Skepticum

Chicago Tribune published recently a piece on the widespread usage of the im-speak OMG:

there are two kinds of people in the world: those who say “Oh my God!” and those who say something else. Even atheists have been known to cry “Oh my God!” on occasion.

I’m guessing that those who say something else say, “oh my gosh” or another way of saying “oh my god,” without saying “oh my god.”

While the Vatican denounced the taking of god’s name in vane yet again this year, Yahoo launched the celebrity gossip website omg! The Vatican should not worry much as the site is in beta at this time. However, the launch caused quite a bit of debate, according to Chicago Tribune:

A user writes: “This is taking the Lord’s name in vain, and while I’m fairly certain you could care less about that, I can no longer support Yahoo if they insist on keeping this OMG product. It shows the height of insensitivity to people of faith.”

To which another user replies: “Lighten up, it’s just an instant messaging phrase. If you find that kind of thing offensive, you should unplug your ethernet cable right now and stay off the internet.”

And then someone makes the point: “There is no doubt what the OMG stands for. Every Christian should be outraged that the name of the Lord is used with such disrespect. The point is that people use his name as an insignificant figure of speech.”

Officially, Yahoo avoids the conflict altogether. “The name ‘OMG’ is derived from IM speak and means ‘wow!’” says company spokesman Carrie Davis.

OMG!

Tags: atheism, god, omg, Religion

Sound Off’s Roland S. Martin wrote a commentary on CNN.com today in which he claims,

Because of all the politically correct idiots, we are being encouraged to stop saying “Merry Christmas” for the more palatable “Happy Holidays.” What the heck are “Seasons Greetings”? (…)

But this seeming backlash against Christianity is bordering on the absurd, and we should continue to remember that Jesus is the reason for the season.

What is disturbing about paranoid rants such as Martin’s is that he’s making arguments that are unfriendly (when people say Happy Holidays they’re backlashing against Christianity) and unsupported (Jesus is the reason for the season).

When people say Happy Holidays they actually try to be nice and not make assumptions about one’s religion. If I know someone is Christian I have no issues saying Merry Christmas, but when I don’t know, or when I know someone is not Christian I’d rather wish them Happy Holidays than nothing at all. Of course I could come up with something more creative, such as “Happy Winter Time Off!”

To use Martin’s own linguistic choices I must say you have to be an idiot to claim that Jesus is the reason for the season. Jesus is the reason for the celebration of Christmas as in “the mass of Christ,” the birth of jesus, but he is certainly not the reason why people throughout centuries have celebrated this time of year.It is common knowledge that the Christmas traditions are borrowed from a number of pagan celebrations such as the Northern European Yule and the Roman Saturnalia.

Decorated fir-trees, gift giving, mistletoe, holly, carol singing etc. are all traditions predating Christianity.

So if how we celebrate is a collection of pre-Christian traditions, and what we celebrate is highly varied based on religion why would saying Season’s Greetings or Happy Holidays be an attack on Christianity?

Tags: , atheism, Christmas, holidays, Religion, saturnalia, yule

Especially, less violence against women.

I cringe at all forms of violence in the name of religion, be they psychological, or infringements upon personal liberties. I cannot find anything moral or any virtue in teaching children that they must obey a fictional character such as Jesus, or in teaching little girls that their purpose in life is to grow up, marry, obey their husbands and make babies.

But, I can accept that adults may believe in the god of their choice. I can accept that some find comfort in the placebo of religion.

But the brutality some unleash in the name of religion is sickening:

“Khalaf [Iraqi Police chief Maj. Gen] said bodies have been found [in Basra] in garbage dumps with bullet holes, decapitated or otherwise mutilated with a sheet of paper nearby saying, “she was killed for adultery,” or “she was killed for violating Islamic teachings.” In September, he said, the headless bodies of a woman and her 6-year-old son were among those found. He said a total of 40 deaths were reported this year.

“We believe the number of murdered women is much higher, as cases go unreported by their families who fear reprisal from extremists,” he said.”

(International Herald Tribune,  “Police chief in southern city of Basra says religious vigilantes have killed 40 women this year,” Dec. 9, 2007)

Of course, this news is no news, as these stories have surfaced more and more recently. Also, there are plenty organization who deal with violence against women, and some even take a look at the interplay of religion and violence against women.

