Scientology - The Perfect Christian Scapegoat

Australian News Net reports:

John Travolta Fears Church of Scientology Would Retaliate If He Left

Melbourne, July 27 : Actor John Travolta has reportedly made private threats to leave the Church of Scientology, but he may not follow through on them because he fears the church may retaliate by revealing embarrassing details about his private life.

Travolta, 55, who became a recluse after the sudden death of his son Jett, 16, in the Bahamas during a New Year family holiday, is so distraught that he is barely able to function and is seldom seen in public.

According to reports in Britain's Mail, Travolta is disillusioned with the secretive church, and bitterly regrets adhering to its teachings when treating his son's condition, which is believed to have been autism.

The report also quotes a neighbour of Travolta's as saying that he is rarely seen during daylight hours, but is often spotted driving around his property at night, alone in the golf buggy.

"We used to see him driving around on a buggy with his son. Now its just John by himself," News.com.au quoted the unnamed neighbour as saying.

The report also revealed that Travolta has cancelled all work commitments since Jett's death, and that he resents going along with Scientology's prescribed treatment for son's condition.

The church does not recognise autism as genuine, but instead believes it to be merely psychosomatic, and recommends treatment with vitamins and a detox program, not prescription medicines.

The report also said that the church's response to the teenager's death has been to conduct "intensive sessions" with so-called ethics officers, whose job is to question Travolta and other family members to determine if their "negative influences" caused the tragedy.

Rick Ross, an author who has watched the church for 30 years, said that Travolta's reported threat is a dangerous move, and that it was not only the actor but also any high-profile practitioner who wanted out.

"Scientology keeps files on its celebrity members containing embarrassing personal information about them," he said.

"And Scientology has proven in the past that it has a penchant for releasing that information to embarrass people who have left and who have said things it doesn't like," he added.

Scientology is one of those rare unifying factors that christians and atheists seem to agree on. Atheists tend to reject scientology as a more obvious ludicrous belief system than christianity, though typically it is stated that religions should be considered equally in that once something is not true, the level of how far from truth something sits is essentially unimportant. Christians are often found rejecting scientology as an insane cult which can in no way be compared to their own religious beliefs. In fact, I personally have often witnessed christians offering up scientology as a kind of example of what ridiculous religion looks like in defense of their own illogical beliefs.

Personally, I am more of the mind that no christian has the right to look at scientology and ridicule it as if anything found in scientology is any more outlandishly mythological than the fantastic stories outlined in the bible. Christians must find solace in the fact there there is a religion out there whose origin story includes aliens and volcanoes and the like. How did Adam and Eve's kids have kids you ask? I don't know, but look at these cr-a-zy scientologists over here!

The fact is there is little difference between telling people we're all H-bombed souls with implanted memories and telling people we all came from a single man and woman, that the earth was at one time entirely flooded, or that there are sometimes visible/mostly invisible angels that watch over us. The difference isn't severity of nonsense, the difference is familiarity.

To Travolta, I have to agree with what one commenter said on the Australian news story: When you're afraid to leave, LEAVE NOW.

This is Your Brain on God

NPR has a fun little interactive page about religion and the brain in which there are 5 basic subtopics:

The God Chemical
The God Spot
Spiritual Virtuosos
The Biology of Belief
Near Death Experiences

Reading through the articles I had some positive and negative reactions to what was being said. I want to focus on the first topic, the god chemical, as this was both the most obvious explanation for people's passionate belief in god and the article which inspired the most negative response from myself.

Under the first category, the god chemical, it reads:

research suggests that chemicals that act on the serotonin system trigger mystical experiences that are life-altering. Serotonin is a chemical messenger that helps regulate mood and sleep. Now those neurologists -- and others -- are replicating studies from the 1960s in which patients with end-stage cancer were given LSD to see if they were convinced that life exists beyond death. The research raises the question, is God a delusion created by brain chemistry, or is brain chemistry a necessary conduit for people to reach God?

