Ad Absurdum

A Gene Roddenberry Humanist

2011-10-05T08:05:00.000-07:00

On an unseasonably warm September evening in a basement auditorium at the University of Minnesota, Scott Lohman, president of the Humanists of Minnesota spoke before a diverse audience of people invited by Campus Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists on Star Trek, science fiction and how the genre can provide a platform for a Humanist message.

Mr. Lohman began his presentation with a story about how he started to think as a Humanist. It began as a child watching Star Trek and he refers to himself as a “Gene Roddenberry Humanist.” Next, he included what every Humanist must include in a presentation, a slide called, “What is Humanism?” He cited the following, which is from Humanist Manifesto III:

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

Next, Mr. Lohman explored science fiction as a genre and why it can be useful for exploring big ideas, complex concepts and attitude changing situations. He stated that science fiction is a literature of ideas which dares to ask, “What if?” In Star Trek, for example, writers found out how to talk about complex controversial social issues, simply by placing characters in a different planet and painting their faces blue. As a genre, science fiction is known for taking ideas and running with them. Through this exploration, writers have the freedom to get an audience to think of big things, such as, “What makes us human?”, “What gives life meaning?” and “Does it pay to be ethical?”

Star Trek started in 1966 and was unique on television for a number of reasons. First, in science fiction, it had been common to change the cast of characters in each episode, such as in the Twilight Zone. This would allow writers to convince the audience to identify with characters and that clearly worked. After 78 episodes aired, Star Trek continues on through syndication, even today.

Mr. Lohman then walked the audience through the history of Star Trek by providing examples of episodes which feature Humanist themes. In the first season of the Original Series Star Trek explored what makes us human in “What Are Little Girls Made Of?,” and should we live in a controlled or open society in, “The Return of the Archons.” The writers explored the concept of computer generated war in, “A Taste of Armageddon,” including this quote from Captain Kirk, “All right. It's instinctive. The instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers, but we are not going to kill today. That's all it takes - knowing that we won't kill today.”

Mr. Lohman continued the exploration of Star Trek and its bold themes featured through its history, from the Original Series in the 60’s to the Animated Series, the Next Generation, Deep Sapce 9, Voyager and Enterprise. A complete episode guide for Humanists will be provided at the end of this article.

Star Trek and Humanism should serve as an inspiration for budding authors out there and even activists who want to bring a Humanist message to a larger audience. Science Fiction, as a literary genre, can be cleverly subversive and disruptive to common conceptions. Mr. Lohman provided an entertaining, through message. The leadership of the Campus Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists organized a successful event. I know I heard Activities Director, Jeff Mondloch, greeting people before the meeting, even straining to remember names, which was great! (A tip to organizers, name tags can be dorky, but help new people become familiar.)

Humanist Episode Guide (Courtesy of Scott Lohman)

The Original Series

Season 1
“What Are Little Girls Made Of?” - What makes us human?
“The Return of the Archons” - Should we live in a controlled or open society?
“A Taste of Armageddon” - What if we had computer generated war with real causalities?

Season 2
“Who Mourns for Adonais?” - What if an alien thought he was the Greek god Apollo?
“The Apple” - What if you lived your life with no responsibilities?
“A Private Little War” - Is it moral to interfere with other cultures’ wars, as we did in Vietnam?
“A Piece of the Action” - What if a culture had been contaminated by a book about gangsters in Chicago?

Season 3
“Let This Be Your Last Battlefield” - What if two races hated each other because one had a half white, half black face and the other had a half black, half white face?

The Animated Series

Season 2
“How Sharper than a Serpent’s Tooth” - What if an alien visited ancient Earth to become known as a Mayan god?
“Bem” - What if an individual creature could split itself into multiple entities?

The Next Generation

Season 1
“Encounter at Farpoint” - What if an omnipotent being accused humanity of barbarism?
“11001001” - What if a society became too dependent on technology and only understood the world in binary?

Season 2
“Measure of a Man” - What makes us human?

Season 3
“The High Ground” - Is it interference to assist the wounded in a conflict?
“Who Watches the Watchers?” - What if a primitive culture was being monitored by an advanced culture and became exposed to advanced technology?

Season 4
“Devil’s Due” - What if an advanced species terrorized another species, posing as a god? Is advanced technology indistinguishable from magic?

Season 6
“The Chase” - What if an advanced humanoid species populated planets all around the galaxy?

Deep Space 9

Season 1
“Duet” - Can an individual make a difference in a war?
“In the Hands of the Prophets” - How should religion and politics interact?

Season 3
“Past Tense” - What if San Francisco segregated the poor into compounds to prevent social upheaval?

Season 4
“Rejoined” - Do we love a person’s personality or their body?

Season 5
“Trials and Tribble-ations” - What if a television show wanted to pay homage to its history by bringing back themes from a previous episode?

Voyager

Season 2
“Death Wish” - How long is forever? What if a being who couldn’t die wanted to?

Season 3
“Distant Origin” - What if dinosaurs left Earth and evolved in another part of the galaxy?

Season 4
“Mortal Coil” - What if someone could die and be recreated? How would that person match their experience with what they have been told of the afterlife?

Season 5
“Equinox” - Does it pay to be moral?

Season 7
“Workforce” - What if the crew were brainwashed to believe they work in a factory instead of on a ship?

Enterprise

Season 2
“Congenator” - What if a species had three genders?

Season 3
“Similitude” - What makes us unique?

Grassroots Anything - Lessons learned from running an atheist organization

2011-08-01T07:50:00.000-07:00

I was president of Minnesota Atheists for only a few months. Since then, I have been happily observing other freethought groups and listening to presentations on how to make a group more effective, including developing campaigns, communication and diversity. I thought it would be helpful to detail where I fell short with Minnesota Atheists on these fronts and also what appeared to work (though the evidence is mostly subjective, since we weren't great at paying attention to metrics).

Campaigns

Desiree Schell, Maria Walters, Trevor Zimmerman and K.O. Myers created a Campaign Manual for Grassroots Skeptical Activism, though the lessons learned in this manual are useful for any grassroots activity, even at a small scale. The framework can be modified, depending on what you are planning on doing, for example, any activity should have stated goals, a primary and secondary objective, tactics and a post activity evaluation.

When I was running Minnesota Atheists, the main goal I had was to double dues-paying membership in a year. Looking back on that, that was really a primary objective. A goal should be something large, for example, making it more socially acceptable to identify as "atheist" in Minnesota. That is, after all, one of the mission statements of Minnesota Atheists and a campaign could be built around that, including a full scale campaign with tactics as varied as contacting media and politicians, targeting sympathetic organizations in outreach and writing letters to politicians. One way to measure the success of this campaign would be an increase in membership.

Communication

Like any organization today, a diverse range of communication is used to inform members of what is going on. When I was with Minnesota Atheists, I advocated for expanding our communication to members through Facebook and using our email list to send out newsletters. The benefit of using these sources, is the ability to assess effectiveness. When I redesigned the website of Minnesota Atheists, I wanted to be able to analyze as many metrics as possible. I wanted to know where our visitors were coming from, what they were looking at, how long were they spending on our site and how many unique visitors we received. I also wanted to be able to compare this data moth over month, or year over year. By using more online resources, we were able to see if our outreach was expanding or shrinking. By using an email marketing service, we were also able to determine, with some accuracy, if our newsletter was actually being opened. Sure, you may be sending an email out to 1,500 people, but if only 20 open it, you may need to spend some time to determine why that is.

While metrics gathered from electronic media are helpful, another piece of communication, getting feedback from members, former members, and just interested parties, was important. Since I had only been involved with the organization for a couple of years, I wanted to really reach out to as many people as possible, to find out what they thought, so I emailed out a survey. One limitation of a survey, especially with a group like Minnesota Atheists, with a diverse range of membership, including some people who do not use email, or use it very little, is that you may not hear their feedback. Looking back, I think it would have been helpful to gather these responses by calling members. Through the survey, I was able to gather some information from some people, only about 120 responses in 1,500 requests, but these responses from people have been echoed by others in the freethought community, including the charge that Minnesota Atheists is too liberal-leaning of an organization, doesn't have enough family friendly events and doesn't meet at times or places which are convenient to me. These responses helped push the expansion of Meetup events even further than we had ever before. One other interesting response from the survey, is that many people joined Minnesota Atheists because they want to meet a community of like-minded people. Many people were becoming first-time members simply because the group exists, is easy to find online and easy to join. It wasn't really because of anything specific we had done, or were currently doing. It was as simple as being there.

Diversity

At Minnesota Atheists, there has always been a push to have half men and half women on the board. While this increased diversity on the board, it also felt forced, for example, only women candidates would be sought after if a woman left the board. More women have become involved with Minnesota Atheists, even though the board make up is much different now, with mostly men, which may mean that the make up of the board doesn't impact attendance at events nearly as much as the events themselves.

When I first joined Minnesota Atheists, I felt really out of place because of my age. Most people meeting at a library on a Sunday afternoon had gray hair and were men. Though I haven't been to a Minnesota Atheists event in a while, before I left, there were younger people becoming involved as well as more women. This was more due to our social events than anything else, I think. We expanded to include book clubs, pub nights, small group discussions, family events and even a debate class. It took getting women and younger people to run small activities during a month to get people like them to be more active. This diversity was organic and didn't involve a pink-themed newsletter to attract women. What I found challenging, was in making people feel comfortable running their own event. When I approached people to run a book club, if they were interested, or some other event, some people felt afraid to do so because they feared the board. Some people felt like every event must be scrutinized and vetted by the board in order to happen and felt pressure to conform to some unwritten standard which all activities should meet. Once people got over that fear, things went a lot better. Since we charged people for membership, many people who are involved with the organization are not necessarily members, which also became a challenge in finding people to run events. When I was with the board, we were never really able to settle the argument surrounding volunteers working off their membership by running events, if they wanted to. I think this would have been helpful in finding more parents of young children to get involved in running family-friendly events.

With Minnesota Atheists, I felt like we were completely neutral toward women and people of different cultural, religious and racial backgrounds, but we were not. It's a problem I think a lot of groups have, where they pretend like race and cultural identification don't matter, so activities like a presentation of privilege never come up. That is one thing I regret not working on, is in having a more diverse selection of speakers on different topics, including people from different cultural and/or racial backgrounds. While our monthly meetings were considered public outreach events, we rarely had non-atheists attend, so it wasn't really an outreach tool to non-atheists. Realizing this, would allow us to discuss more challenging issues, which may or may not have anything specifically to do with atheism, but would be more rewarding to the people participating and allow the group to welcome more people who may be atheist, but who may not identify as atheist first.

Conclusion

Organizing atheists is just as challenging as organizing any other group of people. People are challenging. The feedback you will get will often be from a minority of really passionate people in your group and sometimes just the loudest complainers. Most feedback about how well or poor you are doing as an organization, you will NEVER hear and much of what you decide to do will be based on either your vision for the organization or instinct, but the more information can be measured, the more feedback can be gathered, the more successful your group will be in reaching its goals. You do have goals for your group, right?