And then we have those who simply don’t get it, such as conservative Phyllis Schlafly who claims that if the US adopted an International Violence Against Women act it would diminish the benefits that American women enjoy, because:

U.S. women are the most privileged class of people on the face of the earth. That’s because we are the beneficiaries of the Judeo-Christian civilization, including the requirement in the Ten Commandments to honor mothers and the Christian religion that honors the Virgin Mary and respects women.

Schlafly’s words are in line with all other tyrants’ ideas that their regime is good and just, and as a result there can’t be any violence within the confines of their establishment.

Another view religious folk take on the issue of religion and violence is that church teachings themselves are not the perpetrators of violence but rather how people interpret religious teachings and choose to act.

The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women published an article co-written by a reverent and a rabi, that promotes the idea that religious leaders should receive training on how to deal with victims of violence, and secular advocates should have training on how to address religious issues. The article faults religion only for “roadblocks” to handling violence.

So far so good. But they take the issue a step further and state,

Training for advocates should include addressing the religious concerns that women may present and how to make appropriate referrals to religious resources.

Once again, the assumption is that the particular teachings of that religion are not the source of the problem, and the problem can be treated from within the jurisdiction of that religious group.

Certain religious, such as the Mormon church, discourage consulting with psychiatrists or psychologists outside of those recommended by the church leaders themselves.

In reality, if the religious source is the problem, referring the victim back to the perpetrator may not be an option. It would be similar to sending the wife for counseling with the mother of the perpetrator– odds are the victim will get the blame.

Also, if the religious leader has similar opinions with Schlafly, referring the victim back to the religion may result in the amplification of the problem. If the violence is stemming from the religious group itself, yet the religious group leaders are refusing to recognize violence issues within their religion the claims of violence will just be written off and the victim will be pushed back into the circle of violence.

While there are many who appear to present solutions that take respect for religion into consideration, there are very few solutions that accept religion as the perpetrator. Is it time to rethink where to turn for help?

Tags: atheism, islam, Religion, violence, women

Pets of Christian families who choose to go with Dr. Dobson’s list of where not to shop for Christmas will be left out in the cold this winter. Petsmart is listed on Dobson’s “The Bad” list and PetCo committed an even more serious crime on Christmas and was listed on “The Ugly” list of stores Christians shouldn’t shop at.

Why is he boycotting these stores? Because Jesus wouldn’t shop there either, after the stores shifted their focus from Christmas to The Holidays.

“The Bad”(Best Buy and Borders etc.) and “The Ugly” (the GAP family of stores, Barnes and Noble, eBay, Discovery Channel Store, Dick’s Sporting Goods, and other), “depend on the Christmas season to generate a high percentage of their profits for the year, and yet they want to do it by distancing themselves from the traditional Christmas story,” according to Dobson.

How deluded do you have to be to think that the stores who use the term “Christmas” in their ads have a different goal in mind than profit. If retailers had data to show that their neutral holiday language was going to drive Christians away from their stores, they would use Christmas instead. All retailers are focused on revenue and based on their customer profile they know what language would work best with the customer without endangering their revenue.

Best Buy, Borders and Barnes and Noble were quoted for their “no-solicitation policy.” In other words, they don’t allow those dudes in funny outfits to shout Merry Christmas and expect donations for it. That was their big crime on Christmas.

However, if you want to do a charity thing this Holiday season, I encourage you to stop by Borders (”The Bad”) and donate to help with children’s literacy, or buy something from the (RED) campaign at one of the GAP stores (”The Ugly”).

Tags: atheism, charity, christian, Christmas, red, shopping

Recent poll calls in Iowa and New Hampshire that were allegedly  critical of Mitt Romney’s faith have resulted in press discussions on whether or not Romney should publicly discuss his allegiance to the Mormon church. The only recipients to have come forth about the calls though, were all on Romney’s payroll.

Controversy aside, the Romney campaign claimed it is unamerican to question a candidate about his religion.

Atheist Christopher Hitchens made the case on Fox News that Romney should not be surprised by questions about his allegiances, and that the least he could do is to discuss the intersection between his church’s authority and law, as well as questions related to the Mormon church’s racist and polygamist past. All of these can potentially have political consequences and Hitchens believes it would be unpatriotic to not touch upon these topics.

As a former resident of the state of Utah, I can say the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is highly politically aware and involved. Utah policies are heavily influenced by the Mormon church. However, Utah does not stand alone when it comes to high religious influence in politics. Larger states that get a larger number of ballots, such as Texas are also heavily influenced by their majority religion.

