Alternet: Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism? Wednesday, Dec 30 2009 

Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism?

A few days ago I saw some blog comment, I forget where it was, but it was something like, “It’s not atheism that I mind all that much, it’s just atheists’ incredible air of smugness about it.”

Being convinced about the high probability of something because your epistemology forces you to be given the observed evidence cannot be an act of smugness or unsmugness itself. I suppose it’s how you present it, but people trying to avoid debating the central core of any given argument will always accuse the other side of smugness, to change the subject.

Of course, the issue is really about status. Low or medium-status people are not allowed to make controversial assertions that contradict the cherished beliefs of high-status people because this is seen as a social power grab. Furthermore, there are many low-status people that indiscriminately oppose the cherished beliefs of high-status people for their own satisfaction.

For more on this, see “The 9/11 Meta-Truther Conspiracy Theory”.

Atheism Done Right Tuesday, Nov 10 2009 

Russell Blackford, an atheist activist and transhumanist, and Udo Schuklenk, who is Joint editor-in-chief of Bioethics, the journal of the International Association of Bioethics, and released the October 2009 anthology ‘50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We are Atheists’ with Russell, have published an article in The Guardian, “Stand up, stand up, against Jesus”. It describes the unfortunate schism in atheism between the “accommodationists” and the people who say it like it is. Here is an excerpt:

Religious teachings promise us much — eternal life, spiritual salvation, moral direction, and a deeper understanding of reality. It all sounds good, but these teachings are also onerous in their demands. If they can’t deliver on what they promise, it would be well to clear that up. Put bluntly, are the teachings of any religion actually true or not? Do they have any rational support? It’s hard to see what questions could be more important. Surely the claims of religion — of all religions — merit scrutiny from every angle, whether historical, philosophical, scientific, or any other.

Contrary to many expectations in the 1970s, or even the 1990s, religion has not faded away, even in the Western democracies, and we still see intense activism from religious lobbies. Even now, one religion or another opposes abortion rights, most contraceptive technologies, and therapeutic cloning research. Various churches and sects condemn many harmless, pleasurable sexual activities that adults can reasonably enjoy. As a result, these are frowned upon, if not prohibited outright, in many parts of the world, indeed people lose their lives because of them. Most religious organisations reject dying patients’ requests to end their lives as they see fit. Even in relatively secular countries, such as the UK, Canada, and Australia, governments pander blatantly to Christian moral concerns as the protection of religiously motivated refusals to provide medical professional services demonstrates.

Homosexuals are demonized thanks to religion. The God of the Gaps serves as the most notorious curiosity-stopper there is. Homosexuals are routinely murdered in places like Iraq. According to the predominant interpretation of the Bible, it says that homosexuality is evil, but how do we even know that “lying with” a man means sexing them up? Christianity is the fuel in the engine of the fantastically evil and wasteful Drug War. More Christians back torture.

More subtly, religion, especially Christianity where I come from, discourages counterculture and brash intellectualism in general. If the Bible is immune from higher criticism, then the notion of erecting other curiosity-stoppers elsewhere comes naturally.

I am quite interested in Christianity for the large, convoluted memetic complex that it is. I have over 173 bookmarks for Christianity on my del.ic.ious account. If there are any atheist transhumanists out there with as much interest in Christianity as I have, people step forward, and we can discuss the authorship of the Pauline epistles together over wine and bread.

As Russell points out, it is our right to make mockery of religion. If you are religious, it is my right to disrespect you all day long if I feel like it. In America, a free country, I can do any damn thing I want as long as I don’t break the law (and sometimes even then). You can feel free to disrespect me back. But I see Christianity unraveling, and it’s our obligation to pull on the threads.

Most transhumanists are afraid of Christianity and want to be buddy-buddy. Not me. I respect some theists, like Lincoln Cannon and the Mormon Transhumanists, but I think that Mormon theology is extremely unusual in its flexibility and apparent relatedness to transhumanism. Mormonism is one of the most exotically unusual Christian sects anyhow, so when I am speaking against Christianity in general you can assume I am not talking about Mormonism. Most mainstream Christians consider Mormonism to be heresy anyway. My priest in the Russian Orthodox Church made fun of Mormonism to me when I was an altar boy. It seems like Mormonism can almost be twisted and pulled and warped into something that makes sense, but not quite.