How JREF Can Become More Diverse

2011-07-19T15:21:00.000-07:00

At The Amazing Meeting 9, a panel focused on diversity was moderated by Desiree Schell and included panelists blogger Greta Christina, Executive Director of the James Randi Educational Foundation D. J. Grothe, activist Debbie Goddard, comedian and journalist Jamila Bey and blogger Hemant Mehta. During the panel, the suggestion was raised on how to increase diversity at TAM through having a diversity of topics open for discussion, including diving into the “soft sciences” and discussing issues such as the drug war, poverty, the right for homosexuals to marry, etc. D. J. Grothe spoke with a word of caution against doing such a thing, for a number of reasons. Since I think that spreading critical thinking to the public at large is important, I thought I would present some options for JREF.

First, I will be focusing on JREF solely. In my opinion, local organizations are able to judge what to do, but JREF can be a great motivator for the direction local groups may go. Second, I have not been a member of JREF for even a year. I don’t have an understanding of the history of the organization, so my assumptions may not be correct. Third, when I speak of diversity, I will use the same categories included in the panel, which are a diversity of sex, sexual orientation, race, income, age and ideas. Lastly, with regard to opinions panelists gave at TAM, I am going on memory and notes I wrote. I will also be referring to comments made by people on Twitter, which shouldn’t be taken as representative of any particular group, but are what I gathered as feedback.

Whenever someone suggests an organization should or should not do something, I like to examine the mission statement of the organization. A mission statement is part of the organization’s legal documentation and not just some tag line. Every action that an organization takes should further the mission in some way. If an organization engages in actions which are not in line with the mission, donors could sue the organization to have funds returned. The mission statement of the James Randi Educational Foundation is:
“Our mission is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.”
Based on this mission, it appears that having a presentation on the drug war and/or other social issues would be outside of the scope of the JREF, since the focus is only on “paranormal and supernatural ideas.”

I think it would also be important to examine if the JREF has had topics on issues which may be outside of its mission, as defined. What this may mean, is that the mission statement may need to be changed and/or an event like TAM is considered to be different than an action specifically created by JREF, which would allow for more flexibility in topics. During TAM 9, most presentations can be directly tied to the mission of JREF. There are a few exceptions, however, such as Lawrence Krauss’ presentation on Richard Feynmann and Sean Faircloth’s presentation on Theocrats.

These two presentations and the theme of TAM 9 show where there is room to do what the diversity advocates on the panel are hungering to do. The concern raised, is that by limiting the focus of JREF to just the paranormal and supernatural, you are excluding others from participating. The scientific method and critical thinking are important pieces used to analyze claims regarding the supernatural and paranormal. People who value this method to prevent harm caused by people making false claims will usually have an appreciation for science and discovery in general and would trust analysis of other topics using the scientific method and critical thinking. For example, analyzing the claims made by proponents of drug control policy in the United States to evaluate whether that policy was effective in meeting its goals or not.

Here is where some concern was raised by D. J. Grothe in the discussion. D. J. argued that he goal is to make TAM welcoming to everyone, including having a diversity of beliefs represented. The challenge to that, is that you must increase the diversity of topics discussed at TAM in order to attract a diverse audience. Otherwise you will attract a group of people who are interested in Bigfoot, UFO’s, science and philosophy. D. J.’s partial challenge to that, is that the topics at TAM haven’t changed greatly. The focus is still on skepticism, debunking the paranormal and supernatural claims, yet this year saw growing diversity in attendance, with 40 percent of attendees identifying as women. It will be important to determine why that diversity is increasing and if the selection of topics has much to do with why people are choosing to come to TAM or if there are other reasons why someone is choosing to attend.

While listening to the panel, a few themes from commenters were noted. One comment raised by PZ Myers, is that D. J. Grothe is attempting to play the role as gatekeeper for allowed skeptical discussion. I would say that is a fair claim and is likely one of D. J.’s responsibilities as executive director of JREF. If D. J. allowed for a presentation on the drug war and the presentation was overly political, JREF may be blamed for it and may also be accused of promoting a political position. However, we can see that Sean Faircloth’s presentation, while not advocating for, or against any political candidate, could be seen as being overly political by some who may not view the separation of church and state as important as others do in the skeptical community.

Another commenter mentioned the concern that JREF, by focusing on social issues, could easily become a defender of the Democratic Party. I think the commenter raised this question, since, while someone can evaluate the testable claims made by legislators who created the laws which form drug control policy, it becomes easy to write the next half of the presentation, for example, Congressman Smith, while promoting legislation X, advocated that it would do Y. Since it did not do Y, legislation X is a failure, so I propose legislation Z.

Will increasing the diversity of topics at TAM increase attendance? Maybe. It would take surveys to determine why people are attending in the first place. Can JREF increase the diversity of topics at TAM without appearing to become too political? I think they can, but it is a careful process. Is it important to advocate for skepticism and critical thinking in a more broad sense than what JREF may focus on and reach out to all people. Yes. This is why I think that outreach at the local level by independent groups may lead to greater diversity at TAM.

While there were many presentations at TAM regarding the paranormal and supernatural, many were also focused on diverse topics, such as organizing, being an effective communicator, space exploration, how are minds work, including how we can be fooled and how to deal with mental illness. I see these type of events useful for inspiring an application of critical thinking across a broad range of topics since they are designed, in some way, to make you a better skeptic and a better promoter of skepticism. In this way, you become an advocate for critical thinking in other organizations you may be involved with, whether that is at work, your school, a local skeptics organization or an organization which advocates for social change. Skeptics can be seen as soldiers fighting a battle against woo using the tools of critical thinking, effective, audience specific communication and the scientific method.

Because JREF is silent on issues like the drug war, rights for homosexuals and poverty it is easy to claim that JREF is acting cowardly by avoiding these issues, or even worse, being complicit in discrimination by not acting. Though, the same criticism could be held of other organizations which don’t view themselves as advocates for broad social change. Should JREF become a leading organization, inspiring local organizations to use skepticism to tackle difficult social issues we all deal with, in an effort to increase the diversity D. J. Grothe wishes to obtain? Would or should JREF’s mission change to accommodate this change? Are there members of JREF who would rather not have presentations on “soft science” social issues and appreciate the effort to maintain political neutrality? Are there also members who will feel ignored if his or her issue isn’t discussed? These are tough questions which need answers. The leadership and membership of JREF should address them through considerate research and analysis. The diversity panel is a good start, but it is obvious that JREF will need to determine how to meet the goal of increasing diversity.

In my opinion, which should be taken with a large grain of salt, since I have not been active in the skeptic community for long, is that local groups will be the largest sources of outreach and can affect the diversity shown at JREF. Similar to the papers presentations given on the last day of TAM, a handful of local organizations can give presentations on outreach efforts they have conducted and/or be given an opportunity to give a presentation which is important to their members. If local organizations increase diversity and those local members become active with JREF, the leadership of JREF may have an incentive to expand its mission beyond its more narrow focus to include issues of importance to a wider audience.

I look forward to more discussion on this issue. I don't envy D. J.'s job of steering the focus of JREF to maintain the balance of allowing for thoughtful discussion on complex social issues with less clear methods for testing claims and avoiding criticism for being a left leaning organization without consideration for "other points of view," but I feel diversity won't increase if we don't take the time to determine how to get more people involved. It may be a complex task, but we're clever people, right? We can do this.

Campus Group Doing the Small Things Well

2011-06-28T07:17:00.000-07:00

My first "atheist" activity was a debate which was co-sponsored by Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, now Campus Atheists Skeptics and Humanists at the University of Minnesota. Since then, I have tried to go to events when they are interesting and financially supported the group on occasion, because CASH has some great resources available to them that other local atheist groups do not. For example, predictable meeting spaces, easy access to market ideas, a large population of people who may be primed to find an identity and/or make the world a better place, volunteers who can meet more frequently and opportunities for funding and grants which don't exist for non-student groups.

While CASH has tons of benefits available to them, the leadership has gotten off track at times. It can be easy to take all of these benefits for granted, especially getting funding from student service fees which eclipse funding other atheist student groups receive around the country. It can also be easy to fall into the temptation to "phone it in" despite working hard to organize a few larger events during the year, weekly events can be daunting and it is easy to throw another game night or pizza party, week after week, simply because of apathy. Some people are great at being accountable and others need more motivation. This should be a lesson to other student groups: non-students are watching!

Student group leadership changes each year, which I think is a great thing, even though you can be throwing the dice and having to live with whoever was convinced to devote a ton of time to the cause for the next semester or year. Since I've been following CASH, I have seen some great leaders graduate and move on, some not so great leaders thankfully moving on to things they are better suited for. Over this last year, I have seen a better focus on making CASH a great organization, rather than just a group of friends who like to hang out and use student service fees to buy pizza.

Here are the things CASH has done well over the last year:
1. Had regular communication. When CASH wasn't as great, one sign was a lack of communication. Their website or Facebook pages were rarely updated and when they were, it was often the day of the event, or the day before. For someone who isn't on campus, or for people who like to go to interesting events, it's really important to know these things ahead of time. It also shows you care about the events you're planning.
2. Had a variety of events. While I hate on things like South Park night, or game night and prefer discussion and speakers, if you only have one type of event, you'll alienate people who like the other events.
3. Supported the diversity of opinion among atheists. Atheists aren't some unified front with total agreement on every issue, particularly about what role should atheists have in making the world a better place and how to accomplish those goals. If we can't even speak with each other about things we don't agree on, how are we ever to convince non-atheists to support causes we value?
4. Learning lessons at conferences. The Secular Student Alliance holds a number of leadership conferences each year. While some students can use this as an excuse to goof off and skip speakers, CASH's leadership, at least some, got a lot of value from the speakers and talking with other student leaders.
5. Bridging the summer gap. I received an email from Jeff Mondloch at the end of June. That has never, ever happened before and was great to see. In the newsletter, he let people who live in town, or take classes over the summer, that CASH is already planning for next year (awesome) and put out a notice about am interesting non-CASH, but atheist-related event people might like to keep them interested.

From a non-student, but avid supporter of a student group, I'd like to let volunteers of student groups know that communication matters, reaching out to the local, non-campus atheist community can be a great way to get funding, if you need it, meet interesting people with different experiences. Also, know that what you do matters. If you're heart isn't in it, or your priorities are different, work as hard as you are able to, even though you may not be getting paid, because what you do matters. If you can't find that good balance, work hard at grooming someone who can help you or replace what you are doing. If you dread going to another meeting to plan the next event and you try hard to come up with excuses, think about passing the torch. Also, don't be afraid to ask community leaders for help. While non-students can be busy, they may be motivated to support your cause and ease some of your burden.

I know I usually write about things as a rant, but I'm happy to report that CASH is doing well and I look forward to the next year.

Skeptics Find Comfort in a "Cocoon of Doubt"

2011-05-29T20:26:00.000-07:00

My father graduated Luther Seminary with a Master in Divinity this past weekend. Jeannette and I attended the commencement ceremony with a sermon provided by Rev. Craig Koester. Rather than providing a sermon full of optimism about making the world a better place through promoting peace and equality, self empowerment and freedom of all people, he seemed to be making one last ditch effort to convince graduating seminary students that they didn't waste their time and that convincing other people that the Resurrection of Jesus really happened matters.

He even went so far as to bring up doubt in the scripture he quoted:

Matthew 28:16-20
"Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.""

See? Even Jesus' disciples doubted Jesus was Jesus, even though they saw him. So, that means that God needs "faithful doubters."

