to be utterly absurd, but it goes beyond that. This unsubstantiated supernatural belief leads people to equate the non-sentient blastocyst with a fully-functioning adult. As a result, we were unable to pursue stem-cell research.

It’s a great improvement to look at rights along an analog scale instead of a digital one. Of course, there will still be a great deal of moral grey area. How are we to gauge the competing rights of society, the mother, and the fetus? It’s something we as a society need to discuss and figure out.

Filed Under: Abortion, General, Jesse Galef 61 Comments

Faith Fighter 2: Religious Tolerance

April 29, 2009 By Guest Contributor 9 Comments

The Faith Fighter game released by Molleindustria had to be taken offline after complaints from religious groups worldwide.

But the creators have replaced it with a different game:

We regretted the use of irony and violence and this time we want to offer you a positive, nonviolent educational game that teaches the universal values of tolerance and respect. This is a very simple game that can be played by children of all ages, religious leaders and even journalists!

You can see the sarcasm oozing with every pixel:

failgame

Damn. This one isn’t so easy to win… especially when I spend all my time trying to keep the Flying Spaghetti Monster alive.

(Thanks to ThatOtherGuy for the link!)

Filed Under: General, Humor 9 Comments
« Older Posts