Now, I have had my assumptions all along that there must be some kind of correlation between brain activity/chemical balances and the passionate adherence to beliefs which logically seem entirely ridiculous. The thing that bothers me about this is the question which is posed at the end - The research raises the question, is God a delusion created by brain chemistry, or is brain chemistry a necessary conduit for people to reach God?

This question is only raised if you are somehow inclined to believe that god exists in the first place. Given the overwhelming evidence that points to god not being real, it seems ludicrous to say that in this instance brain chemistry and activity might exist as a conduit for holy interactions when in most other cases brain chemistry and activity is considered with far more scrutiny - certainly more scrutiny than would allow such a theory in any other area to even be proposed.

This begs the question: why is it that the rules seem to change whenever god is brought into the picture?

Now I admit I'm treading into unknown waters here as I am not a biologist or scientist of any kind and so I also freely admit that there could be information which I don't know about which could solidify the suggestion of there being a god connection wired in the brain. I know that the brain is one of the most unknown organs of the body despite decades of dedicated research, but that to me seems to weaken the argument that because x part of the brain reacts in this way when exposed to god, that means that x could be necessary in talking to god. That seems like more of a logic jump than what should be allowed with the amount of information we currently have available.

Logic jumps like these seem to only be widely permissible when kept within the context of religion, and so to a skeptic like myself that makes these allowances all the more suspect.

The Charitable Atheist - Not At All An Oxymoron

(This was written specifically for Tacoma Atheists but I felt it was also worth posting here)

"Philanthropist" is a word which, translated from Greek, literally means "lover of humanity". There is no caveats attached to this term which dictates that the lover of humanity must also believe in a god or gods, but it would seem that some religiously affiliated and atheist warry folks would ignore that lack of inclusion as an overlooked but understood truth. Those people are certainly misguided - it is only the religious who feel that religion is needed in order to be a charitable person.

Something which should be a point of pride for all atheists - especially when you're being told by someone who knows little about you besides the fact that you're not a believer that you're the reason babies die and the elderly lose their ability to do cartwheels - is that the two biggest charitable contributions in American history can both be attributed to non believers: Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

But charity is not and should not be a game of tallying which side has done more and then declaring a winner. Is shouldn't be about who wins - the focus should be on helping people whether you're religious or not. I have been told more than once by religious people who were disturbed by my atheism that if there were no god fearing, good people on this earth there would be no hospitals, no orphanages, no clothing and food drives, no helping hand for anyone. In this bleak and truly apocalypic atheist future, everyone is looking out for themselves and the very idea of helping others is perverse and uncessesary. Help out your fellow man? Heh, who's gonna make me?

The fact is that there are plenty of secular institutions already in existance that provide every kind of charitable resource you could imagine - and they provide these things without the common "Are you really thankful for our help? Well then you should probabaly believe in this god." attitude which is often found when participating at religiously affiliated institutions and events. I remember specifically helping an older woman who's husband had died. A big group of us were there cleaning her house and fixing up her yard. I was helping the woman sort through clothes and she started talking about how wonderful the Catholic organization was that had set up the work we doing and by proxy, how wonderful we all were. I thanked her, and I didn't correct her assumption that we were all Catholics doing good Catholic work because I felt that the work we were doing was important, not the details of who was doing it to be nice and who was doing it because of god. However, I personally realized that in a lot of cases people do assume that charity work is being done in the name of some holy organization.

The only way I can see to change the public perception of atheists and to help change the common assumptions being made about charitable work is for atheists to get involved with their communities as atheists so that we can show by example that we are upstanding citizens who are interested in philanthropy in it's purest form.

Below is a list of secular charities and aid-based organizations which would be worth looking into if you are looking to donate some time or money to your fellow human beings. This is by no means a complete list and does not include many local organizations which are always looking for volunteers. Remember, while donating money is always appreciated and needed, what a lot of charities need even more is your time and physical involvment. If we all tried to get involved or if those of us who can't get involved were willing to support those who are even a little bit, we could do a lot to change the commonly held and entirely unfair position that atheists are selfish, mean people who don't have the capacity for compassion that religious folks have. It's not at all fair to have to do so, but it's up to us to prove them wrong.