Also during the sermon, he touched on the problems Christianity faces, namely Catholics, Pentecostals and Evangelicals and their scandals. "You also might overhear at the coffee shop as people crowd around their laptops and iPods, people questioning whether organized religion really matters." Skeptics find comfort in their doubt, never having to be certain about anything, he continued. Going so far as to describe skeptics as living in a "Cocoon of doubt."

Skepticism is not a negative position. It's also not a position taken for comfort. Rev. Koester mentioned that doubt is the default human reaction. It's only natural to doubt, though somehow skepticism is something to attack. I would argue that if doubt is the natural position people start with, then it takes very little convincing for most people. For example, if we take the passage from Matthew, all Jesus had to do to convince the disciples was to say God gave him all authority, the equivalent of "because I said so."

More and more people are identifying with no religion. Rev. Koester wants to blame Catholics and skeptics, rather than trying to face the reality that arcane ritual and an insistence on a resurrection are not sustainable in a modern world. That doesn't mean that the world is becoming skeptical, atheistic, or even less religious, but it does mean that Lutheranism has to compete with non-denominational Christianity, generalized spirituality and other non-traditional religions. Christians even feel more free to throw away pieces of dogma they no longer find useful, such as the threat of Hell, literal interpretations of the Bible, condemnation of homosexuals, or even the divinity of Jesus and the concept of three gods in one.

Skepticism is not nihilism. It's also not easy to simply doubt. Skeptics have no problem accepting evidence and taking a position on whether something is true or not, though skeptics are free to change his or her mind, based on new evidence. These seminary students may be presented with new evidence, but will have enormous pressure to continue to believe something they may not trust. There are few jobs available to pastors who have lost their faith, which is a shame.

Rev. Koester would have been wiser to inspire graduates to inspire congregations to make the world a better place through promotion of peace and promoting social and economic equality rather than making a last ditch effort to keep students from realizing how messy the business of organized religion is and loosing their faith. It makes me think of a graduating class of physics students being reminded that gravity is real and though you may doubt gravity is real, you just need to remember that I said it was so, and that is good enough.

Atheist smart Car: An Aftermath

2011-01-23T18:33:00.000-08:00

In October 2009, I bought a used smart car because I've always thought they were neat. I also got a good deal on a trade in and the cost of the car was well below its Kelly Blue Book value. Also in October, I stepped down as president of Minnesota Atheists after only serving for 8 months. I did so for a number of different reasons and I still think it was the best decision for myself and for the organization.

In the spring, I decided to commission Dan Norte of Dark Dan's Window Tinting in Owatonna to cut and apply Out Campaign decals on the smart car. Since I had a Ford Focus, I've had decals on my cars. The first time I had a Pac Man decal on my hood to cover a paint chip from road debris. I figured it was cheaper than repainting and the decal would protect the metal. What I found out, was that cars with nerdy decals get a lot of attention and that was cool. It was so cool, I did it again with a new car.

August Berkshire, long-time organizer of Minnesota Atheists, owns the vanity plate, "Atheist," for the state of Minnesota. When deciding how I wanted to participate in breaking down stereotypes of atheists, I thought something similar to a license plate would be a good, non-invasive option.

Over the last 10 or so months, my car has been blazoned with giant red "A's," the website for the Out Campaign, a plug for Camp Quest of Minnesota, and a slogan, "Don't Believe in God? You are not alone." The result? A handful of conversations at gas stations and parking lots and a few thumbs up on the highway. I'm sure most of the people I work with have no doubt how I view the God issue, but no one has brought it up. My goal for having the decals was to gain awareness, just as the Out Campaign is supposed to do. I think to some degree, that happened.

So, is it dangerous to have atheist decals stuck all over your car? For me, it wasn't. Though, I'm a sample of one. It you feel compelled to wear your atheism on your sleeve, seek out your local sign maker, get a decal cut, and slap it on! Of course, anytime you wear your religious views on your sleeve, you risk being "that guy." How would you feel if someone felt so compelled to put giant Ichthys fish on their car? Even if to some people I was, "That Guy," I still think it has been a positive experience. The smart car will likely be retired in the next week for a new car.

Flu Vaccinations: A Short Lesson on Critical Thinking.

2011-01-20T04:37:00.000-08:00

A friend recently asked me to critically review the following article on the influenza vaccine. Rather than spam my original facebook post I thought I would write my review here.

When you read an article like this it is always important to look at who is promoting or publishing the article. This is true of all scientific studies, but something I am more assiduous with in regards to vaccine literature. The study itself was done by The Cochrane Collaboration, which I don't know much about but seems pretty legit. It is basically a non-profit organization that reviews health care. I didn't do that much research on it so of course I could be wrong, but the reports produced by them seem to be evidence based with no particular bias.

However, it all depends on how the study is interpreted. You can always slant a review to meet your needs. In this case, the website featuring this article is far from unbiased. Gaia Health is very anti-pharmaceutical company and it looks like they don't care for mainstream medicine at all. The comments alone made it pretty evident that the people who regularly read this site would likely belong to the Wakefield fan club. So right of the bat I was alert for anti-vaccine sentiments.

The article isn't so much about the harm the influenza vaccine can cause, which is usually the case of people with this mindset, but with the ineffectiveness. If you are a healthy adult it may seem like the flu vaccine doesn't really have an effect at all, which this particular study proves. I don't doubt that. Healthy adults may not personally benefit from the influenza vaccine. So why bother?

We bother because it isn't the healthy people we should be concerned with. This article does little to report on the unhealthy people. Normally I would refer to the herd immunity defense, but surprisingly the article actually addresses that. It claims when given parenterally the vaccine does little to prevent viral infection and doesn't do much to prevent complications.

I believe the outcome to a degree. Do what you will with that information. However I always resort to third party resources. I am a huge fan of the Center for Disease Control. They bring up an important point. They state that the more non-specific the outcome being measured the lower the estimates of vaccine effectiveness. Also not addressed are the different population in which the vaccine is effect as it can widely vary.

With all vaccines it is important to weigh the risks vs benefits. This article did little to address the harmful side effects of the flu vaccine. If it turns out the vaccine itself was risky to the general population (there are always those that are more prone to adverse effects) and there were no real proven benefits I would say don't vaccinate. If the risks are small what is the harm of getting the shot either way. If it works it works, if it doesn't at least you tried. For me the jury is out, simply because based on this article alone there simply is not enough information. If you can take away any lesson from this, it should be to never resort to one source and to research your sources before you draw conclusions.

Asher Brown and Why I Refuse to Ridicule

2010-10-02T15:07:00.000-07:00

This past month the world lost another child to suicide. Asher Brown, a 13 year old student, shot himself with a pistol in his home in Texas. He was bullied relentlessly for his religion and being gay. Asher wasn’t the first to end his hell. He followed in the footsteps of Seth Walsh and Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover.

I once knew a girl who everyone teased for being too “churchy”. She carried a bible, went to church every other night and quoted verses during class. The torment she received was cruel and relentless. I learned that she started cutting. When that didn’t work she resorted to drinking and drugs. The last I heard she was homeless. I don’t even know if she is still alive.

When I was 13 I was the ugly girl. I had bad hair and bad skin. I was cornered and had things thrown at me and I couldn’t walk with my head up. At 14 I was considering suicide. I consider my experience as getting of easy.

Why does bullying happen? Because one person feels superior to another, and feels justified in putting the other down. In my case my classmates felt justified in making me feel worthless because I didn’t look like them. In Brown, Walsh and Walker-Hoover’s case their classmates apparently disagreed with homosexuality. Since they believed it to be wrong, they tormented them. Maybe they hoped to literally scare them straight. Maybe they just felt it was what god wanted them to do.

Brown was also ridiculed for his religion, as with the girl I knew, and probably didn’t do enough to help. People felt their beliefs were so absurd the only reasonable action was to poke fun at their beliefs. Obviously if it were pointed out to them that that their lifestyle was ridiculous they could change to be just like everyone else.

I look at these tormentors and I used to attribute it to the immaturity of adolescence. I thought it would go away in my adult life. However, more and more, in what I used to consider my own community, I hear the same argument. Religious people believe in silly and irrational things so they deserve to be ridiculed. When I hear this argument I think of the people I mentioned above and become physically ill. What people did to them was a disgrace to humanity. No human being should ever treat another in that way. Why should I turn around and do the same to people whose beliefs I disagree with?

I could probably predict the counter arguments. These are just kids. But those kids were bullied because their religion taught them to hate gays. Some beliefs are dangerous and they need to stop. I wouldn’t disagree with these statements. I disagree with the method of solving the problems.

I’ve come under fire for disagreeing with ridicule. I’ve been told I can’t tell other people how to be an atheist (an extremely hypocritical statement). I’ve been criticized for not understanding the other side. I’ve been told I’m isolating my allies. Are these people really my allies though? I’ve begun to believe I’m striving for an entirely different goal. The argument for ridicule is to force these people to face their “crazy and dangerous beliefs”. I just want people to be ethical human beings.

I’m not out to make atheists. When I started questioning my beliefs and ultimately lost my belief I became extremely depressed. I felt I had nothing to live for, but at the same time was terrified of death. I started drinking on the sly more than I should have been and could have easily self destructed had I not found a passion(which I will discuss later). Unfortunately I didn’t have a welcoming community. All around me I found myself witnessing the same behaviour I experienced as a teenager, the same behavior that almost led me to end my life. You can’t predict how someone will react to your ridicule. I know many adults who still take harsh words to heart and can’t deal with reality. I’ve had to many people in my life commit suicide due to outside influence. Granted they were already emotionally unstable, but that doesn’t change the outcome. Not everyone is going to react the same way. Some people may have their beliefs ridiculed and become lose their religion and gain freedom. Others may not be able to cope. I can’t risk having blood on my hands.

I want to make it abundantly clear that my choice to not ridicule doesn’t mean that I’m not as aggressive or brave as the “new atheists”. It takes a lot of courage to be a lone voice in a crowd. It took a lot out of me to fight for a cause, only to have people turn their backs on me for daring to disagree and challenge them. I am 100% open about my atheism and hide nothing. I also want to make it clear that I don’t “pussyfoot” or let religious people walk all over me. If I see injustices I fight to end them. My tools(grassroots organizations and community action) may be different than blogs and snarky comments, but I am still on the front lines.

I mentioned before that I have a passion that has helped get me through. That passion is Camp Quest of Minnesota. Not only do I have the privilege to work with some dedicated adults and amazing children, but the outcome helps me validate my life. I feel less guilty about the things I could have done in my past and focus on the things these kids will do. We teach kids to respect those that differ in beliefs than them and to be good people. So far, the kids are getting it better than most adults I know.

I want to end by saying that I don’t expect anyone to change their mind. I only want to share my story and perspective so people will know I’m more than a bleeding heart who can’t stand up for herself. It is up to us atheists to make up our own ethical system as we don’t have a book to tell us how to act (though that is open for debate). Ridicule does not play a part in mine.

Christians are:

2010-07-06T22:17:00.000-07:00

The Friendly Atheist asked a question, "If Christians would listen, what would you say to them?" In the comments, I noticed there were a number of statements about Christians. From reading all the comments, it looks like many of them are directed at fundamentalist Christians and others are more general. I plucked out the statements I noticed.