Some have claimed that Romney looks like a leader, however, the emphasis on looks signals to Mormon culture as well. The Mormon church raises its men to look like leaders, as a proselytizing attraction tool. All men who serve missions are taught how to dress, groom, talk, act and behave in the most persuasive ways. Mormon return-missionaries make great sales-men and have a strong reputation in the corporate sales-world.

Looks aside, would Romney be a good leader? Can one who avoids reasonable conversations related to his controversial church be a good leader, in a country where difficult international conversations happen every day?

While I think Romney should answer questions related to how his religion may influence his policies, just as Carey had to answer questions about his take on abortion, I think there is a Christian double standard at play in America. The mainstream Christian candidates are not challenged based on their religion, yet they should be equally questioned, regardless of religious affiliation. By the same token, Romney should expect and answer questions about his religion.

No one should be fooled into thinking that religious organization don’t influence politics, or that religion can be completely eliminated from politics. But just saying my church is just as Christian as yours is not a valid reason to skirt religious questions.

When your church owns the downtown block of Main Street in Salt Lake City you should be expected to answer tough questions. And when your church decrees same-sex couples can’t hold hands on this same Main street block, you may really want to answer how many of your decisions your church may influence. And if you can’t give an answer you may not be a good enough leader.

Tags: atheism, christian, church, Hitchens, Mormon, Politics, Religion, Romney

“A secular country allows for religion to flourish, if it wants to. A secular country allows atheism to flourish if it wants to,” said Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, during a speech at University of Texas at Austin.

Barker is a former evangelical preacher who says he “de-converted” in 1984.

Recently I’ve noticed the term deconversion used to imply a shift away from religious belief to atheism, as well as the synonym expression, “conversion to atheism.”

Historically I’ve associated the term conversion with Christianity. Also, most dictionaries will list conversion in the religious context as, “an experience associated with the definite and decisive adoption of a religion.” (Merriam Webster, Your Dictionary, Wikipedia).

The concept of “decisive adoption” is very important when discussing religious conversion because most religions  have in place a test of faith, by which they identify true conversion. Usually the test of faith encompasses both conviction as well as obedience and practicing of rites (outward expression of faith). Baptism is an essential rite in Christian conversion, for example.

So can one convert to atheism being that it is not a religion, does not require a test of faith, and does not require absolute allegiance to a set of rites? And can one deconvert from atheism?

As many atheists I attribute the supernatural a probability of existing so small that it’s insignificant. Be it a deity or a magical mist the supernatural belongs to fiction books.  I don’t feel the need or pressure to prove my allegiance to atheism. I don’t have to deconvert or convert either. My atheism didn’t come about as a falling away from something else (though some may disagree with me, because they think I fell away from their “true church”). I don’t even have “strong feelings” about my experience that could be attributed to a conversion. If atheism came with mystical experiences it would indeed be a religion. To me being an atheist is about being practical, rational and skeptical.

So I’d say the term conversion to atheism or de-conversion from atheism would only apply as as a way of using familiar rhetoric of religious type to either be sarcastic or to create some commonality in terms when faced with a potentially religious audience. However as an atheist I would stay away from such rhetoric for fear of making my audience believe atheism is a religion. Had the term never been used with a religious connotation and truly mean what its Latin origins described, a move away from something, I would not oppose its accompanying the term atheism. As it is, there’s too much religious baggage behind it to allow it to taint discussion of atheism.

Fun fact, when asking google to define “religious conversion,” those at the Church of Google suggest that we look up “religious conversion and terrorism.”

Tags: atheism, conversion, Religion, rites

In Oct. I reported that Illinois Atheist Rob Sherman and his daughter Dawn filed suit in U.S. District Court to challenge the constitutionality of the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act, that requires state schools to observe a moment of silence each day.

Nov. 14, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman ordered the superintendent of the Illinois State Board of Education not to enforce the act. According to Chicago Tribune:

“Gettleman issued the preliminary injunction Wednesday for District 214, finding that a new statute mandating the pause is too vague and may violate the 1st Amendment.”

The act was criticized as a way to establish prayer into public schools under the guise of “meditation.” Despite lawmakers’ claims the act was not introduced for religious reasons, the name of the act purposefully lists prayer as one of the activities thus legalized.