DonorsChoose.org
a simple way to provide students in need with resources that our public schools often lack.

Kiva.org
lets you connect with and loan money to unique small businesses in the developing world.

The Union of Concerned Scientists
The leading science-based non-profit working for a healthy environment and safer world.

American Red Cross
The American Red Cross, a humanitarian organization led by volunteers, guided by its Congressional Charter and the Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross Movement, will provide relief to victims of disasters and help people prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies. The USA's premier emergency response organization, over 91% of Red Cross spending is on charitable services.

American Civil Liberties Union
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of constitutional protections and guarantees relating to First Amendment rights, including the freedom to practice religion and the freedom not to have religion rammed down our throats, equal protection, due process, and right to privacy.

United Nations Children's Fund
UNICEF mobilizes political will and material resources to help countries, particularly developing countries, ensure a "first call for children" and to build their capacity to form appropriate policies and deliver services for children and their families. UNICEF provides emergency and disaster relief.

Doctors without Borders
Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is an international independent medical humanitarian organization that delivers emergency aid to people affected by armed conflict, epidemics, natural and man-made disasters, and exclusion from health care in nearly 70 countries.

Amnesty International
AI’s vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.
In pursuit of this vision, AI’s mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.

Oxfam International
Oxfam International is a confederation of 12 organizations working together with over 3,000 partners in more than 100 countries to find lasting solutions to poverty, suffering and injustice. The Oxfams operate in over 100 countries worldwide working with local partners to alleviate poverty and injustice.

The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy is a leading international, nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving the diversity of life on Earth. An environmental group that protects natural habitats and the wildlife within them. Focuses on "science-based" initiatives.

Population Connection
Population Connection is the national grassroots population organization that educates young people and advocates progressive action to stabilize world population at a level that can be sustained by Earth's resources. Works against faith-based policies that are supported by the Religious Right.

DefCon: Campaign to Defend the Constitution
DefCon is an online grassroots movement combating the growing power of the religious right. It includes a blog on religious freedom issues, action alerts, and in-depth articles on scientific, religious, and legal issues of the day.

The SEED foundation
National nonprofit that establishes urban public boarding schools to prepare students from underserved communities for success in college.

Project Peanut Butter
Project Peanut Butter is a therapeutic feeding program for malnourished children in Malawi and Sierra Leone, on the continent of Africa. It was founded by Professor Mark Manary, M.D., a pediatrician at St. Louis Children’s Hospital and a professor of pediatric medicine at Washington University School of Medicine.

Electronic Frontiers Foundation
When our freedoms in the networked world come under attack, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the first line of defense. Blending the expertise of lawyers, policy analysts, activists, and technologists, EFF achieves significant victories on behalf of consumers and the general public. EFF fights for freedom primarily in the courts, bringing and defending lawsuits even when that means taking on the US government or large corporations.

Mercy corps
Mercy Corps exists to alleviate suffering, poverty and oppression by helping people build secure, productive and just communities.

Seva
Our programs serve people who have been economically, politically, or otherwise marginalized. We change our program approach to relate to their culture and circumstances, reaching out in very different ways, for example, to nomads in Tibet, women in Tanzania, or indigenous Mayans in Guatemala. Our aim is to build a bridge of compassion between our donors and the people we serve — people around the world who have the fewest resources.

International Peace Institute
The International Peace Institute (IPI) formerly International Peace Academy is an independent, international institution dedicated to promoting the prevention and settlement of armed conflict between and within states through policy research and development.

One Atheist Does Not Define Another

I am open about my atheism to everyone I know, at work and otherwise. I work with a few other atheists and I find it endlessly enlightening to discuss any and every topic with them because of how different we all are despite the common thread of atheism which tenuously connects us to one another. Last night I found myself participating in a discussion about civil rights. A woman I work with, I'll call her F, was making a very convincing point that she couldn't understand how someone could justify supporting gay rights but not supporting gun rights.