Christians:

are hypocritical.
think atheists aren't human.
try to convert people.
only talk about Christianity.
need a spiritual being to cling to.
believe everyone needs his/her specific beliefs in his/her life.
hold modern beliefs which aren't Christ-like.
think that philosophy, science, postmodernism, movies, etc. are out to get them.
tell others how to live their lives.
are judgmental.
have insider/outsider thinking.
are narrow-minded.
follow the golden-rule over empathy.
reject reality.
believe that God created the heavens and Earth in 6 days.
think they are horrible and unworthy.
have been brainwashed into believing something that makes them intolerant and hateful.
are trapped in a religion that takes advantage of good intentions.
limit their understanding of the whole wide universe to the Bible.
manipulate family members to isolate and reject atheists.
think that moral behavior is impossible without belief in God.
don't think before they speak.
have been told what to think by their Church.
don't realize its hurtful to be judged.
force people around them to obey parts of their behavioral code that comes solely from the Bible.
think that atheists are ignorant, angry or abused.
condemn others.
do good things to build a magical castle in the sky for when they die.
believe in a magical place of fire where some people go when they die.
don't practice tolerance.
think shellfish are ok, but homosexuals are not.
are arrogant.
believe they can behave in whatever manner they want.
think atheists haven't been introduced to religion.
think atheists are mad at God or at believers in God.
have not read the Bible.
don't use evidence based in reality.
have not researched science.
fear atheists.
come to beliefs through reflection of what they believe about the world.
think they are right.
believe that they are going to an imaginary Nice Room and atheists go to an imaginary Naughty Room.
use evangelism to score more members for their cult.
live their life in the service of their master, real or imaginary.
think asking questions and searching for answers is a bad thing.
are being spoon fed.
hate people that are different.
are in an abusive relationship with god.
play the victim.
force personal beliefs on others.
are raised to be judgmental.
act as though Jews and Muslims are so different even though all three religions worship the same deity.
indoctrinate their children.
take the Bible seriously, but disregard other holy texts.
don't condemn religious actions that are extreme, illegal, or in violation of the separation of church and state.
actions and inactions are contributing to many of the major ills the world currently faces.
think that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
push an ideology on people based on undemonstratable propositions.
do not have a scientific mindset.
hold nonsensical beliefs.
promotes ignorance and stifles a child's natural curiosity about the world around them.
use words, actions and votes to express disrespect for another's sexual orientation.
constantly attempt to convert atheists.
are on the wrong side of big issues like slavery, segregation, discrimination against blacks, discrimination against women, discrimination against gays.
made war, tortured others, fueled the Inquisition, destroyed cultures with missionary work.
close their eyes to progress and scientific evidence.
wreck families and ruin lives.
are unwilling to change their opinion on whether god exists or not.
don't read the Bible critically.
don't try to see where other people are coming from.
use the Bible to justify already present hate an d bigotry.
afraid of logic.
know that the truth will prove them wrong.
have a church whose negative judgmental behavior is responsible for a lot of pain and mental problems in young teenagers.
demonstrate bigotry and homophobic behaviors.
choose to act based on morality handed down from an authority and/or to avoid punishment or receive a reward.
think the Bible is the absolute truth.
know that the atheist argument is more rational but choose to believe because its what they want to do.
actively try to conform the rest of the country's beliefs and laws to theirs just so they can feel safe.
hold onto beliefs which are verifiably false.
think they hold a monopoly on feelings of awe or compassion or happiness.
would run riot in the streets without a belief in a god.
think that atheists are immoral.
don't apply empathy to their worldview.
actively work to keep gays second-class citizens.
can't see the beauty of the world for what it is.
have not read the Bible with an open mind.
assert they have the moral high ground.
support other Christians who are impolite or bigoted by not asking them to stop.
judge people based on actions and don't value people alone.
are blind to the simple truth that Jesus loved hanging out with "outsiders."
expect atheists to do more volunteer work than anyone else or else atheists are amoral and selfish.
believe that the Bible would condemn a Christ-like individual because they did not profess a belief in Jesus.
think that their religion is true because it is how they were raised.
believe that since atheists don't believe in God then they believe in Satan.
believe that humans are God's most prized creations.
get defensive when you ask them why they think what they think.
don't think they would believe in another deity if they had been born in another part of the world.
won't listen to atheists.
can't have a discussion with atheists without trying to convert them.
think life is meaningless without a belief in God.
think Christians are oppressed in America.
are offended that atheists exist and question Christian views.
think that atheists are ignorant.
think that God favors some of the human race over others.
attend political rallies which are the very intersection of bigotry, hatred and willful ignorance.
have pastors who are human, hateful, spiteful and manipulative humans who use their power to spread agendas of intolerance and bigotry.
should worship their God in private.
only believe because they want to believe.
think that they are nothing without God.
think that atheists deserve eternal torment for not believing in God.
think their religion is the one true religion.
spew vitriol and hate.
think that atheists want to take away their beliefs.
believe in a middle-ages God.
worship a big mean man in the sky to avoid being responsible for his or her own actions.
try to create laws which mirror rules in the Bible.
think everyone should be subject to the rules of God, whether you believe in God or not.
insist on forcing others to listen to their prayers in public.
who run for public office are the ones who hate other groups and make Christians look like lunatics.
struggle with difficult things in the Bible.
don't follow the teachings of Christ.
don't allow themselves to doubt.
are subjected to group think.
think similar things, express similar views, ask similar questions, give similar answers in one congregation and everything is different in another.
treat everyone like they too believe in God.
treat non Christians like they live a wild, party lifestyle.
think they have the upper hand regarding morality.
have not studied other religions.
hold beliefs which cannot be proven objectively.
can't see people beyond his or her religious identity.
think they are guarded by a supernatural protector.
are not perfect. No one is.
deny medical care to children.
violate Jesus' instructions every time they pray in public.
worship idols if they attend a church which has an American flag in it.
abuse children by threatening them with hell.
think atheists hate Christians.

Free Speech and the Bible Humpers

2010-06-27T19:55:00.000-07:00

This weekend saw hundreds of thousands of people coming out in support of GLBT rights by attending Twin Cities Pride in Minneapolis. Non-heterosexual lifestyles are seen as offensive to certain people. There are different reasons for this. Some express that non-heterosexual lifestyles are "against Nature," others will cite religious scripture for justification of the opinion that any other form of sexuality other than heterosexuality is immoral and will result in those individuals facing an eternity in torment in the afterlife.

Twin Cities Pride rents out a large public park in downtown Minneapolis for two days at some considerable cost. To absorb this cost, they solicit donations, sell sponsorships, and sell tent space to vendors and organizations. Because Twin Cities Pride rents the whole park, they establish certain rules within the park which vendors must follow. Vendors are allowed to hand out materials, but only at the location they have rented and the organization is allowed to choose who is allowed to pay for a table and who can not.

Why is this an issue? Brian Johnson, a Christian known for protesting Pride festivals was allowed by the Minneapolis Park Board to preach and hand out Bibles at the festival in Loring Park. Twin Cities Pride attempted to prevent him from doing so by issuing an injunction against the decision by the Park Board, which was rejected. The judge's reason? What Brian Johnson was attempting to do is exercise his right to free speech, so long as he isn't disruptive. I agree with the decision. If a protester can be refused free speech at this event, what about a gay rights supporter at a Christian festival?

Brian Johnson wasn't the only protester we saw this year. John Chisham was there as well. We have seen him over the past few years at the Duluth GLBTQAI Festival. He carries a large sign with Bible quotes and preaches at will about sin. He has assistants who will stand and read from the Bible and always includes someone who video tapes his interactions with attendees at the festivals. What would you see from one of these videos? Gay rights supporters shouting, telling him HE is going to Hell, yelling other vile things and even spitting on him. This kind of video encourages Christians to give to his cause. The people who support gay rights are clearly a violent group who are anti-Christian and need to be preached to.

I should mention that I held up a "Hug an Atheist" sign next to his sign at GLBTQAI Duluth last year. What was interesting, is how upset people were getting over him just being there. Some people responded to my sign with great enthusiasm, simply because of his presence. Still others in the audience ignored both of us. Ultimately, both of us should have been ignored and eventually, we were. This is the lesson that the people at GLBTQAI Duluth have learned. Don't give him an audience. Don't yell at him and get upset.

Minneapolis wasn't used to seeing John. A crowd formed around him, of about 50 to 60 people in the afternoon on Saturday. People stood in front of him and listened to him preach while shouting back. Others held up a sign which read "Bible Humper." He had an assistant with a video camera and the audience was providing all the footage he would need. Someone shoved him, was detained and released without a ticket. If he had been ignored, he wouldn't have received the press he was seeking.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I also saw someone holding up a copy of Christoper Hitchens' "God is Not Great" while he shouted at John, as if "God is Not Great," is some sort of anti-Bible scripture.

This brings up the point of having so many religious groups at Twin Cities Pride. "Standing on the Side of Love" is a campaign from the Unitarian Universalists to "harness love's power to stop oppression." Since the annual meeting of the Unitarian Universalists was only blocks away, their shirts and signs flooded the event. At some of the stages, religious benedictions were offered from religious leaders and spiritual hymns were sung. These people support gay rights and equality, but I don't think it is because of their religion. I don't support equality because I'm an atheist. I don't think someone should have to justify equality with a religious or non religious belief. I think it's great that other organizations support equality, but I do wish that we could do it together.

I had the feeling last year that the religious and political groups were trying to gain converts at gays were their market. I wouldn't wear a "Would Jesus Discriminate?" sticker because I was wearing an atheist shirt and I was irritated at the notion of using Jesus as a modern day pawn to sway people to support equality. I was less irritated this year, because I'm pleased that there are more people supporting equality and it bothers me less that people are able to find support from a familiar religious framework. I rationalized this by assuming that it would be easier for someone who is already experiencing a difficult time with a life choice to find support which is familiar than trying to tear down religious beliefs. I would rather that more Christians supported equality than inequality and discrimination. Equality as an ethic is more important to me than views on theology.

Challenging Assumptions and Seeking the Different

2010-05-24T07:13:00.000-07:00

Over the last month, I've been reflecting on how I've felt about being part of the atheist community. I've expressed my frustration with Minnesota Atheists because of the use of ridicule in articles in their newsletter which artificially create an isolationist community which is enforced by an undercurrent of anti-religious sentiment. My hope for the community is to move beyond that. I am tired of atheists pulling quotes out of the Bible to show Christians how ridiculous their scripture is. I know the intention is to wake Christians up, to get them to realize how foolish their beliefs are and to get them to leave their faith, but maybe that isn't even the intention. Maybe it is out of frustration, or a sense that because since leaving religion, an atheist will usually feel more free and atheists want that same feeling for others. Others may want to convince religious people to become atheists because they see harm in participating in a religion which accepts magical thinking and if anything is possible through Christ Jesus, Christians won't worry about planning for the future, educating their children, seeking treatment from doctors, etc. I think I have held all of these intentions at one time or another.

I am frustrated because I hold the assumption that most Americans believe that this country was founded as a Christian Nation. When I've spoken with Christians who hold this view, their assumption is that atheists want to remove religion from the public square, which is offensive to them because they see that act as limiting their freedom of expression, even if that freedom of expression is forced on others. I'm frustrated because I would like more people to realize that the separation of church and state is good for both sides, but the way the issue is framed, is that it is used for atheists to suppress Christians.

