Response to a Christian's question - Why does Dawkins hate God?

On the Twitter, I find myself having an interesting conversation with a Christian who began the talk by asking me if I felt that Dawkins was helping anyone when his message seems to be that he hates God. How can hate be helpful, he asked, and why don't more atheists dedicate themselves to building relationships with the religious community rather than isolating themselves from the religious by way of harsh criticisms of God.

I feel like these are all really good questions, not because of the questions themselves, but they're good questions because they expose a fundamental difference in thought that makes it difficult for theists and atheists to get along.

First off - atheists don't hate God. Some of us hate the concept of God, but to say that an atheist hates God is like saying a Jewish person hates Satan. They don't hate Satan, they don't even believe in Satan. The same is true for atheists and God. Hating a concept is not the same thing as agreeing that a concept physically exists.

I told my twitter pal that if he had questions about Dawkins' personal motivations that he would have to ask him, however I did say that for a lot of people in a lot of areas of the world - the US included - being an atheist openly was a great way to lose your job, lose the support of your family, or otherwise be treated badly. People like Dawkins are appreciated in the atheist community not because they're perceived as being hateful but because they give a lot of people hope and encouragements about themselves as human beings.

How many times have you heard from one source or another that atheists lack morality? That atheists are sub human, incapable of being parents, are inherently selfish, shouldn't be allowed in positions of influence, are untrustworthy, and on and on and on? Is it any surprise that there is an outpouring of support for authors like Dawkins and the like who are publishing books that say - "you're not a bad person for thinking this way. I think this way too, and here's why." Of course people who are atheists are going to look at the bible and say 'why does it contradict itself? If God is loving, why did he kill so many people? Why did he kill babies and tell men to stone their wives and sell their daughters?' When you reject the divinity of something, it's far easier to see all of the parts that comprise the whole.

Logically, this criticism is going to be offensive to the religious. Of course it will be. But I think it's unfair to say that people like Dawkins are wrong or destructive in their actions because they offer the kind of support that a lot of non-religious people need right now. Would it be fair to say that slaves in 1870 who distrusted the forces that oppressed them and worked to create support structures for their people were being unhelpful or hateful because they weren't trying to build bridges with the people who were in positions of influence and power over them? Of course not. Slavery and atheism are vastly different circumstances, but the social repercussions of being an outsider in a society is the same regardless of who is being excluded. I don't think atheists are to a point yet where we have the political or social clout to build bridges - we're still convincing ourselves that we're not broken human beings for rejecting God despite a large, vocal, and powerful group of people who still have no qualms telling us we are!

So no, I don't think Dawkins is a bad guy for what he says or even how he says it. I think he's a reflection of how a lot of atheists feel around the world - we are good people with strong moral values and our lack of belief in God is not an excuse to marginalize us.

Pope: Bigotry is a Form of Religious Freedom!

So, again, the pope is an asshole.

He's now urging clergy in the UK and Wales to oppose an equality bill currently making it's way through Parliament. No, not just oppose - fight with "missionary zeal".

The Pope told the Catholic bishops of England and Wales gathered in Rome: "Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society.

"Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

"In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

That's right, kids! The pope is all for equality, as long as the rights of religious institutions are made paramount. Essentially, everyone IS equal...equally less important than the church and the religiously motivated bigotry the church stands for.

Senior parliamentary officer Jonathan Finney had it right when he said:

"People should not be denied access to services and employment purely because they are gay. We've got to guard against sweeping exemptions seeming to protect one person's freedom, which actually really impact on other people's. What you can't start doing is saying that religious people have hard-won freedoms, we'll now restrict those, we won't give them to gay people, we won't give them to women."

My question is this - does the pope really want to draw parallels between bigotry and religion? Personally, I don't think the bible requires any help in proving that religion promotes bigotry but I have to wonder what the hell the pope is thinking trying to thinly mask his opposition to this equality bill as some kind of crusade for religious rights.

No, guys, you can't force your religious beliefs on others by demanding that rules ought not to apply to you because you interpret your book to say that they shouldn't. Your archaic religious beliefs - masqueraded as 'rights' in this instance because it suits your purpose - do not trump the rights of everyone else.

