Skepticum

“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

BlackSun commented yesterday on the news that Ga Governor would hold an open call for prayer on the steps of the capitol. The prayer was to be for rain.

“What Sonny Perdue is accomplishing with this (either uber-cynical or mind-bendingly stupid) stunt is the diversion of attention of citizens from their own accountability–for the dunce governor they elected, bad water infrastructure decisions over decades, and for the continued cheating and waste of now-scarce water by Georgians,” writes BlackSun.

In the irreverent anti-religious tradition of Skepticum, let me put a more entertaining spin on this. I’d prefer, instead of boring capitol prayers, that we do an old Eastern European ceremony, that involves skimpily dressed virgins, wet t-shirts and lots of dancing. I’ll admit that religious rituals are more fun than atheism in certain instances, especially when they involve dancing and naked people.

In the Romanian agrarian rite of Paparuda, young women are nude or dressed in rags covered in leaves, and are paraded dancing through the village, while older women throw water on them. This Summer-time rite is meant to function as a fertility ritual to bring about rain and help the crops grow.

What better way than to bring prayer and wet t-shirt contests into one? It would probably provide more entertainment than such a poor excuse for irresponsible entitlement as displayed by Perdue.

Tags: prayer, Religion, ritual

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