After yesterday’s judge order, Sherman wittily stated,

“It seems to me that the judge has indicated that this law doesn’t have a prayer.”

Tags: atheism, education, prayer, Religion

Quizrocket.com features a religion test that promises to tell you which religion is best suited for you. The test surprised me by asking 3 very interesting questions:

• Gender
• Birth date
• Zip code

I find it very interesting the quiz asked for age but instead of allowing one to enter age it forces a field to fill in birth date. And how would the zip code be relevant outside of the US? I’d say the questions were asked for statistical reasons only, if they weren’t introduced with statements such as, “The search for the right religion can be a long one. How old are you?”

I got even more suspicious when I saw a paid ad on google for this quiz. So I decided to test it out and see if my suspicions were valid.

I didn’t get to see the prescribed religion, but I did get proof for my hypothesis that this quiz is a ploy to collect data for potential proselytizing purposes.

Why else would I be asked to provide name and home address to receive the results of the test?

It’s also very revealing of the subtle, yet aggressive campaigns organized religions employ to increase their tithe paying flock. And the more tithe payers the more money to buy google ads.

Tags: atheism, christian, church, proselytizing, Religion

Since my publishing of a series of “Irreverent Halloween” posts, which started with Take Halloween Back from Christians, my blog scored more pro-Christian comments than atheist comments. I’m not complaining, but the large volume prohibited me from properly answering some of the more interesting statements. So here are the top five jaw-dropping, did-she-just-say-that comments, that are too priceless to not discuss:

1. The demonic testimony:

“demons do exist; I was formerly demon-possessed (no my head didn’t spin around) so I know first hand. If you read the New Testament with an open mind, God will show you that it’s the truth.”

There is nothing more powerful to a Christian than testimony, in this case counter-testimony, as in, god must exist because demons exist, and I know because I was possessed by one.

The unanswered question remains, if god is great, why is he not protecting believers and those in faithful families from possession? All possession stories come out of believing circles. Doctors, scientists and non-believers do not appear to have ever been possessed. What ever could protect this latter group from possession by demons?

That was a rhetorical question…

2. The “atheism is religion” counter-attack:

“From what I read, you find your peace in science, which is your god as well, and your religion. If there was no faith in God, you couldn’t be called an atheist today. Why do you rely so much on science? Isn’t it the science that creates monsters? Isn’t it science that “finds” today a cure for a disease which tomorrow proves to be poison? Science….faith in a religion….it’s all the same to me, when it is brought to fanatism.”

There’s nothing more entertaining than playing a game of get-to-know-you. But unless we’re playing charades I think it’s wise to stay away from telling people that because they find peace in something, it would make that something their god. Lately I’ve been finding peace in playing Wii, does that make Wii my god?

Science is not my god, science is no one’s god. It may be someone’s major preoccupation, but chances are those who respect and understand science don’t attribute supernatural properties to science. Also, I can’t think of any monsters that science created, but I can think of a few created by people. Or rather, people turn their own selves into monsters, and many of these monsters came about as an aftermath of religious fanaticism. It is sad that many hide their choices, good or bad, underneath the umbrela of entities outside of themselves. With a few exceptions most humans are personally responsible for the consequences of their actions, and blaming mom, or dad, or a religion, or lack of a religion does not excuse humans from being accountable.

Also I’m pretty sure Marx said “religion is the opiate of the masses” not science, so science creating poison is a new thing to me. Cures that were cures but then stop working were never cures at all, and whoever claimed they were cures, was either lying or delusional, neither being a commandment of the ‘church of science.’ However, people do lie and suffer from delusions.

3. The “God has a plan” spin:

“It really isn’t like the cartoons- a little devil on one shoulder and God on the other- the Big Guy is all-powerful, He could/will/does take Satan down. He also hardens some hearts so that His purposes might be filled. In the end, I don’t know what His ultimate plan is, I don’t know who “will come to the Father through Christ”, but He has called me to share my story and my beliefs.”

If all other arguments fail, just say, “I don’t know what god’s plan is, but I know he has one.” This statement is usually accompanied by a visual like the cartoon one above. As in, let me explain this to you in a way you’ll get–ah, I know! I’ll use a cartoon metaphor, because an atheist such as you can’t possible get anything more complex than that.

Let me break this news to you, atheists know that the cartoon metaphor presenting the dualism between the devil and the angel is nothing but an illustration for the struggle between good versus evil. We don’t actually take that literally.