To be honest, I could see her logic with this and while I understand that the issue of gun rights and the issue of gay rights are different enough for it to be questionable to simplify either issue to the point where it's interchangeable with one another, the basic message was clear - civil rights are paramount and should be protected regardless of your personal biases or opinions. I happen to fully support gay rights and cautiously support gun rights, so this was a point that I easily understood.

Then I brought up the case of the baby who had recently died because her parents believed in faith healing and refused to take the little girl to the doctor and posed the question - do the rights of the parents trump the rights of the child because it's a religious issue or should those parents be charged for child endangerment and/or manslaughter?

I was shocked that my co-worker and very vocal atheist F was quick to say "Oh no, that's religion. That's not an issue of civil rights - you can't mess with that."

I was incensed! How could a fellow atheist honestly feel that religion should be allowed in any way to trump a person's civil rights - especially when that person is a truly helpless child whose very right to live is being put at risk? As a parent I would be madder than hell if someone told me I couldn't raise my kid the way I saw fit and so in that respect, I can understand the emotionally intense feelings behind parental rights. I have to add, currently being of sound body and mind, that if I was ever effed up enough to decide I was justified in allowing my son to come to harm in any way because of my beliefs which I was imposing onto him, I hope someone would have the balls to step in and save my kid from myself.

I argued that the baby had no way to choose the religion, so basically F was saying that the parents were justified in making two decisions for the child which were not their place to make - the first being what religion the kid was and the second being the choice to allow the child to die from an ailment which is easily treated. F said that the Constitution protects religion and a minor is subject to its parent's decisions and that's that.

Other people were present during our conversation and so, as it often does in polite company, the conversation quickly moved away from religion but the couple of minutes that I found myself disagreeing with another atheist about a position which I honestly felt was pretty much universally accepted among atheists of every kind was immensely enlightening.

Atheists really do come in every possible personality and lifestyle and so it becomes even more important for us to focus on unification if we want to be respected, accepted and represented in society. Maybe one of the reasons so many of us tend to focus on the negative aspects of religion so much is because it's the one subject that we all can, on some level, agree on.

No Specific Religious Figures Means No Jesus - Obviously?

PITTSBURGH — State House officials say they have been inundated with protests about a policy that barred a clergyman from using the word "Jesus" in a prayer that was to open one of the lawmakers' daily sessions.

The Rev. Gerry Stoltzfoos, of the Freedom Valley Worship Center in Gettysburg, had planned to end his recent prayer with "In Jesus' name, Amen." Under the policy then in effect, he was asked by House Speaker Keith McCall's office to submit the planned prayer in writing and to make sure it was nondenominational.

"They said my prayer was rejected because it contained an offensive word. Just once, in closing, I mentioned Jesus," he said. "I thought they were kidding. I had carefully crafted the prayer not to be offensive in any way."

He said he decided not to say the prayer at all rather than omit the name. The incident has sparked a controversy on the Internet including an online petition and denunciations of McCall.

Paul Parcells, McCall's chief of staff, said the situation has been blown out of proportion.

"We've had threats phoned in and a ton of angry e-mail," said Parcells, who called McCall "a devout Catholic" but said "he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve."

Guest chaplains are sent a letter asking them to use "an interfaith, non-denominational prayer" and to refrain from expressing views on legislative, political or governmental issues. House officials say use of "God" or "Father" is permissible, but they do not want mentions of specific religious figures such as Jesus, Muhammad, or Buddha.

I don't understand what the confusion is here - the rules say no specific religious figures. It doesn't matter if the guy mentioned Jesus 'just once', just once breaks the rules. Rules which pre-existed the invitation to this man to speak.

Is there really this level of expected entitlement going on with religious groups to the point where only invoking a specific religion's deity once isn't seen as, well, invoking a specific deity? Just don't say Jesus. There. Super easy. No one is excluded and you still get to perpetuate your snake-oil brand of spiritualism. We all KNOW you mean the christian god when you say god anyway, you don't NEED to break the rules (or make fun of the rules or pretend you don't understand the rules in order to gain attention).