Baptist Group's Good Intentions Don't Excuse Questionable Behavior

By now I'm sure most people have heard about the Baptist group that's being detained in Haiti for alleged child trafficking.

I want to preface this post by saying that I'm not presuming to know what the intentions of these people were. I don't think, simply because it's a religious group, that these people were up to no good. I think that the hellish reality of Haiti has to be a strain to anyone who is there helping and it's possible that these people felt that their actions were justified or even that they had all the necessary permission to to what they tried to do. My issue isn't with the people or the situation - it's with the christian blogs I've been reading who are ripe with claims of persecution, unfair treatment, and complete innocence.

I'm not saying they're guilty but I think it's ridiculous to claim with any authority that they're innocent.

A few details are of particular interest to me. One being that when the kids were taken from the van they were being transported in they were still hungry, still thirsty. In fact, one of the babies they had with them was so dehydrated he had to be hospitalized. If this group - a group who had access to food and water themselves - were so interested in the well being of the kids they had in their company, why didn't they feed them? Why didn't they give them water?

Another detail that's changed since this story initially broke is what the groups told the parents of the kids which were willingly given to them. The group had pamphlets and were handing them out to people, indicating that they were actively collecting kids rather than offering a helping hand to people already considering giving their children up for adoption. Several of the kids were frightened when they were taken from the group's custody, claiming that they were told they would be taken to boarding schools - not that they would be adopted. These strange allegations are made even more interesting given that several parents whose kids were given over to the group want their kids back, claiming that they had thought that they were sending the kids to a place where they would be well-educated and given a better place to stay, not adopted.

My point is not to paint an entirely negative picture of this group because I personally really want to believe that they had only the best intentions in mind when they took those kids. However, this is far from an open and shut case of a group of helpful people who accidentally broke a few laws in the name of being good Samaritans. These people deserve to be prosecuted for the actions they took. Good intentions or not, I believe the evidence points to an ulterior motive beyond wanting to help.

CBS Makes Their Conservative/Anti- Gay Leanings Clear

Is it a shock that CBS is showing bias toward the religious right agenda?

No.

But it's still infuriating!

CBS has rejected two unrelated ads which were submitted to the company for the coveted Superbowl commercial air time. CBS claims that the rejection of the ads were for different reasons, but it's hard not to notice that both of these particular ads feature homosexual themes, both direct and in-direct.

One of the rejected ads is for a guy dating site called Man Crunch. The site features two dudes watching the game, their hands meeting in a bowl of chips accompanied by a romance-movie-esque embrace and ends with a bewildered friend looking shocked at the turn of events. CBS claims that there were credit issues with the company which is the 'main reason' the commercial was rejected, however the company claims that allegation makes no sense because they offered to pay for the commercial in cash. Man Crunch is a fledgling but well-supported company that has 40 million dollars in investment funds which would easily cover the 2.5 million dollar price tag for the advertising space, but CBS claims they never offered to pay for the air-time in cash. Now that they've made their ability to pay clear, CBS isn't changing it's decision to reject the ad, which seems like a pretty strong indication that some bullshit 'credit' issue had nothing to do with their decision not to run the commercial.

The second ad which was rejected had no overt homosexual themes but it featured an effeminate man whose name is "Lola". The rejection of this ad is far more difficult for CBS to justify, given that the sponsor is a company which has been recognized as a Superbowl commercial fixture for years, GoDaddy.com. GoDaddy does have a commercial which is being aired Superbowl Sunday, but it is not the original commercial they submitted. CBS seems conspicuously silent as to why the first commercial was rejected. I suppose it's a bit more difficult to make up some bullshit excuse about a company whose money you've taken without incident for years.

Now, if CBS were consistent with their position regarding 'controversial' commercials I wouldn't have as big of a problem with this but all of this is happening in the same year that CBS decided to accept a fucking pro-life ad to be run.

So, just for the record - advertisement that advocates a single position on an extremely controversial and polarizing issue: OK. Advertisements geared toward or even alluding to homosexuals which are entirely commercial and advocate only the use of a specific product: Not OK.

If you want to see the ads, check out this blog. This person has also thoughtfully listed the contact information for the appropriate CBS employees if you feel compelled to lodge a complaint. I know I'm going to.