I am part of what you’d call the Penn & Teller school of atheism. Except that I don’t think that people should use quotes from Michael Shermer. Michael Shermer is played out.

However, I think Jesus was pretty fricking interesting. He was damn smart and confident. He reminds me of others sometimes.

Christianity Not So Popular Anymore Wednesday, Mar 11 2009 

See this link. Only 75 percent of Americans call themselves Christian, down from 86 percent in 1990. I notice the article was modified to add in the Lou Dobbs quote as a type of damage control: suggesting that the loss from Christianity is not from atheism, though it is.

Christianity is offensive to me, because it states that I will burn in Hell forever for not believing in God, among other reasons. I am an atheist.

Especially offensive is the implication of Mark 5:18, which makes it impossible for Christians to discard the Old Testament:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

This means that Jesus approves of all those exotic rules like that homosexuals should be killed, death for fortunetelling, people that don’t listen to priests should be killed, death for hitting your parents, kill the entire town if one person worships another god, death for blasphemy, kill women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night, and death for people who work on Sunday. How about… no?

No comments allowed on this post, sorry. There are plenty of other places on the Internet to debate religion.

Should Scientists Take Money from the Templeton Foundation? Tuesday, Jun 3 2008 

See John Horgan’s, “The Templeton Foundation: a Skeptic’s Take”.

Excerpt:

My ambivalence about the foundation came to a head during my fellowship in Cambridge last summer. The British biologist Richard Dawkins, whose participation in the meeting helped convince me and other fellows of its legitimacy, was the only speaker who denounced religious beliefs as incompatible with science, irrational, and harmful. The other speakers~— three agnostics, one Jew, a deist, and 12 Christians (a Muslim philosopher canceled at the last minute)~— offered a perspective clearly skewed in favor of religion and Christianity.

Some of the Christian speakers’ views struck me as inconsistent, to say the least. None of them supported intelligent design, the notion that life is in certain respects irreducibly complex and hence must have a divine origin, and several of them denounced it. Simon Conway Morris, a biologist at Cambridge and an adviser to the Templeton Foundation, ridiculed intelligent design as nonsense that no respectable biologist could accept. That stance echoes the view of the foundation, which over the last year has taken pains to distance itself from the American intelligent-design movement. And yet Morris, a Catholic, revealed in response to questions that he believes Christ was a supernatural figure who performed miracles and was resurrected after his death. Other Templeton speakers also rejected intelligent design while espousing beliefs at least as lacking in scientific substance.

The Templeton prize-winners John Polkinghorne and John Barrow argued that the laws of physics seem fine-tuned to allow for the existence of human beings, which is the physics version of intelligent design. The physicist F. Russell Stannard, a member of the Templeton Foundation Board of Trustees, contended that prayers can heal the sick~— not through the placebo effect, which is an established fact, but through the intercession of God. In fact the foundation has supported studies of the effectiveness of so-called intercessory prayer, which have been inconclusive.

One Templeton official made what I felt were inappropriate remarks about the foundation’s expectations of us fellows. She told us that the meeting cost more than $1-million, and in return the foundation wanted us to publish articles touching on science and religion. But when I told her one evening at dinner that~— given all the problems caused by religion throughout human history~— I didn’t want science and religion to be reconciled, and that I hoped humanity would eventually outgrow religion, she replied that she didn’t think someone with those opinions should have accepted a fellowship. So much for an open exchange of views.