But he's not the issue here, the issues lies with the sentence which partially states, "...inundated with protests about a policy that barred a clergyman..." Really? Because it seems pretty cut and dry to me - guy receives an invitation to be a guest chaplain and he's told to keep it cool, no specifics, God and Father are OK but don't get too detailed with the deities. Then guy ignores that, and tries to slip in Jesus at the buzzer, as if just saying Jesus once at the end shouldn't be considered breaking the 'no specifics' rule.

'No specifics' is pretty clear. No Muhammad, no Buddha, no Jesus, no exclusionary speech. Well, unless you're one of those freaks who just doesn't believe in ANYTHING. :)

Memory Walk to AIDS walk - Joining Forces For A Stronger Presence

I had previously posted my intention to try to start an atheist walking team for the Memory Walk being held in Seattle in September. I have since decided to abandon my efforts to start up a team for the Memory Walk and instead join the already formed atheist group that is getting involved in the Pierce County AIDS Walk.

The main reason for giving up on the Memory Walk completely is the fact that both walks are happening on the same day. Also, in trying to recruit my group of atheist friends, I found that a good deal of them will be out of town or have otherwise pressing commitments which can't be altered in favor of participation in the walk.

I had not given up on the Memory Walk but was somewhat disillusioned by this new information when I ran across a twitter from Tacoma Atheists promoting their participation in the AIDS Walk. I was immediately interested in joining this group and though saddened to learn that both walks were scheduled for the same day, decided to join forces with an already established group with a pre-existing list of participants. I feel that it is more important to create a solid presence in a single event than to show a weaker presence in two separate events.

My hope is still to recruit people into participating as atheists in this walk in order provide an example of atheists doing charitable, good work. I hope I can get at least two more people on board with me - that would be an admittedly small victory but one worth being proud of.

If you wish to sponsor me or our group on this walk, please visit my personal page and donate, or just leave a comment if you wish to show some support. Either would be tremendously appreciated.

The Co-Evolution Imperative of Capitalism and Religion

After reading this wonderful editorial by Bill Maher I began considering the modern American zeitgeist and how paramount both the "Abrahamic religions" and capitalism seem to our current climate. For me, this begs a question - are capitalism and religion two entities which thrive independently of one another or are they two entities which have both gained promenence in this country by means of a kind of social co-evolution?

Personally, I feel the latter theory is not only correct but glaringly obvious.

Let me pre-face this by saying that I am not strictly anti-capitalism. Rather I should say, I'm anti-capitalism in the scope it's seen in America today, but I am also aware that no other system besides a somewhat capitalist one has ever proven to be successful and so I have concluded that it's not a bad system, it's just easily manipulated into becoming the monster we see in America today.

Many claim that the largely privitized system we have is a result of the American dream and therefore anyone who opposes it opposes the very spirit which made this counrty what it is today.

I disagree, first that the people who succeed in regard to large wealth are the people who made this country what it is. I think they're part of it, but of no more importance than the workers in that person's business who generate the products or services for far less than a six figure salary. Most of us are those people, and we're of no less importance to this country than the people who own the businesses that we work for.

I also disagree on the current attitude toward the American dream. I know I'm fond of this idea and I'm sure most people are either fond of it or reject it completely. I believe those who reject it completely are the more rational of the two. The American dream has always been just that - a dream. One that was attainable to many when the dream itself was not as decadent and self indulgent as it is today. When the American dream was for an immigrant to be able to come to America and start a new and better life, that was attainable for enough people to keep that dream going. Then the dream became having the house with the while picket fence, 2.5 kinds and all that. A notably different dream because the America of that time was different, but still simple and attainable. People wanted to have enough to live a comfortable but still modest lifestyle.