When companies like CBS have control of valuable advertising space and make decisions regarding that space which show a clear bias for or against particular groups, they are guilty of using that space as a political tool to promote a specific agenda. When this agenda is supportive of religious right ideals which promote the reduction of an individuals civil rights, I feel like it's the duty of everyone who values their own civil liberties to speak out.

On Vacation

I'm on vacation for a while. Thank you for your patience and continued interest. I'll try to post here and there as I am able, but for the next few weeks I won't be as consistent as usual. Thanks!

Teen Birth Rates Highest In More Religious States

Not at all surprising, a new study has shown that teen birth rates are highest in states which are considered heavily religious.

U.S. states whose residents have more conservative religious beliefs on average tend to have higher rates of teenagers giving birth, a new study suggests.

The relationship could be due to the fact that communities with such religious beliefs (a literal interpretation of the Bible, for instance) may frown upon contraception, researchers say. If that same culture isn't successfully discouraging teen sex, the pregnancy and birth rates rise.

In a culture which uses sexuality to sell products to people starting at ages as low as ten (Thanks, Disney) it's not at all shocking that abstinence programs fail. The mixed signals kids get from the media regarding the power and allure of sex and their parents who tell them sex is something you should wait to do is not a healthy sexual environment for anyone involved. Pair this with the typical fundamentalist religious reaction to sex - that it's evil and sinful - turns sex itself into a taboo which most teenagers find fascinating. Just say no doesn't work and abstaining for god obviously isn't working either. The one thing that religion does seem to effectively keep kids from doing is having sex intelligently - by using contraception:

However, the results don't say anything about cause and effect, though study researcher Joseph Strayhorn of Drexel University College of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh offers a speculation of the most probable explanation: "We conjecture that religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself."

Ahh, but I can hear the religious nuts now claiming that this study is skewed because kids on less religious states could be getting pregnant just as much if not MORE than religious states, they're just running around having abortion parties to dump their irresponsibly begotten babies so they can go out and have more heathenish orgies. Well, no. Thankfully, the study accounted for abortions and while abortions were higher in less religious states, accounting for those did nothing to change the outcome of the study.

For instance, the results showed more abortions among teenagers in the less religious states, which would skew the findings since fewer teens in these states would have births. But even after accounting for the abortions, the study team still found a state's level of religiosity could predict their teen birth rate. The higher the religiosity, the higher was the teen birth rate on average.

John Santelli of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University calls the study "well-done," adding that the results are not surprising.

"The index of religiosity is tapping into more fundamentalist religious belief," Santelli said. "I'm sure there are parts of New England that have very low teen birth rates, which have pretty high religious participation, but they're probably less conservative, less fundamentalist type of congregations."

And that right there says it all, doesn't it? I would wager that moderate or liberal religious groups are far less likely to do such a good job of denouncing contraception while doing such a terrible job at denouncingsexual activity. It makes perfect sense that this would be a fundamentalist issue - they have to keep their numbers up somehow.

Can An Atheist Be Spiritual?

A lot of people these days are throwing off the oppressive shackles of religion in favor of a more aloof and personal spirituality. My question to atheists is this - do you ever describe yourself as spiritual? Do you consider yourself spiritual in any way?

Some atheists I know claim to be spiritual in public simply because it circumvents the possibly uncomfortable conversation regarding atheism. Because spirituality is commonly understood as a personal feeling or belief that is beyond the material plane, it's a safe statement to make which requires little further explanation. Spirituality is easily transformed by the other person into whatever they think it refers to, and is therefore inoffensive even if your spirituality and their spirituality are completely different.

While I don't believe in the spirit or any other religious nonsense, I do consider myself spiritual. This is because I personally feel that the term spiritual is related to the feelings and reactions I have that are not tangibly anchored. I feel swells of complex emotion when listening to music. I feel filled with an undefinable sense of awe and inspiration in certain places like the desert at night or the ocean. I am sensitive to people's emotions and feel compelled toward compassion and empathy even for people who I dislike or who openly dislike me. These are things which have logical explanations and I don't attribute anything supernatural to them - but I do consider myself spiritual because of them.