I am also frustrated when I read stories about parents who, for religious or cultural reasons, refuse to treat a child's diabetes or other easily treatable ailment. An organization like Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty should not be unnecessary. I've frustrated over this situation as well, because on one hand, child neglect appears to be rare in this country, although one death is too many, and on another is the desire to allow for religious expression and practice. Can a 14 year old child refuse medical care because they would rather receive herbal treatment for cancer because this is what his religion tells him to do? An 18 year old? Should our society force medical care on others and is that even practical? Wouldn't people just keep their children in hiding and do they already? Do people support religious exemptions for vaccines also support federal funding for Christian Science prayer rooms? I think my frustration comes from my perspective. I don't think that a Christian would listen to me if I tried to convince him or her that seeing a physician is better than prayer, if that Christian were refusing medical treatment, simply because I am an atheist. I would think that the better approach would be to have people from the Christian community respond. I might be too optimistic about this effort because it would be easy for an adherent to dismiss anyone who doesn't think the same way they do.

I attended at event sponsored by the Saint Paul Interfaith Network which focused on designing successful dialogue between people who have very different opinions. During the presentation, which was made by Bob Stains of the Public Conversations Network. One of the things which stuck out, was a presentation on how a community becomes fractured and the kind of behavior people on each side exhibit. In this presentation, a slide went up with the kinds of behavior and language people on split sides of an issue use, which resonated with me more, because I felt like this showcased my frustration with the unwillingness of atheists to have meaningful dialogue with religious people. We = good, right, wise, virtuous, victims, similar, has the facts, are straightforward. They = bad, wrong, foolish, evil, persecutors, are all alike, use emotion, are sneaky.

I know my opinions will change, but my assumption now, is that trying to foster reasoned dialogue, especially among people who disagree, is a better means of gaining support for issues like the separation of church and state and how to protect an individuals freedom of expression without violating any one elses freedoms.

Even within the atheist community, there are sides which are become isolated and splinter. I think this is true in many communities, but I assumed that atheists would be better at being able to use reasoned dialogue amongst each other, even in cases where there is disagreement. If I criticize the actions of atheists, people have an assumption that I am not an atheist. If I write about my experience in the atheist community, it is written off as being too isolated of a community and not representative of the whole. If I express frustration with people who obviously want to make atheists a more respected group of people in the community but are acting in a way which is counter to their goals, whether they state their goals or not, I am seen as a censor. The assumption people make, is that I don't want atheists to speak up when a religious person does something harmful, or when the leadership of a religious organization supports a discriminatory policy because I don't think its useful to make a list of excuses Christians give for the "horrible behavior of their God," or attempting to engage in theodicy arguments.

There are plenty of atheists who are anti-religion who have reasons to disagree with my opinions. My frusturation comes from people who want to build a community of atheists who are seen as positive contributors to society and fail to see the consequences of events like a Debaptism, a $6.66 spaghetti dinner, a presentation which made the case that religious thinking has led scientists astray and public presentations about atheism which make the case that it is foolish to believe in a God. I'm frusturated because the people who run the organization seem ignorant to these consequences. "I should be able to express myself without worrying about who I'm going to offend," is a sentiment I've heard if I raise concern over the use to ridicule in particular. I have little concern whether someone is offended or not, but I am concerned if someone is offended by an offence because he or she isn't willing to understand what he or she did to cause offence in the first place. I also don't like it when people act how they would like to act, then are surprised when someone thinks what they did was wrong. Then there is a shaming of the shaming, or the apperant censoring of the censoree. No one is free from criticism and not all people who don't have a beleif in a god are the same. Don't pretend that you can't possibly understand why someone would find your action offensive and react by isolating yourself. Have a greater understanding of your motives for acting. If the reaction to your actions was unintentional, try to find out why. Should I censor myself around people who are religious? I wouldn't call it censorship, but I try to consider what outcome I would like to see before I act. When I haven't done this, things haven't ended well.

My atheist journey

2010-05-08T18:26:00.000-07:00

Having been frustrated with the organized atheist community, I thought I would write about my short experience to show why I have the opinions I do.

I came out as an atheist on accident. If I hadn't done so, I likely wouldn't have gotten involved with organized atheism. I had read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris, but didn't feel like I needed to find a community of people who thought the same way i did. My family is religious, but it wasn't a big deal to answer my mom's question of, "Did you find a church to go to?" with, "No."

Because I did come out and my mother didn't take it too well (She didn't speak to me for six months, of course, I also blamed her and other liberal religious people for 9/11 because of what I read in Sam Harris' book), I started searching for a group of atheists. Jeannette was going to the U of MN at the time and there was a campus group of atheists. I ended up watching a debate with Dr. Robert Price about the resurrection of Jesus and saw a former teacher from high school there. He was one of the most respected teachers and I felt that if he was an atheist and showed up to other events, I just might find an atheist community.

Over the next few months, he and I would bump into each other at meetings and lectures. I had started to go to Minnesota Atheist events, caring less about what the topic was about, then about meeting people. The problem, was that this community only met once a month and people didn't talk to each other much. If this former high school teacher hadn't also been showing up, I probably would have given up on going to meetings because I didn't feel like I fit in yet.

One of the reasons why I was looking for a community, was because I wanted to hear from other atheists how they dealt with family issues. I was planning on getting married in a year and a half and would have to manage tense situations with family members who wanted me to get married in a church. I did get help from people in Minnesota Atheists and the Humanists of Minnesota with where to hold the wedding and had a recommendation of who could officiate. But I still felt like I was on the own with dealing with my family. Events I went to focused on whether God existed or about why Christianity was so wrong, especially the Bible. While the presentations had interesting speakers, I didn't feel like I was part of a community by going to these type of meetings.

What events did I like the most? I remember meeting Lori Lipman Brown who was a lobbyist in Washington working for the Secular Coalition of America. Her presentations were inspiring. She got me to see a value in forming a community of atheists to fight for the rights of the nonreligious as more of a civil rights issue. I was raised in a religious family and didn't have to face discrimination through school, but I heard about people who did and felt like this was a worthy cause to get behind. I also liked going to the Day of Reason because I felt like it was an effective way to present a positive message about the separation of church and state. What I really wished, was that religious leaders would join the Day of Reason, but could understand why they might not feel welcomed.

Over the next few years, I was involved in the leadership of Minnesota Atheists. I wanted to give back to the community because I wanted to fix some of the things I didn't like about my experience, mostly making new members feel welcomed and to encourage more family friendly events. I wanted to try to get people who were like myself involved in the atheist community in order to support efforts of other groups like the SCA and to encourage others to support the separation of church and state. I didn't have to try to attract people who were in a similar situation as myself, people who were searching for a community, because MN Atheists is easy enough to find, I wanted to reach out to people who didn't have a need for an organization and encourage them to join and support the issues which were important to me.

The problem I found, is that for people to join an organization, they have to be more or less self motivated. A group like MN Atheists is great for people who feel harmed by religion. The positive outreach efforts, like highway cleaning and supporting gay rights by appearing at GLBT festivals is enough to get some people curious, but I saw people get turned off by the focus on religion. Over time, it started turning me off as well.

I think it is easier to form a group of people around the harm of religion then around some sort of secular ethical club. The humanists get close to this idea, but there are vocal opponents to the label of atheist among the humanists which makes that community unwelcoming at times. This is where my frustration is coming from. I think it is possible to have a community of non religious people who are concerned about societal issues, humanitarian efforts, local community support, volunteerism, doing good, etc., without the literal biblical interpretation games, the strawmen arguments atheists make amongst themselves, the anti religious rhetoric, the isolationist attitude which discourages work with religious leaders when it makes sense. It is easier to have a group form around a lack of belief then around some sort of "do good" group, which is why I'm satisfied, for now, with volunteering with different groups here and there, supporting causes which have meaning for me. I know I pissed a lot of people by criticizing the behavior of certain atheists. My criticism comes from my frustration from not being able to find a community of people who share the same values I do. It is similar to the frustration I felt after coming out as an atheist. I know there are other people who think the same way I do, but there won't be a community formed out of this frustration.

I Think We Need A Break

2010-04-24T22:03:00.001-07:00

In March, I ended my leadership position in Minnesota Atheists. While I couldn't take the politics, I still wanted to be involved with the community because I met people I care about and I still wanted to make some kind of difference. I care deeply about separation of church and state, teaching science in the schools, and equal rights. The problem is, I didn't see anyone actually doing something about the problem. There are some valiant attempts made by the local atheist groups. The Day of Reason is a fantastic event and I've seen some great charitable events (which sadly more people than I'd like were against even doing). The rest of the time I've just been hearing complaining. Almost every event I go to there is someone bitching about the evils of religion. What is even more disturbing to me is the growing amount of people I've heard ridiculing religion and religious people. It is just something I can't stand by.

I realize that religion has done some great harm. At the present we are still things happening that I obviously have issues with. The problem with the Catholic priests is appalling. There is no reason why gay marriage should not be legal. There are serious breaches in our children's education and women's rights that I obvious don't agree with. However I don't think ridicule is the day to deal with it. I don't think I will ever be convinced otherwise. I believe to make a blanketed statement about religion is bigoted and hateful. It makes us no better than our opponents. A religious person's mind isn't going to be changed because you called them stupid. All ridicule does is satisfy egos. It fuels a circle jerk that will never end.

I've suffered from depression and have pretty much felt like I've conquered it. However, it isn't uncommon for it to come back and lately I've been feeling familiar symptoms that I'm afraid will lead to a relapse. I know I can handle it, but I will need a positive community. Sadly I don't think I can find it in any of the local atheist groups. It isn't good for me to hear my friends and family being ridiculed for what they believe. So for the time being I think I'm going to back away. I'm still a proud atheist and I still love the friends that I've met in Minnesota Atheists, even though we hold such differing views. Though I feel pretty much alone in my views, I hope my friends don't turn their backs away from me because of some disagreements. One of my best friends in the world is a Libertarian that loves guns and Palin. We are polar opposites but I love her to death. I can only hope to have the same relationship with my MNA friends.

I'm not going completely away. I'll still attend a select number of events. I plan on immersing myself in some more positive projects. Currently Camp Quest is my heart and "soul". I think this is a valuable program and it has given my live meaning in a way Minnesota Atheists never has. In a year or so I plan on becoming a Humanist Celebrant. I would love to be able to be a part of someone's important life events, whether it be a wedding or a funeral. Who knows where I will be in the future. I'm not breaking up with organized atheism. We are just taking a little break.

Atheists Destroy

2010-04-24T18:31:00.000-07:00

In 2009, President Barack Obama spoke to Muslims in his Inaugural Address. "Your people will judge you on what you can build and not what you destroy."

This focus on destruction is not unique to Muslims. It is a poison to any community. It is prevalent in the poison of racism which has invaded Christian groups in the form of Militias. Parts of the Tea Party also have this disease of destruction, seeking to repeal Health Care Reform, fringe elements praying for Obama to die. In my view, it's these elements which poison the communities they are a part of. In some cases, the point of the community is to destroy another.