Hey Templeton Foundation. Here is what the Bible says:

1. We possess an immaterial soul.
2. All humans are sinful and deserve to go to Hell.
3. Jesus of Nazareth paid for our sins on the cross.
4. Jesus of Nazareth was an immortal child of God.
5. Jesus, Mary, and Mary M. all rose directly into Heaven, leaving no corpses.
6. The teachings of JC are the only way to be “saved” and go to Heaven after death.
7. There is life after death.
8. There is a realm we go after death that is very happy, called Heaven. There may or may not be angels, choirs, lyres, clouds, etc., in this place. Whatever it is, it’s good.
9. We ritualistically consume the blood and body of Christ every Sunday to be closer to him.
10. A supernatural God actually exists and watches us, and we know this because the text of the Bible is sufficient evidence for doing so.
11. We should not suffer a witch to live.
12. A man should not lie with another man, the penalty being death.
13. Man shall not lie with beast, the penalty being death.
14. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
15. If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
16. For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.
17. Etc… (pick up a Bible and take it at face value.)

People actually believe this stuff. (What percentage I don’t know, but according to one poll, 60% of American adults believe that Bible stories, such as Noah’s Ark and Moses parting the Red Sea, are literally true. This is appalling.)

Liberal Christians that dismiss these ideas are forced to directly reject what the Bible says, and probably would be excommunciated by priests who actually take the text seriously, rather than as a metaphor. Yes, I know that Presbyterians (whose church I was a part of for several years as a pre-teen, mainly because I had friends in it) like the 95-year-old Sir John Templeton are especially liberal, (wealthy), and forward-thinking Christians. But mainstream Christians, the majority, condemn you in private for your liberal interpretation of the Bible, sometimes in direct contradiction of biblical statements. Notably, in the Orthodox church, where I grew up. You don’t even want to know what they think about Mormons. (I am just speaking from personal experience, maybe those who obey the Bible think nothing negative of those who reject select statements from it, but I highly doubt it.)

I know for a fact that some of my friends and acquaintances are depositing checks from the Templeton Foundation. Hey, friends. For every strings-attached dollar you take from the Templeton Foundation you are helping them in their mission of blurring the distinction between Bronze Age theological literature and modern day scientific inquiry. Why not stop?

Unfortunately for the Templeton Foundation, scientific respectability cannot be bought.

As John McCain said to Mitt Romney about his huge expenditure on attack ads (no McCain endorsement here, just quoting him),

“A lot of it is your own money. You’re free to do with what you want to. You can spend it all.”

Spend it all, please. It will do nothing to stop the meteoric rise of secularism in our society. Especially among young people, who commonly laugh at religion the second their parents turn their backs.

Your children are becoming atheists, and there’s not much you can do about it.

Reality Friday, May 23 2008 

Vatican Takes Official Anti-Transhumanist Stance Tuesday, Mar 11 2008 

From Reuters:

“VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Thou shall not pollute the Earth. Thou shall beware genetic manipulation. Modern times bring with them modern sins. So the Vatican has told the faithful that they should be aware of “new” sins such as causing environmental blight.

The guidance came at the weekend when Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, the Vatican’s number two man in the sometimes murky area of sins and penance, spoke of modern evils.

Asked what he believed were today’s “new sins,” he told the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano that the greatest danger zone for the modern soul was the largely uncharted world of bioethics.

“(Within bioethics) there are areas where we absolutely must denounce some violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments and genetic manipulation whose outcome is difficult to predict and control,” he said.

The Vatican opposes stem cell research that involves destruction of embryos and has warned against the prospect of human cloning.”

Why? :(

See some benefits of gene therapy so far.

Christianity Tuesday, Mar 11 2008 

Here is an image that is practically guaranteed to be offensive to all Christians. If you’re a Christian that likes the futurist material on this blog and doesn’t care for mockery/criticism of your religion, skip it. Here is the atheist version.

It says the following, but using common terms instead of Christian terms:

“The belief that Jesus can make you live forever if you participate in Holy Communion and accept him as your Lord and Savior, so he can grant you freedom from Original Sin because Eve was convinced by Satan to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.”

The linked material is a pithy image posted to prompt questioning of the foundations of a popular world religion. If you’re offended, ask yourself, “why am I receptive to criticism of everything but my religion?”

This image isn’t new, and I believe it originated on 4chan, but what’s interesting is that now it appears in the top Google image search results for “Christianity”.

For information on what the 2008 US presidential candidates think about secularism and atheism, see Austin Cline on About.com.