Why complicate human reactions and emotions by labeling them as spiritual? Because personally I feel that emotions and reaction are the very root of spirituality. Emotions are something everyone has of course, and while you can map the brain and measure chemicals and somewhat quantify what an emotion is, the way it's received and expressed is very personal and in that reception and expression, I think you find my idea of spirituality.

People who are close to me understand my position. They understand that I have no belief in god or anything supernatural. When I'm having a conversation with someone I don't know very well, 'atheist' is always the first term I assign myself, but if pressed after that I do say that I am somewhat spiritual because I don't know any other succinct way to explain that I don't believe in god, but I do find overwhelming beauty in life and I am often deeply moved by things and people in ways that are entirely relevant to myself in a way that I can't really explain to other people.

One of the things that bothers me about religion is the idea of the shared experience. The feelings I feel which I would consider 'spiritual' aren't things that I expect anyone else to have felt or to really understand. I would never push the reaction I have to a sunset on anyone else and claim that they lack some aspect of humanity because they don't share my feelings of appreciation for it because I respect the fact that everyone is different and beauty is subjective. I understand that my feelings of connectivity are quite possibly completely imaginary and so I usually only talk about that kind of thing with close friends because I don't want or need agreement about those feelings in order to attain any kind of validation for them. It's how I personally feel. The collective religious experience makes little sense to me because I can't see how something so personal could be transformed into a group activity.

I think the term 'spiritual' is something that, while having a literal definition which is definitely religious in origin, is an example of a socially ambiguous idea. My version of spirituality is nothing like what a fundamentalist Christian considers spirituality and is equality different than a Zoroastrian's idea of spirituality and that's OK. I think if you consider yourself spiritual you can also be an atheist, because I think I fit into that category myself.

Ministers To Obama: Find A Church...Think of the Children!

It seems a couple of pearl clutching ministers have felt compelled to voice concern over The Obama family's personal choices regarding religion:

In Minneapolis for the Religion Newswriters Association annual conference, I asked two members of the White House Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships about the ongoing question of the first family finding a local church. It's about the children, is basically what both the Rev. Peg Chemberlin, president-elect of the National Council of Churches, and the former Southern Baptist Convention President Frank Page answered.

"How will the children have a sense of Christian community?'' asked Chemberlin. "That's the pastoral question that's in my heart and I don't know the answer.'' Though she has "no criticism about the decision that they've made,'' she said the question still tugs at her." "How is the family going to get what they need, including the kids? How do they have a sense of Christian community, which for many of us is the formative place?''

This woman talks about Christian community as if Christians have a special kind of social structure that can't be found anywhere else but church. That may be true in regard to indoctrination, but otherwise anything you get from socializing at church you can attain by alternative means. Volunteering at a food bank or pet shelter, participating in community sports, even going to a park on any given day will expose your child to the same kind of community you find at church. Christians do not have any kind of monopoly on social interaction beyond proselytizing their own specific beliefs. It ends there.

If this woman has "no criticisms about the decision that they've made" then why is this being put forth as an issue of concern? This claim seems disingenuous to me - I'm not criticizing, I'm concerned. So are we to believe that your concern is because of something that you...agree with? Are comfortable with? Concern typically arises from actions which are perceived as negative in some way. By making a statement like this, You might be skirting around the edge of criticism, but that's only in regard to semantics. You're criticizing. It's OK, you have the freedom to do so. Just please be honest about it and stop trying to act as though you're not.

Page was equally concerned. "I do encourage our president to find a church for he and his family to attend,'' he said. "And while I deeply appreciate the fact that he does read the daily devotional that Joshua DuBois (director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships) sends to him - I appreciate that very much - those girls need a church. They need to be under instruction and tutelage of some godly people.''

Page said it was encouraging that Obama is currently hearing preaching from a Southern Baptist chaplain when he visits Camp David but he doesn't think that's sufficient. "He needs to be faithful on a regular basis, not just when he's on vacation at Camp David so it would help if that were a more consistent and more a part of his life," said Page. "I think it would be a grounding influence for him and an encouragement to the faith community."

The only person who knows President Obama's spiritual needs is President Obama. Perhaps it benefits the image of religion to have the president be faithful on a regular basis, but that has nothing to do with concern for Obama's immortal soul, that has everything to do with religion trying to remain as relevant and powerful as it was in the last administration in this current administration.