To me, there seems to be a growing number of atheists who want to see religion destroyed. I think these people, who may have always been around, are the ones who can make the community suffer. It is difficult to form a community around what you don't believe in and that is what atheists do. Atheists are an incredibly diverse community, however, those who participate in organizations seem to be overwhelmingly liberal politically, don't have kids, or their kids are out of the house. Most seem to have been raised with a religion and have sought out a community because it can be difficult to, in some cases, be rejected from friends and family because you don't happen to share the same views on theology.

It's this last point, I think, which causes much of the anger among active atheists and causes problems for others which are looking for another type of community. People who have chosen intellectual honesty over friendships and normal relations with family will be pretty angry at the reason why their lives are different now. I know I was really angry at religious people and religion in general after reading Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. I blamed even moderate religious Christians for every bit of religious violence. The Twin Towers fell because of the group of peaceful Quakers who meet every week. When I saw the Freedom From Religion Foundation's ads which said "Imagine No Religion" and showed a picture of the World Trade Centers standing, I cheered. It made perfect sense to me. The terrorists were Muslim and without Islam, they wouldn't be Islamic terrorists and wouldn't have killed themselves without the promise of 72 virgins. It was a simplistic notion and I bought into it.

I feel like my opinion of religion and religious people is different than it once was. It is bigoted to treat all religious people alike. Religious people are not stupid. Religious people can share the same ethical values I have. Religious people can understand science and are not brainwashed into belief. I might have been poisoned by the Interfaith movement, but I see a value in joining people together who have different views on theology, but share similar goals for how to make the world a better place. My former views wouldn't have supported this one bit. By working with religious people, I was allowing them to spread lies to children to brainwash the uneducated and ignorant. The side effect is that our world will not progress as long as the religious are allowed to be religious without atheists speaking up and ridiculing and shaming them into disbelief.

One challenge with atheist groups is focusing on missions. Do you exist to form a community of people who feel alone, who need support, who feel like they need to do something to lessen the impact of religion on society? Do you exist to teach people who are religious that atheists are normal? Do you exist to make the world a better place and how do you go about doing that? I don't think that the focus on converting the religious to atheists, which some atheist evangelists want, is a realistic goal and causes problems in communities which are trying to grow. These are the people who would go door to door expressing the "good news" of atheism. These are the people who seek to destroy and are poisoning the community in the same way the violent and racist members of the Tea Party and Christian groups have done. The difference is that the numbers are much smaller but the effect is the same. The people who aren't into that, the ridicule and victim mentality, the people who weren't raised religious, the people who think that religion isn't evil, will simply leave.

I'm on the fence. I'm going to form a community of one.

Two-Faced John 14 12-14

2010-04-19T13:30:00.000-07:00

While driving home from work last week, I listened to Make It Plain with host Mark Thompson. Mark Thompson is religious and makes a point to say "God bless you," to every one of his callers. I don't think I've caught him missing one yet. He does offer an interesting show and it doesn't get too religious, but this one evening, a caller who wanted to talk about the health insurance crisis got him fired up. The gentleman on the phone mentioned that he had been diagnosed with leukemia but it was not serious enough that his insurance would authorize treatment. He explained that he has a strong faith in God, but that it's getting hard to have faith. Mark comforted the caller, mentioning that he would pray for him and reminded him that he needed to pray for himself.

Then he whipped out John 14:12-14.

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

I had heard this same quote mentioned before, but by a former Pentecostal minister who now speaks to atheist groups. Lee Salisbury used to be bathed in the Holy Spirit and deeply believed in the words of the previous passage but it became one of the passages which gave him the most trouble. When was the last time you heard someone rise from the dead, grow a lost limb, cure the blind, speak in tongues, feed a multitude with fish and bread, walk on water, or change water into wine? Either Jesus is lying or the Gospel is wrong, is what he concludes.

During Mark's brief interview, he claimed to have cured this caller of his cancer by the power of God. This is a dangerous line of thinking which extends into the abuse and death of children by religious parents who see modern medicine as a sin against God, because your trust should be with Him. This man was overjoyed to hear that he had been cured, even though he must have known it wasn't true.

Apologists for this particular piece of the Bible have various answers for why we don't just scrap modern medicine and train Christian healers to fix our biological problems. Answers include, "We won't know until the 144 thousand witnesses for Christ receive their anointing," "Citing Acts which mentions that converting one sinner is a greater work than all of the miracles that Jesus did, so that counts," "No one in history has been Jesusy enough to be able to perform supernatural acts. The potential is there for all humans to perform supernatural acts but we lack the faith and discipline to actually perform them." "People have risen from the dead and supernatural healing takes place in churches all over, there is proof, I swear."

This is the problem with Biblical interpretation. In one case, it can be used to give comfort to someone going through a difficult time and in another be used to harm children by refusing medical care. It is fortunate that most Christians are not Biblical Literalists, but I can imagine plenty of sermons have centered around this passage. How many people may have delayed visiting a doctor because they didn't want to test their faith in Jesus?

Do atheists hate the sin, not the sinner?

2010-04-09T08:54:00.000-07:00

Atheists who choose to argue the existence of gods with the religious will often be accused of being rude, intolerant, bigoted, close-minded and arrogant for having the nerve to say, "I don't think your god exists and here is why."

What will usually happen eventually, is that the atheist will say, "Your argument is stupid!" in a fit of frustration, or, "Your beliefs are stupid!" Here is where dialog breaks down and both sides stomp off. Where is the disconnect? Contentious dialog is difficult, even for those experienced in it, but why does dialog stop once ones ideas or beliefs are attacked?

Atheists, even the most outspoken, are usually very careful to separate the individual from ideas and beliefs. "You're a Christian and Christianity will cause you to have stupid beliefs," is technically different from, "You're a Christian and you're stupid." However, I don't think it's understood differently from the Christian perspective.

There certainly are atheists who think anyone with a belief in a deity or deities is stupid. There are others who hold this same viewpoint who will hide behind the language provided earlier in an attempt to appear fair-minded and open to dialog. My hope is that those who hold bigoted viewpoints would simply state them without trying to play games with language.

Ideas and beliefs don't need protection, people do. I think as long as people define who they are by what they believe, questioning an individual's beliefs will always be inferred as a personal attack which degrades dialog. To me, saying, "I don't think YOU'RE stupid, I think the beliefs you hold are." is similar to saying, "I don't hate you because you're gay. I hate the gay sex you have."

I don't think that religious belief should be free from criticism. I think that much progress can be made in dialog if both parties can agree that beliefs are different then who we are as individuals. From the religious side, when an atheist says, "I think Jesus rising from the dead is a stupid belief," they mean the same thing you'd say to a Scientologist, "I think that the idea of thetans is stupid."

It is difficult to resist an emotional reaction when the ideas and beliefs you hold are challenged, but that is the only way to have a reasonable dialog with someone who disagrees with you.

Top Ten (Free!) Things You Can Do To Help the Atheist Community

2010-04-03T06:17:00.000-07:00

10. Come out of the closet.
No matter what label you are comfortable with, atheist, agnostic, humanist, skeptic, let the people around you know what you think. Everyone's situation will be different and for some it will take time to wait for the right moment, for example, "What church do you go to?" "I don't go to church, I'm an atheist, but you can ask me about what I think, if you'd like." The more people who let their friends and family know where they stand and what they think, the more it encourages others to do the same and it helps to foster allies for causes atheists are concerned about, such as the separation of church and state and rights for non-theists.

9. Read the paper.
While it appears that newspapers are a dying media, their reach is still in the thousands on a local level. Read the Editorials and Opinion pages and submit your own response when someone makes a bigoted statement about those who don't believe in any gods. Write encouraging responses when you see religious groups supporting our issues.

8. Treat discussions with religious friends and family as an opportunity for dialogue.
Talking with co-workers about religion or politics should not be a debate. It can be challenging but some of the most important conversations you will have may be with people you completely disagree with because it gives you a chance to understand where someone else is coming from. You can use this perspective to get people to support our cause if you know the things which are important to them. The ends of our goals will ultimately benefit everyone and its our job to make that case. Remember that disagreeing with someone's beliefs is different then attacking someone personally, but to many, that distinction isn't clear, so it's important to educate others about that.

7. Become politically involved.
Volunteer for a campaign or simply attend caucus meetings. Atheists and other non-theists are a minority in this country but that doesn't mean that our voice should be unheard. By becoming involved you can speak up when it appears that everyone is on board with things like school vouchers, faith-based initiatives or giving preference to religion in our schools. Of course, the best you can hope for, is to run for office, be that a school board, city council, or higher roles in the state or national level.

6. Make friends.
Whether you attend meetings held by a local atheist organization or you talk to people online, make an effort to establish friendships. Offer to have a few people from a group over to your house, or go out to eat, or simply hang out at a park. Organizations are useful for getting people to meet each other, but that can't be the only time atheists see each other. This is especially important for people who may be too busy to make it to a lot of meetings because they have kids.

5. Go to events in the real world.
Plenty of people find comfort in the anonymity of the Internet but it is important to get outside. Look for local groups through Facebook or Meetup.com and drop in. You should have at least one thing to talk to others about. A good opening question is, "So, how long have you been an atheist." For some people, that conversation can last hours. If you don't like the message of the group or how events are run, tell the organizers. Not many groups have paid staff who run events, so don't be too critical, but letting an organizer how you feel might get an organization to change how events are run. If the group rubs you the wrong way, try another group, or consider starting your own.

4. Volunteer for an atheist organization.
Volunteering for such a diverse community is challenging and rewarding. At the local level, every town has someone who feels that they are the only one in that town who thinks the way they do. The most important message organizations send is that, "You are not alone." If you only have a little time a month, consider hosting a small event for the group, like a book club or just a brunch. The more people who help out, the better! Just be sure you are aware of the mission of the organization before getting too involved.

3. Be active outside of the atheist community.
If atheist spend all of their time talking with each other and only meeting people with different points of view when we attend debates about the existence of god it can become easy to get isolated and ultimately bigoted toward people with religious belief. Join a group for another interest of yours, like a hiking group, book club, movie club, etc. You can also support a charitable works project, even with a religious group, so long as you support the cause. It might seem silly, but you are acting as a representative of the atheist community when you make it known how you think. It is one more way to normalize the atheist worldview and gets more people to listen to what we have to say.

2. Start an atheist organization.
Communities around the world, especially small towns, are the ones who need groups more than anywhere else. Meetup.com may not be free, but Facebook is. There are all sorts of creative ways to let others know about your events and you shouldn't be discouraged if only two people show up to your first few events. Reach out to national groups like Atheist Alliance International to find groups in your state who might be able to offer advice. If you are a student, whether in a high school or college, use the Secular Student Alliance, please! The only reason why that group exists is to help you. Running a group can be free and very worthwhile. You'll be hooked on organizing when you hear someone say, "I thought I was the only one!"

1. Be open to answering questions.
Many people aren't comfortable talking about something as personal as his or her religious views; however, the most effective way to help the atheist community is by educating those around you about what you think. The hope is that your friends and family will understand that you share more in common then you thought and that the "atheist agenda" isn't about removing freedoms of expression granted to those who are religious but about protecting the rights of everyone to be free from abuse by a religious minority which seeks to impose their beliefs onto you.

