Guest Contributor

St. Joseph Skeptics Sign Stolen

December 26, 2009 By Guest Contributor 16 Comments

by Sjskeptic

stolen-sign The St. Joseph Skeptics had their sign stolen. It was a small sign that simply said, “Be Good For Goodness Sake,” and included the name of the organization and its website. It survived for three days until someone decided it was out of place surrounded by Christmassy style displays and ran off with it.

For nearly 30 years the City of St. Joseph, Missouri, has turned its Hyde Park into “Holiday Park” with nearly a mile of lighted tunnels, snowmen, Santas and a crèche complete with the requisite shepherds and wise men. After several months delay processing a request, the Parks Department consented to the Skeptics display and the group had the sign in place for the park opening the day after Thanksgiving. Two days later the sign, three supporting posts and even the light provided by the Parks Department had disappeared. About the same time, the organization’s web site was attacked and filled with profanity.

Two comments in the local newspaper are also worth noting:

“I want to know how (such) a group…can hold a meeting in a public building such as the Rolling Hills Library. Especially since it is a tax payer funded facility.”

“It also sickens me that this group was given a display in Holiday Park this year. While their message was not a bad one, what they state on their website has a certain connotation about it. I will post the quote. ‘As this was our first attempt at displaying our beliefs (or lack of them) we felt subtlety was called for. All in all, the work seemed worthwhile.’ ”

On the other hand, more than one comment said that stealing the sign was a “shame” and it “diminishes everyone.” Still, one person suggested the group stole the sign themselves to become martyrs. Others indicated that members of the Skeptics were a “group of gays,” none had jobs, and the members had “self-righteous attitudes.”

One of the Skeptic members posted:

The sign said “Be Good For Goodness Sake.” This is not only a line from a Christmas song, “Santa Claus Is Coming to Town,” it also expresses a different belief: You don’t need reward or threat of punishment to be good. It can come from intellectual understanding of your place within society.

As the theft of the sign illustrates, promise of future reward or punishment does not seem to work, so maybe doing the right things should be simply a personal choice.

It wasn’t surprising that drew little comment.

Undeterred, and aided by a $150 donation from the American Atheists sign fund, the St. Joseph Skeptic Society continued with plans to erect a duplicate sign in the same place. There is little hope it will remain.

Filed Under: Atheism, Current Events 16 Comments

SPAG and the Liberal Christian

December 23, 2009 By Guest Contributor 53 Comments

by Vincent Skolny

A couple months ago, Unreasonable Faith published one of my articles explaining why all Christianity is necessarily Self Projection as God (SPAG). A common confusion about (or maybe a regular misrepresentation of) SPAG is that it applies only to fundamentalist or ultraconservative Christians who attempt to harmonize the bible.

That’s not the case.

Harmonizing Passages

In some sense, SPAG depends on an incoherent bible. A true and cogent religious revelation would make faithfulness possible. Lacking one, faithfulness is a meaningless term and the Christian, to be a Christian, must construct a god and define faithfulness to it.

That’s the point of the confusion: Self Projection as God is necessary because the bible is unintelligible and false, but it doesn’t depend on the Christian’s effort to harmonize the bible. It only depends on the Christian’s decision to rationalize the bible.

Once that decision has been made, the methods of rationalizing the incoherency will vary just as the SPAGs’ contents will vary. They’ll vary with individual Christians, but they’re all Self Projections as God.

Remember that Christians agree only that some parts of the bible don’t count. They don’t agree what those parts are nor do they agree on what to do with those parts. All Christians won’t proceed in the same manner, but they will each proceed with the same purpose: to rationalize the bible in a way that’s personally pleasing.

Some Christians do that by attempting a biblical harmony. Most do not.

Of course, the fundamentalists’ preferences in harmonizing the bible are SPAGs. Some fundies try to harmonize the bible around the idea that God wants to save all humans. Others try to harmonize it around the idea that God arbitrarily saves some and condemns others. The bible says both, so it’s “harmonized” according to which sort of god a particular fundamentalist prefers.