What is the American dream now? It seems to be a dead concept for most people because when it is envoked, the current incarnation of it is something so unattainable for everyday people that it's not even a dream anymore, it's a delusion. We are not all going to live the P. Diddy (or whatever his name is now) lifestyle, we can't all be ballers, we can't all live large. One of the reasons we can't is because that's not how capitalism works. As the rich get richer, the poor become more destitute. Therefore, this current American dream is an indication of the times and the popular acceptance that making money - lots of money - is the indication of success and should be a common goal. Though thankfully not for everyone, for many the current American dream is either a reminder of insigifigance and a beacon of hopelessness or it is an invitation to reach for that bank account - no holds barred.

For the no holds barred crowd which often turns to action which are hurtful in some way in the persuit of money, there is a wonderful privitized system to keep them busy - lawyers and jails and the like.

It is the hopless and even worse - the hopeful and unconcerned with the American dream that need to be kept busy in order to keep the current state of our caplitalist country going and that means diverting public interest as much as possible so that the people aren't allowed to realize the power they have as a unified force. This is where religion comes into play.

The marriage of government and religion has been happening since the beginning of time when the religious were known more as the wisemen of the society and therefore their wisdom was important to a governing body as a source of insight and information. With the progression of science, religion has lost it's power in regard to being the most accurate source of factual information, and so for fear of losing their position of influence and power, religion is trying to turn spirituality into a daily vitamin of sorts for Americans. That is to say, selling religion as something everyone needs in order to be a complete and healthy American.

Abrahamic religions specifically teach people to be subservient to a god figure and to follow his word unquestioningly. The word of god is delivered by the very people who are trying to keep their positions of power, so it is logical to conclude that these figures may have some vested interest in guiding people to accept capitalism as it is capitalism that allows religion to retain it's place.

My conjecturing is completely unscientific, but I follow this line of thinking to the conclusion that both capitalism and religion somewhat match one another in regard to extremity. This seems to explain the contradiction that, in a country so mired in greed and evidently unconcerned with the human toll that uncontrolled capitalism takes, extreme religious views which dictate, among lots of other things, that the sin of greed will send you to hell is so unquestioningly embraced.

More and more I feel that the religious pay very little attention to their holy books as a means of introspection and personal reflection. The proof is mounting that in actuality, these books are really only meant to be used as righeous weapons against anyone who proposes to question the powerful place of religion. Otherwise, most of what they say is of little importance.

Bush Administrations Abstinence Programs Produce Unsavory Results

It would seem that abstinence doesn't work. I know, I know, of course abstinence works if it is honestly adhered to, but according to the latest Centers for Disease Control numbers, the falling rates of teen pregnancies and STD's either stalled or increased, in some cases sharply, by 2005 - Bush's 6th year in office.

According to the CDC, birth rates among teenagers aged 15 or older had been in decline since 1991 but rose sharply in more than half of American states after 2005. The number of teenage girls with syphilis had risen by nearly half after a big decrease, while a 20-year fall in the gonorrhea infection rate was being reversed. AIDS cases in adolescent boys had nearly doubled.

What do abstinence groups say in response to these telling numbers? What is their answer? Why, more abstinence of course! Now, the fact is that even though abstinence is in fact a certain way of not getting pregnant or spreading STD's, it's not a viable solution to teenage pregnancy or STDs. Why? Because teenagers are horny and they are going to get down, whether you give them a condom or tell them to think about Jesus and take a cold shower.

The emphisis should be on a healthy approach to sexuality, not an approach which leans toward shame and ridicule when a person or two people feel compelled to react on completely natural urges. No one should feel strange about having sex or not having sex because it's a personal choice - one that you might make at 15 or 35 - and while as a mom I would hate to think of my beautiful baby boy knocking boots at 15 I would also rather he have every oppertunity to engage in that kind of activity safely and with the utmost amount of education on the subject rather than trying to pull out or perpetuating other ridiculous myths in regard to sex.

Sorry kids, if the chick is on top, she can in fact still get pregnant.

It's no secret that abstinence programs and religious institutions more often than not are interweaved with one another which leads me to ask this question - what needs to happen before these organizations face the fact that less education will never result in positive trends? When will these groups be held accountable for the fact that ignoring the teen pregancy problem by only offering an outdated and unrealistic solution is the same thing as willingly allowing teen pregnancy to become a much much worse issue?