Trust and Bias

2010-03-31T08:10:00.000-07:00

Whether you accept or reject evidential claims (your bias) has a lot to do with what you trust.

Recently, at a dinner with atheists, one person commented that there has been extraordinary work in the field of autism research. A doctor has successfully cured 25 children of autism by removing mercury from from their blood through a process called chelation. Others at the table remarked that chelation is dangerous and that ethyl mercury found in Thimerosal is different then methyl mercury, which is most associated with mercury related poisoning and neurological damage, because ethyl mercury is removed from the body more easily then methyl mercury.

His response? Chelation is not dangerous, that is something they just want you to believe. The mercury differences is just a smokescreen. Just look at a YouTube video of mercury destroying neurons! My child has spasms the day after he received a vaccine, that might have been due to the mercury in the shot. What about fluoride in the water? It's a known carcinogen, yet our government forces us to drink it.

I had only met this person this evening, so I don't have a lot of history to go on, but from talking with him, he's a passionate person, concerned with the environment, sustainability, organic gardening and has a distrust of corporations and the government.

Because of who and what he did not trust, this affected his acceptance of evidence, disregarding objections raised.

A concerned Facebook group member contacted me earlier this week, recommending that I send out a correction about the Tim Pawlenty scandal over the apparent misuse of funds obtained by selling Support Our Troops plates. A staff member received $30,000 as a partial salary, the same person in charge of overseeing the Governor's Faith Based Initiaves, from the Support Out Troops funds. When the DFL brought the issue to light, it was determined that this staffer was working for veterans, on behalf of a veterans welfare group, seeking out eligible veterans who were not using services to which they were entitled.

Did I send out the correction? No. I don't think sending out messages on Facebook qualifies my role as a journalist and besides, who would care? I also am acting with bias. I don't like Tim Pawlenty's socially conservative politics and as an atheist, I'm sensitive to, not only the misuse of government funds, but the misuse of funds which support a program which offers an unfair advantage to religious organizations, making it more difficult for quality secular organizations to operate. Because of my bias, I still see an issue with what happened. I still think that sharing staff between the Governor's office and another organization leads to too little transparency. So, I am hesitant to write it off as an innocent decision on the part of Tim Pawlenty. But, this is largely due to the fact that when I'm presented with information, I don't have as much skepticism when Al Franken is accused of wrongdoing as if Tim Pawlenty is, because I don't trust Tim Pawlenty, but should I trust Al Franken?

It would be a difficult world to live in if trust was thrown out of the window and all claims were subject to deep analysis. But, even at that point, what do you trust, your own experiences, your senses, your memory? It it more important, then, to be aware of ones bias? But, is it that innocent, just to be aware and let your opinions be clouded? Bias can be innocent, such as preferring one local sports team over an non local sports team; however, can be more dangerous when advocating for expensive, ineffective and potentially dangerous treatment for a condition which is becoming more well understood, but until then the favorite enemy of the day will be to blame for the cause.

What is in a name?

2010-01-29T07:00:00.000-08:00

Atheist, humanist, secular humanist, Bright, freethinker, secularist, naturalist, these are all words I've heard people use to describe themselves. I recall the diversity of identifiers used at the Atheist Coming Out Day last year. I was reminded of this diversity when an issue came up with the newsletter for a secular organization. Should "humanism" be capitalized?

I began doing some research to see what the organizations used, the American Humanist Association and the International Humanist and Ethical Union. The IHEU uses Humanism and encourages member organizations to do so. The AHA also encourages the use of Humanism versus humanism. One of the reasons given is that Pope Paul VI referred to himself as a humanist.

The consensus among the people who were working on the newsletter was that atheist should be lowercase and many also thought that humanism should be treated in the same way. One of the reasons given to treat humanism in the same way as atheism was that both are not religions and religions are capitalized. However, there is a feeling that capitalizing a word adds to its respect, as determined by the author. Certain authors do not feel that religions deserve any respect over atheism or humanism, so should also be written as islam and christianity.

The core issue is the challenge we all face. We lack branding and a unified label. While researching the humanism issue, I ran across articles touting the efforts of humanist organizations to simplify the use of humanism by removing labels like "secular" from the front and expanding the use of the "Happy Humanist" logo. This logo lets humanists from all over the world recognize each other and other organizations.

Atheists have attempted to do the same thing by choosing a logo at an Atheist Alliance International and rallying around the red "A" of the Out Campaign from the Richard Dawkins Foundation. However, atheist groups aren't as unified as humanist groups are with branding.

I think that the diversity of labels in our community is a strength and a weakness, but an unavoidable weakness. I have met members of Minnesota Atheists who are frustrated with others who don't use the label "atheist" and have tried to encourage others to push aside words like agnostic, non religious, Bright, even humanist in favor of the label "atheist." This has encouraged some to adopt the label of "atheist," but has also made others feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. By browbeating others into calling themselves what we would like to be called in an attempt to unify the cause we may be alienating others who would be just as enthusiastic about supporting the separation of church and state and raising awareness in the community of our issues.

I used to be enthusiastic about encouraging people to use the word atheist to describe their worldview. I used to get really irritated when someone would be uncomfortable with the word atheist and I would want to do what I could to rid them of this fear. What I realized is that personal labels, no matter what they are, are something each of us need to come to ourselves and not be pushed into. We should not be shamed into choosing one label over an other, whether that is atheist, humanist, secular, non religious, Bright, or any other future iteration of identification we will invent to describe what we think.

DisUnityCOR

2009-11-11T11:40:00.000-08:00

Earlier this year, Fred Edwords started a project modeled after PhilyCOR, or the Philadelphia Coalition of Reason. The initial goal of PhilyCOR is to unite different atheist, humanist, and other secular organizations in order to build a stronger local community. While this has been a lofty goal, by looking at the various Coalition of Reason sites set up during the year, along with high profile advertising campaigns, the impact has not been worth the effort spent by members of the freethought communities the Coalitions of Reason's represent. The sites are lacking in new content, feature a handful of press releases and articles from news sources surrounding the "shocking" advertising in the local community and a small amount of local events lead by only a few members of the Coalition, which leads me to believe that having an external source (UnitedCOR) sweep in, spend money on an ad and leave has little impact.

So, what is the big deal? UnitedCOR comes in, invites a few chosen groups to join the COR, some accept, others join out of peer pressure, an ad campaign is run, and the groups are left to themselves. If only it were that simple.

Because UnitedCOR is an organization which is independent and undemocratic, run by Fred Edwords and an unknown benefactor who are choosing to spend money to further their own cause, the groups which are members have little say in what UnitedCOR does. It is clear from press coverage which follow billboards which appear in communities which have started COR's, that the COR's are formed to support interest in Greg Epsteins's new book.

Greg Epstein is the Humanist Chaplin at Harvard. He believes that the "New Atheism" of authors like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, has a bad image in the public, so rather then defending and supporting the rights of atheists to engage in open dialog and raise important issues regarding religion, he has instead decided to ride their coat tails with a movement he calls, the "New Humanism." "We are interested in anything that is good, without God," Epstein writes. He sees the "New Humanism" movement in stark contrast to the negativity of "New Atheism." I think this dichotomy is false. UnitedCOR carries this attitude that "New Atheism" must be stopped and replaced with "New Humanism."

What harm is there in joining a UnitedCOR sponsored organization? The benefit is that you receive some attention due to a website and billboard. My thought is that organizations can receive just as much, if not more, coverage for doing work in the communities their serve. The harm, is that these organizations then take place in the discrimination of other organizations UnitedCOR and related local organizers seek to exclude.

Do you mean to say that UnitedCOR, a group which seeks to, according to their mission, "to raise the visibility and sense of unity among local groups in the community of reason, to create a national dialogue on the role of nontheists in American society, and to improve the way that nontheists are perceived by average Americans," would exclude atheist groups? Yes.

In PhilyCOR, The Rational Response Squad was excluded due to objections raised by the Ethical Humanist Society of Philadelphia. The Rational Response Squad an been an excellent resource in engaging an audience a generation or two younger then the membership of most freethought organizations. Their exclusion is shocking to me.

It is not surprising that a group which labels itself as an Ethical Humanist society would behave in this fashion, especially after the controversy in Chicago over a dis-invitation and later police action taken by the Ethical Humanist organization there. Our strength is in our diversity. Tolerance must extend to those with whom you disagree. I am not interested in listening to an atheist or humanist echo chamber.

In Minnesota, Atheists for Human Rights was excluded, under the excuse that they are a national organization and national organizations are not to take part in UnitedCOR groups. August Berkshire has had a long standing grievance with Atheists for Human Rights, for various reasons and used his role as organizer of Twin Cities COR to exclude this organization.

At its best UnitedCOR is an ineffective attempt to bring freethought groups together. At its worse, it seeks to exclude groups it chooses while promoting people it deems worthy, such as Greg Epstein.

If you are a member of a UnitedCOR sponsored organization, pay close attention to what is being thrust onto your organization and what is being done in your name. Whether you like it or not, the actions of UnitedCOR reflect on your group.

If you are considering joining a UnitedCOR sponsored organization, I would make sure that your organization's goals match with those of the organizer of your local COR. After all, we all strongly support rationality and careful thought. Groups have the freedom to choose for themselves but must be made well aware of the impact of their decisions.

An Evolution Solution (non-Wave version)

2009-11-10T11:47:00.000-08:00

A majority of Americans reject evolution. You may have read the Gallup poll from this past February which counted only 39 percent of respondents as holding a belief in evolution. However, this problem is not new. While researching this problem, I have run into many polls from other organizations which constantly place a belief in evolution in the minority. The majority opinion is that God created humans in their current form. What can be done to better educate the public?

Are our teachers failing us? Is there is an organized opposition to the theory of evolution which is simply more compelling then the evidence which supports a gradual change over millions of years? I will admit, creatures popping into existence, fully formed, makes for a great story, but when I want to learn about how things really are, I have to rely in science and empirical evidence, even if the story isn't as fanciful. Richard Dawkins continues the fight to educate the public about evolution with his book, "The Greatest Show On Earth." Will his book work? Will the people who buy it already reject the Christian creation myth?

I would say that it isn't a wasted effort. As I walked through a local book store, I saw the atheist books tucked in with science books, mostly about Darwin and evolution. While you can be religious and believe in evolution, I won't deny that there have been many who read about how evolution really works, not how they were taught in church and that one lie of creation unraveled the web of lies their church, family and friends had been telling them their whole life. Science has evidence, the comfort of predictability, while faith is an empty guessing game.

What else did I see in the book store? In the religion section, few books about evolution, but more books about how to either reject evolution or how religion and evolution are compatible. I'd like to see some of those science books sneak their way into the religion section. Would that have worked for you? I know many atheists who decided that the evidence for a god was lacking after reading "The God Delusion," which was more about evolution then it was in rejecting faith.

Last month, I attended "Atheist Coming Out Day" hosted by Campus Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists at the University of Minnesota. Here, people sat in a circle and told their coming out story. What shocked me, was how many people were so new to calling themselves "atheists," and felt comfortable going to a group meeting to tell everyone about it. Out of the 60 people who "came out," more then a few were raised in conservative Christian families, including one child of missionaries, one child of Salvation Army parents, and one who was a Bible Quiz champion. All of these people strongly rejected evolution, until college. All it took was a freshman biology course with a brief introduction to evolution to realize they had been actively deceived by the people who cared about them. For some, the process of leaving faith behind took a few years, others left more quickly.