Personally, I respect Obama for seeking out what spirituality he personally requires and dedicating the rest of his time to, you know, running the country.

The Folly Of Perception Equaling Reality

I used to work for a terrible shoe company that made terrible shoes. It was one of those trust fund companies that the current owner, a soft handed spoiled kid turned hapless old man, had inherited from his hard working father. He ran the company with the help of his useless hag of a wife who was more interested in looking up to date than doing any work and they tried to make their way by making knock off shoes which they failed to market as cutting edge and trendy. The theme of this horrible company was "perception is reality."

"Perception is reality" is a statement which attempts to assert that reality only exists in the perceptions of one's self and others. In the shoe making business this meant that we were to sell an inferior product that was a knock off of something else as if it were the best shoe ever made in the history of mankind, because if we could affect the perception of people regarding the shoe, the reality of the shoe would be altered.

The problem with this idea is that only the willfully stupid, truly stupid, or painfully stupid are actually impressed by this notion. I think some religious people fall into each category, but it's painfully stupid people that I feel are the most destructive. The painfully stupid are people who are vain to a fault. People who are easily manipulated into following something, buying something, or believing in something because they want the positive image that's associated with it. Painfully stupid people buy crappy knock off boots because Perez Hilton mentioned them in passing once. Painfully stupid people believe in religions because they want to be rich, powerful, and/or respected - it can be one or all three of those or something else, but the main motivation for painfully stupid people to be religious and especially overtly religious boils down to perception.

These people act in ways that hold true to their perception of how a good person should act instead of just...being a good person. That's the difference between reality and perception. 'He seemed like a good guy' is the positive perception of countless neighbors living next to rapists and murderers across the country, you read about that in the news all the time. Being a good person is different that being perceived as a good person because when you are good, that's reality. When you seem good, that's perception. If we allow reality to be confused with perception, bad things often happen. For instance, perception is reality has ruled the Catholic church for a very long time and now we have thousands of cases of molestation, abuse, and misconduct coming to light because people who were perceived as being pious and good were in actuality creepy old drunk uncle types.

Perception is not reality. In simplest terms - if perception were reality, then reality wouldn't be called reality, it would be referred to as perception. Perception is our own personal take on reality - it's what you get when you have to deal with reality plus human emotions plus complex cognitive ability. Just like I shake my head in pity when I see an over-tanned, under-fed party girl wearing knock off shoes like they're Hollywood itself, I feel terrible for people who are religious for the sake of perception.

Let's Ask Adventists Some Challenging Questions, Please?

I dropped my little baby boy off this morning for his first day of school and after recovering from the feeling of my heart bursting at the fact that my little man is growing up fast, I decided to walk over to the Goodwill to look for something that might work as a Halloween costume for me or Brad for the wedding I'm helping plan for my friend Melissa. I got to the store a bit too early so I wandered over to the row of metal and plastic houses for all the free apartment guides and little nickels and lo and behold, I found a Seventh Day Adventist publication. The theme for this issue is: The Treachery of the CULTS.

Coincidentally, I bought my irony meter because it goes up to 11.

This is 64 pages worth of insight into this religion that I plan to read, but the part of the magazine that bothers me already is the very back. It's a 'Your Bible Questions' section but the questions being posed are ridiculously simplistic and accommodating. Nothing challenging whatsoever:

Q. What does it mean to blaspheme the Holy Lord?

Q. If we are under grace, why must we still keep the law?

Q. What would have happened if Eve had not been tempted?

Q. When God Said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness" who else was He talking about?

Q. Does a person have to observe the Sabbath on Saturday to be a true Christian and thus be given eternal life?

Q. Is fasting a church requirement, or is it for individual needs?

Q. What is the Abyss?

Come on guys, we can come up with better questions than that. I plan on mailing a few questions in myself and I encourage you all to do the same. Let me know what your questions are too, I'd like to see what others think is a worthy question for people who are literal worsipers of the bible.

Send questions to:

Your Bible Questions
c/o Signs of the Times
PO Box 5398
Nampa, ID 83653-5398