Memory Walk Atheist Team - An Experiment

My atheist friends and I have had several talks about the stereotype of the 'soul less' atheist. The common opinion among my friends seems to be that it's ridiculous to presume that people need a god to tell them to be good people and that atheists are just as good of people as anyone else. Not shockingly, I passionately agree.

I have previously made the point that it's unfair to generalize any group in regard to disposition because disposition is affected by immeasurable factors - some of which might be commonly shared within a group but still should not be defining characteristics of the group. It's a fact that atheists tend to be intelligent and intelligent people tend to be more skeptical and skeptical people tend to be more morose. From this line of reasoning you cannot say that atheists tend to be more morose because by saying that you are reversing the flow of the line of reasoning and in doing that, you could very well make assumptions which are incorrect when considered in the opposite way. For example - intelligent people tend to be skeptical, but it is correct to then assume that skepital people tend to be intelligent? Not necessarily.

Regardless, I have decided to do an experiment with my atheist friends to see if they're willing to put their money - or rather their time and energy, if only for a day - where their mouths are.

One of the biggest fears I have with growing old (though not yet being 30 I have quite a while to really worry about old age - I'm human and I still consider it) is Alzheimer Disease. I don't know why this is the one disease I'm really concerned with, but maybe I'm concerned by it because it's degenerative and causes the person suffering from it to forget, to lose knowledge. The other day I saw an advert for something i had no idea existed, the Memory Walk which is sponsored by the Alzheimer's Association in order to "raise awareness and funds for Alzheimer care, support and research". When I saw this advert, I automatically thought, that's what I'm going to organize to show people atheists care about helping people just as much as any other group.

I've already called a few people and discussed the idea, and I've written to Seattle Atheists to make sure they already don't have something in the works with this. The hardest part of this project will be recruitment of team members, but not because atheists don't care. These kinds of fund raising activities require people to something which most people dislike doing - asking for money. I hate doing it, and I can see a good deal of my friends declining to participate because of an aversion to this kind of thing as well. Also, while I may deem Alzheimer's research an important cause, that doesn't mean my friends will agree that it's a cause worth applying work and time toward.

This will be an interesting experiment to say the least, and I will keep this blog informed in regard to the successes, failures, and lessons learned along the way.

"Why Are Atheists So Angry?"

It's the most common assumption made in regard to atheists - we are angry. We are mad, curmudgeonly angry people! Is this true? Well, in some cases of course, because an angry disposition is a common personality trait. The fact is, however, that the trait transcends belief or non-belief. Some people are just angry, and some of those some people are indeed atheists.

The reason why the "angry atheist" stereotype bothers me so much is because of personal experience with being accused of being one of these kinds of people. I have been told that I am an angry atheist at least two times that I can remember, and I was angry when the person accused me of being angry, I fully admit that. I was angry on both occasions because I had already suffered through a long conversation where a theist had no problems insulting my intelligence and my morality while simultaneously presenting unproven information as facts and distorting the meaning of language in order to prove their points.

This is an old christian debate trick - trip them up in so much BS that they (hopefully) become too tired and distracted to be able to continue to argue coherently, then claim to have won the debate. Make sure to pepper responses with overwhelming and unapologetic condescension and disrespectful assumptions on the atheist's personality, personal life, and general morality. Make sure you tell them you pity them. Then, when they lose their cool and return the admittedly inappropriate personal attacks, write them off as 'just another angry atheist.'

The trick here is to have the willpower to walk away from a debate if you sense that the conversation is less an exchange of ideas and more of a person with an opposing viewpoint looking for validation through any means - regardless of the validity of their reasoning and information. However, this can be more and more difficult to do in correlation to how ridiculous the claims being made are. It's a fine line between refusing to be silent and speaking up for the atheist point of view and speaking yourself right into a malicious trap meant to spur a reaction from your ego by any means necessary in order to fallaciously marginalize you as 'just another angry atheist.'