4. The pseudo-science argument

“Well the DNA is made of molecules, and evolution says random mutations and natural selection is what put us here. Mutation is nothing more than movement of molecules isnt it not? Random DNA mutation means the DNA encoded itself, now thats akin to accidentally generating a 128 bit encryption algorithm, and simultaneously randomly generating the decryption algorthm. Nobody would believe that can ever happen, yet this is what evolutionsts wants us to believe that DNA encoding and decoding procedures (algorithms) were randomly created.”

This comment was so wickedly bad, I did reply to it the following way:

“When you talk about molecules moving I instantly think of Chris Rock talking about pimped-up rims–”they’re spinnin’, they’re spinnin’…”

I’m also seeing the potential that you’re just making fun of creationists here by impersonating all the inane arguments I’ve ever seen brought against science and evolution. I can’t honestly believe you are serious when you say, “Mutation is nothing more than movement of molecules isnt it not?”

Bad grammar aside, and in case I am wrong, and you are serious, the answer is NO. Genetic mutation is not movement of molecules. It’s not about the rims “spinnin’ and spinnin’.”

“Mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene. Gene mutations occur in two ways: they can be inherited from a parent or acquired during a person’s lifetime. Mutations that are passed from parent to child are called hereditary mutations or germline mutations (because they are present in the egg and sperm cells, which are also called germ cells). This type of mutation is present throughout a person’s life in virtually every cell in the body.”

5. The apocalypse prediction:

“See what evolution is doing to us, this stupid evolution crap is going to be the cause of the end of this world. ONLY GOD KNOWS how people can believe that we came into existence by random movements of molecules.”

Yep, only god knows how some believe mutation comes from random movement of molecules, or how that’s going to lead to the end of the world.

Tags: atheism, creationism, evolution, hell, monsters, Religion, science

The Golden Compass has been a best seller book in the ten years since it was first published, but with the upcoming release of the movie the Golden Compass the Catholic League released a statement to call the book, “atheism for children.” They also claim, “the trilogy, His Dark Materials, [of which Golden Compass is the first book] was written to promote atheism and denigrate Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism.”

In a Nov. 2 Today interview, Pullman responded,

“I always mistrust people who tell us how we should understand something. They know better than we do what the book means, or what this means, and how we should read it and whether we should read it or not. I don’t think that’s democratic, I prefer to trust the reader.”

What is the main concern of the Catholic League, in Bill Donohue’s words?

If unsuspecting Christian parents take their children to see the movie, they may very well find it engaging and then buy Pullman’s books for Christmas. That’s the problem.

Clearly the problem is with the book, but to stop sales of the book (for Christmas in particular) Donohue wants the movie boycotted. As if censoring one thing would eliminate the existence of the other.

The difference between the two men’s statements is that Donohue wants censorship and Pullman believes in the freedom to read and interpret information as one wishes. Donohue implies parents aren’t able to discern, that boycotting the movies is the right way to stop parents from buying their children the book. Pullman on the other hand trusts that the readers will draw from the book their own learnings. And that’s the difference between censorship and freedom–the former assumes a one-size-fits-all impact of information, plus inability of the audience to self-discern and prescribes formulaic elimination of such information, whereas the latter allows the ability for all to discern on their own accord how, when and why they consume the information.

As for the claims the book is anti-Catholic, Donohue broadcasts his paranoid interpretations once more. The Golden Compass describes a world lead by a a highly politicized church, that has accrued enormous power, which is being used to less than positive ends. Which makes one wonder why “big bad church” rings a bell with Donohue.

However, Pullman distances his book from religious debate and touches on the core ideas in his writing, such as democracy and freedom, as opposed to tyranny.

The qualities that the books celebrate are those such as kindness, love, courage and courtesy too. And intellectual curiosity. All these good things. And the qualities that the books attack are cold-heartedness, tyranny, close-mindedness, cruelty, the things that we all agree are bad things. (…) It doesn’t matter to me whether people believe in God or not, so I’m not promoting anything of that sort. What I do care about is whether people are cruel or whether they’re kind, whether they act for democracy or for tyranny, whether they believe in open-minded enquiry or in shutting the freedom of thought and expression.

Tags: atheism, catholic league, catholicism, censhorship, christianity, freedom, Golden Compass, Pullman, Religion