But why is that different from the liberal Christian who SPAGs a universalist god and simply doesn’t believe the verses about hell and has no interest in harmonizing them?

How are either the fundy or the liberal unlike the moderate Christian that declares god chooses for salvation those he “foresaw” accepting his offer of salvation and explains away opposing verses with clever hermeneutics or nifty biblical criticisms?

Aren’t they all doing exactly the same thing—choosing which parts of the bible to embrace and how to deal with pieces that don’t fit?

If they’re not, why do they each have proof texts?

The difference between fundies and liberals and every Christian on the continuum between them isn’t the fact of SPAG. The difference is in the verses they choose to SPAG and what they do with the verses that don’t fit their SPAGs—whether forcing the pieces in (fundies), throwing the pieces away (liberals), or trimming the pieces to shape (moderates).

SPAG doesn’t depend on the Christian denying that the bible is rife with contraries and contradictions, but only upon her or his unwillingness to reject the bible and its (SPAGged) god because of that fact.

The Liberal SPAG

Let’s consider the most liberal thinking Christians among the confessing populace, the ones that not only accept and even embrace the errors, but also reject the physical and historical resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It would be gratuitous to name the bible verses and passages that say otherwise — from the legends of empty tombs, through claims of physical manifestations of the risen Jesus like the famous tale of Doubting Thomas, to Paul’s declaration that if Christ is not risen, then Christians are the most pitiable of all humans — yet the liberal Christian rejects the physical resurrection, choosing instead to believe a spiritual resurrection, a metaphor of social liberation, or simply no resurrection at all.

Still, that Christian (rejecting what the majority of Christians declares to be the central doctrine of faith) remains a Christian and does not reject the tales of Jesus as he or she rejects the tales of Zeus or Thor or Allah.

The resurrection-denying Christian still embraces as ultimately true both the bible and the god that it reveals. As does every other Christian, she or he does so precisely according to his or her own needs and preferences.

All Christianity is Self-Projection as God.

Vincent Skolny is an entrepreneur and founder of The Avangelism Project

Filed Under: Bible, Bible Absurdities & Contradictions, Christianity, God 53 Comments

Islamophobia and Swiss Minarets

December 3, 2009 By Guest Contributor 211 Comments

by Custador

mosque-sunset The Swiss, perhaps the only people on Earth to practise direct democracy, took a vote recently on whether to ban the building of minarets (the towers outside of mosques where Imams used to stand to call Muslims to prayer before the introduction of loud-speakers) in their country.

A majority of them voted in favour of the ban. I think it’s unfortunate that moderate Muslims have been caught out in what is probably a reaction by the Swiss to extremist Muslims elsewhere in Europe, but I’m really not surprised. Looking at Muslim extremism in Britain today, I see the like of Abbu Hamzah preaching hatred and I see a lot of deluded young men who want to make Britain an Islamic republic.

Is that frightening to the non-Muslim masses? Of course! Combine that with the 7/7 attacks and the attempted (but thankfully botched) 21/7 attacks on London and it becomes obvious where what I call “domestic Islamophobia” comes from.

Yes, most Muslims are moderate and peaceful, but those that are not (and the number is disproportionate to other religions) are so extreme that the question has to be asked: Would we be better off not having Islam in Britain at all?

I have to say that I think we would, not just because of those who want to physically attack us, but also because of those who would seek to take us over by whatever other means.

The idea of going back through eight hundred years of social development again disgusts me. Here I will put my hand in the air and admit that I am, to all intents and purposes, a racist. There is no question of that. I detest seeing women dressed in black from head to toe with just a veiled eye-slit as their window on the world.

I find it abhorrent that, in the 21st century and in a Western country, my country, such opression of women is tollerated. So when I see couples where the woman is dressed like that, my first reaction is to dislike and distrust the man. Is that wrong of me? Without a doubt, yes it is. But am I alone? Hardly.

In fact, as I think the Swiss vote yesterday amply demonstrates, my reaction is probably quite mild compared to most. On this site, Daniel gives us a platform to debate religion, and naturally that debate mostly encompasses Christianity, since that is what we are all affected by the most. In Europe, however, that is changing.

So am I a lone racist? Did the Swiss get this wrong? Should religious freedom take precedence at all costs? You tell me.

Filed Under: Islam, Questions, Religion 211 Comments

Why the Communist Argument Fails

August 13, 2009 By Guest Contributor 74 Comments

by OneSTDV

Dead Bodies Over at Friendly Atheist, Hemant posted this video featuring a dialogue about atheism. The religious participants offer trite arguments concerning atheism’s supposed intolerance. At 1:57, a religious think tank commenter drudges up Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao as evidence for the purported terror associated with atheism. This exceedingly simplistic and reductionist argument belies the actual basis of these totalitarian systems and its parallels to the Church and religious fervor.

While the dictators mentioned were all non-believers, their intellectual basis and central objectives differ markedly from the scientific and logic-based atheism most common today. The historic argument for atheism’s noxiousness almost always points to Communist leaders and their regimes. In this case, the aforementioned dictators fit the criterion. Each led a violent and suffocating brand of Communism that resulted in the deaths of many innocent people. The argument seems to mirror the atheist argument against religion, using institutions like the Gulag as proxies for the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Why the Argument Fails

Yet, the religious argument fails for two reasons. First, the primary motivations differ in the two cases. Religious uprising and violence are explicitly caused by religious texts and/or the relevant interpretation of these scriptures. Religious zealots act “in the name” of religion, using supernatural justification for their actions. Contrastingly, while Communist regimes did support atheism, none of their actions could derive from some universal laws of atheism. Atheism exists as merely a lack of belief, not as a moral or social guide. Thus, it’s inconceivable that a lack of belief could dictate one’s actions, especially in regards to violence. Communist leaders were motivated by political power, not the edicts of a moral system that atheism doesn’t even espouse.

Second, the religious argument falsely depicts Communism as an atheistic system in the same mold as modern atheism. The link between atheism and Communism is tenuous at best. The purveyors of Communism didn’t arrive at disbelief through rational thought, reasoned analysis, or scientific rumination. Rather, they promulgated disbelief in order to subvert the most powerful opposing institution to the State: the Church. To define Communism as a godless system is to misrepresent the motives and underpinnings of their government structure. It wasn’t about ultimate truth, it was about ultimate State power.

This spurious characterization of Communism as an atheistic system belies its’ dominating faith-based aspects. The familiar structures of the Church and religious belief are all present in Communist systems. In fact, one could easily define it as a religion, wherein “thoughtcrimes” replace sin, denigration of individualism exists as a proxy for the sin of avarice, omniscience of the State as proxy for God’s presence, indoctrinating constituency with “faith” in the State instead of faith in the Church/God, revising historical events replacing the flexibility of Biblical interpretation as justifying almost any action, and the cult-like worship for dictators replacing God-worship.

These societies were not based on secularism as defined by Dawkins and other atheists. Communism was defined by adherence to a pervasive and suffocating governing body, much like religion. Faith was simply transferred from unseen, intangible powers into the hands of an opaque State regularly engaging in duplicity.

The religious argument using Communist dictators fails because the underlying premise of Communism’s secularism is undoubtedly false. Instead, it proves that undying faith and fanatical obedience to any authority is ultimately harmful.

OneSTDV is an unabashedly honest blogger at OneSTDV

Filed Under: Apologetics, Atheism, Religion 74 Comments

Fight Dogma, Not Religion

August 10, 2009 By Guest Contributor 114 Comments

by Teleprompter

Street Preacher As the number and visibility of atheists and other freethinkers increases, some spectators have questioned whether atheists are becoming more fundamentalist.

Let chaos ensue: how does one judge who is fundamentalist and who is not? What does it mean to be a fundamentalist — are vegetarians, environmental activists or gun rights supporters fundamentalists, too? Where does one draw the line?

Meanwhile, atheists contend that they are subject to a vicious double standard: when nontheistic individuals speak prominently about their beliefs in public, they are lambasted as fundamentalists; yet when popular religious figures share their ideas, they are hailed as devout.

How many people have been dismissed as fundamentalists only because their beliefs are unpopular? How does the term “fundamentalist” retain its meaning in the context of those who do not wield it thoughtfully?

“Why are atheists so uptight about religion?” I have been asked. “Isn’t that a form of fundamentalism?”

People are confused. There is a lack of transparency in the public religious dialogue which prevents meaningful consideration of the issues. Many people are baffled by what atheists want and who is fundamentalist and who isn’t.

How can freethinkers solve this problem of misguided perception?

Individual atheists must clarify why they oppose certain aspects of religion, and there must be a common meaning to the term “fundamentalist” that is universally accepted.

If atheists want more people to understand and support their ideas, they must clearly and plainly answer these two questions.

Is “New Atheism” Misguided?

Pullquote: I believe that most of the criticisms made by the “Four Horsemen” are accurate, but why are they accurate?

Many observers have argued that “new atheists” such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have presented a distorted version of religion in their writings.

Can any critique of religion adequately capture the diversity of opinion which is represented by the entirety of the world’s religious traditions? This task may be impossible for any popular treatment of religion to accomplish.

However, critics of the “Four Horsemen” (the nickname which has been bestowed upon writers Dawkins and Hitchens, along with writers Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett) still insist that even the summarized view of religion expounded by these authors is badly mangled.

Do Dawkins and his allies intentionally state falsehoods? Have they said untrue things about religion? I believe that most of the criticisms made by the “Four Horsemen” are accurate, but why are they accurate?

Dogma: Not As Good As The Movie

Pullquote: When individuals believe in their ideas absolutely, then they will be prepared to do absolutely anything for their ideas.

Dogmatism is the belief that an opinion or viewpoint about the world must be true no matter what the circumstances may be or what new experiences may indicate. Dogma is the bedrock of fundamentalism.

Whether embraced by cronies of Joseph Stalin or friars of the Spanish Inquisition, dogmatism kills.

It is dogma which leads Pope Benedict XVI to claim that condom use is evil, even though it saves lives. It is dogma which leads parishioners to accept that priests can do no wrong, even when they abuse children.

It is dogmatism which leads to violence. When individuals believe in their ideas absolutely, then they will be prepared to do absolutely anything for their ideas.

Dogmatism is a weakness inherent to all human beings. Both atheists and theists alike are capable of suffering from its effects. Opposing dogmatism universally, instead of opposing religion universally, bridges the us/them divide between the religious and the non-religious.

Pullquote: Opposing dogmatism universally, instead of opposing religion universally, bridges the us/them divide between the religious and the non-religious.

We’re all capable of being irrational, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to be rational: it means that we should try even harder to be rational.

Adherence to dogmatism limits our critical thinking, exposes us to abuse from authority, and leads to underdeveloped empathy and an over-reliance on unalterable rules instead of real-life experience.

Not all religion is dogmatic. Not all atheists are dogmatic. All people should oppose dogmatism, whether they are religious or not.

However, it should be acknowledged that religion is highly likely to lead to dogmatism, and religious people should heed the criticisms of Dawkins and his peers.

Most importantly, the proper antidotes for dogmatism are skepticism and critical thinking. If atheists really want to switch the frame of reference for theists, then they should oppose dogmatism by elevating skepticism and critical thinking. Then, change will be inevitable.

Teleprompter blogs at Avert Your Eye.

Filed Under: Atheism, Christianity, Fundamentalism, Religion 114 Comments

St. Joseph Skeptics Sign Stolen