What is important, is that there is a community of like minded people who are there, if only to "come out" to, to share our experiences and to make it easier for the next wave of people to throw off life according to mythology and embrace reality.

An Evolution Solution

2009-11-06T08:59:00.000-08:00

B-Rated: Alien Contamination (1980)

2009-09-07T17:43:00.000-07:00

Best Quote: Hubbard: [after slapping Col. Stella Holmes] This is just so we understand each other.

Super Short Summary: Alien "Cyclops" convinces space explorer to move it to Columbia to grow deadly alien space eggs, develop a distribution network and cover import-export business in order to sneak deadly alien eggs into New York City's sewers.

Why You Should Never Watch This Movie: While the 80's may have had it's moments, this movie will make you wish you never lived through it. Despite the lead female character's rank as a colonel, she runs around like a helpless woman while the lead male, Lutinent Tony Aris, acts like an arrogant, cocky male throughout. While that may be distracting, you'll be more distracted by the poor blood-splattering special effects and poor costumes of the investigation teams who are assigned to examine a biological agent which has killed a crew. The team climbs on board wearing painter's masks and open face suits which don't seal at the hands, wearing fabric mittens and exposed bottoms (you can see the actor's jeans!). I know it was the 80's, but that's just stupid.

If the Cyclops doesn't get you, the eye liner will.

B-Rating: BBB

SSA 2009 Conference

2009-09-02T06:09:00.001-07:00

On Friday, August 7, 300 atheists descended onto the Creation Museum in Petersberg, Kentucky. The Creation Museum, an Answers in Genesis project, is designed as a more traditional science museum than some carnival ride (as other "creation museums" have been). It presents evidence to support their pre-drawn conclusion that all that has ever happened in the past is contained in the Christian Bible. Since the Christian Bible contains lineages and ages of people, they conclude that that scientists who have used material evidence to come to the conclusion that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old must be mistaken about atheism.

Why were 300 atheists going to such a place? "To mock them," responds PZ Myers, evolutionary biology professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris. The goal was to fully understand what arguments were being made to support Creationism and fully expose such arguments as circular or based on poor reasoning. Dr. Myers made light of the event by riding a fiberglass dinosaur which featured a saddle. What started off as a fun event would shortly turn into a serious conference of about 100 attendees at Ohio State University in Columbus.

While the tone of the Creation Museum trip was full of mockery, the conference itself featured a strong theme of cooperation. For example, Jesse Galef, Communications Associate for the Secular Coalition for America, gave an inspiring presentation about how to reach out to your elected officials. Should atheists look for non atheist allies when lobbying? "It can certainly help get attention - showing that it's not just atheists who support the side," Galef responds. Sean Faircloth, Executive Director of the SCA, later spoke about the importance of reaching out to non-atheists and getting them behind our causes. "We need to get the soccer moms and Joe Six-Packs of the world to care about our issues, Faircloth said." One way to do that is to show clear harm. In many states and counties, religious organizations are exempt from health and safety regulations. This has resulted in the needless deaths of children from dangerous day care facilities and staff. It is absurd to replace government audit and inspection with religious authority.

The next day, Ashley Paramore, the Events Coordinator for Students for Freethought at Ohio State and an SSA board member, spoke about the importance of service projects to an atheist student group. Inspired by Ashley Carter from University of Illinois Atheists, Agnostics and Freethinkers, she organized a service project trip to New Orleans to repair damage done after Hurricane Katrina. What is unique about Ms. Paramore's project is that at the start she coordinated with the Thomas Society, a campus Christian group. There were several benefits to working with another organization: First, the Thomas Society had organized service projects in the past, were familiar with transportation, group insurance, feeding people, etc. Second, she was able to spend more time getting volunteers since she wasn't planning everything. Lastly, one of the goals of a service project is to break down the stereotype that atheists don't volunteer. By working with a religious group, Paramore’s group not only made that case, but they get a lot of time to dialog with people to break down stereotypes on both sides.

PZ Myers presented his keynote address, "Counting Coup," on Saturday night. While many may recognize him for his unapologetic bashing of the religious (this is the focus of his talk, his skill is to get people to pay attention by whacking them with colorful words), even he sees himself as part of a larger movement. He knowingly ignores diplomacy, choosing instead to cause reactions that will cause some to think differently than they had. After the talk, an audience member asked, "When is diplomacy okay?" "Diplomacy is always okay," Dr. Myers responded. He thanked the efforts of people like Sean Faircloth who are able to speak more kindly to others.

I would recommend supporting the efforts of the Secular Student Alliance and our local alliance member, the Campus Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists at the University of Minnesota. You can visit their sites at www.secularstudents.org and www.cashumn.org.

How to get a geek into the woods, or Geocaching

2009-06-22T09:15:00.000-07:00

Last year, after our wedding, we hauled ourselves up to Duluth to get away for a day or two. On our jaunt, I wanted pie and had heard of Betty's Pies, which is on the way to Two Harbors. So, we get pie, but have time to kill, so we stumble into Gooseberry Falls State Park. At the visitors center, there are displays of stuffed animals in the area, birch canoes, etc. But, there are also brightly colored signs advertising Geocaching at the State Parks (sponsored by Best Buy.)

We wander over to the info desk, check out a Garmin eTrex GPS, received a sheet with instructions for the GPS and headed out of the door.

We did get lost, but wandering around a state park isn't boring, even if you are lost. We eventually followed the right path to lead us to the "cache." We hiked on well established trails to an outhouse which overlooked Lake Superior. It was a great view and something we wouldn't have found on our own.

We were hooked. When we came back home, I plugged in coordinates to a few caches in Como Park and one that was stuck in a train on Energy Park into my car's GPS. We had no luck finding anything and stopped looking. We started up again about a month ago, because our friends, Crystal and Vic, started Geocaching. They were actually finding things like Geocoins, and Travel Bugs. It sounded really interesting, so we headed out with the Mio DigiWalker c310x. We didn't find anything.

We found a Garmin eTrex Venture HC for about $85 refurbished to up our game a bit. Still, the caches we tried to find were elusive. It looks like the Como area is more difficult then we would like and was probably a bad place to start out.

Since then, we have crawled over Central Park and Villa Park in Roseville, Crosby Park in Saint Paul and Lake Harriet in Minneapolis. We have left a bunch of Travel Bugs we purchased to leave in caches, a handful of geocoins, and some trinkets. It's been fun, even if we've both been soaked, exhaused, muddied, pricked, bit and frusturated.

For more information on Geocaching, visit www.geocaching.com.

Why Organize?

2009-06-02T07:59:00.000-07:00

American's who do not believe in any gods (we would call them atheists, although they may not) are a large part of the population. Some polls would say that there are more atheists in America than Mormons and Jews combined, however, we are either underrepresented, or our politicians are lying about their religious beliefs. If nearly one in five of us are atheists, as some polls suggest, why are we treated as a much smaller minority? Much of that has to do with numbers and organization.

Right now, across the country, atheist groups are scrambling to make themselves known to people who had no idea there w
as a group for them. They are doing this through ad campaigns, websites and radio shows. There are some who say that we are recruiting members to a hate group. I would say people are willingly joining a hated group. By being organized, by being a part of a group, whether as a dues paying member, or not, you are helping. The more you participate, the more you make others around you comfortable to be who you are without fear, or shame. We should not be afraid to say that we're going to a spaghetti dinner for Minnesota Atheists on the weekend when a coworker asks us what we have planned.

Don't we live in a tolerant society? After all, we have the separation of church and state to protect atheists and the religious from interference from churches and the government. We should be able to have an event in the public without fear of harassment, but we're not there yet. As atheists, many of us are not interested in debating with the religious about the existence of God, the accuracy of the Bible, or whether Jesus rose from the dead. However, simply by holding a sign with the Minnesota Atheists logo, you open yourself up to harassment.

Jeannette Watland, Associate President for Minnesota Atheists, held a sign at the last Flying Spaghetti Monster spaghetti dinner in Como Park to direct people to where the dinner was being held. She was only out there for 20 minutes, maybe a few hundred cars drove by, but in that time she was called names, yelled at, honked at, told to, "stop proselytizing," and forced into debates with people about the origin of the Universe. Just for holding a sign.

By getting involved, by speaking out and standing out, you are helping to educate the public. We live in a diverse community; however, our existence is hidden. We are your neighbors, coworkers, friends and family. We have morals and deal with the same problems in life as anyone else. One quote Jeannette remembered from her experience was from a mother pushing her child in a stroller. "What's that word mean, mommy?" "Atheist? That's a dirty word." With your help, people will see that it isn't.

2009-04-11T07:04:00.001-07:00

MN Atheists April President's Column - "Our Atheist Community"

2009-04-11T07:03:00.001-07:00

What makes Minnesota Atheists different? In the Twin Cities alone, there are many groups which could fall under the "Freethought" banner. There is a student group - the Campus Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists of the University of Minnesota - and non-student groups like the Humanists of Minnesota, Atheists for Human Rights, and Minneapolis Skeptics. As I wrote last month, Minnesota Atheists' slogan is, "Positive Atheism in Action." What does that say about these other groups? Are they negative? Hardly. We are a diverse group, with many different political opinions and different thoughts about how to dialog with religious people, but the organization as a whole acts in a certain way, which I believe attracts curious atheists.

First, we strongly support equal rights. Regardless of religion, sex, race, ability, economic status, or sexual orientation, you deserve to be treated equally under the law. From this general position, we march in gay pride parades and speak out at the capitol about the importance of keeping church and state separate.

Second, we acknowledge that religious people are not stupid for having supernatural beliefs. From this, we make presentations to schools and in the public about atheists, stating our views and fostering understanding by engaging in respectful dialog. This is one of the most difficult things to do, because it is easy for those who grew up believing in a god to forget what that was like, and how strongly some us believed, only to have had someone ask probing questions, in person, through a book, or the Internet, which began a process of reasoning which led to atheism. Starting with respect does not mean pandering, but allowing a conversation to be built on what is presented, rather than on assumptions about each other.

Lastly, we join together as a community to bring dignity to the label we assign to ourselves as atheists. Some criticize atheist organizations for acting too much like a church by having regular meetings, pot lucks, picnics, signing songs, and having fun together. But our community is important to all of the people who are a part of it, and to all of those who don't yet know that they are not alone.

I, for one, am proud to be a part of such a diverse community, and to feel free to mingle with fellow atheists, no matter where I am. We may not have much in common, but we have at least one thing.

Sunsara Taylor - "Away With All Gods" Tour at U of MN

2009-03-11T12:50:00.000-07:00

by Bjorn Watland
On a crisp November evening at the University of Minnesota, a surprisingly large crowd gathered in a basement auditorium to hear from Sunsara Taylor, an unapologetic Revolutionary Communist and militant atheist. Hearing the views of a communist isn't as shocking as it may be in other arenas of the public; however, it isn't often that a communist will admit that they are also an atheist. Sunsara Taylor is not ashamed of either her Revolutionary Communism, or her atheism, as she presented Bob Avakian's book, "Away With All Gods, Unchaining the Mind and Radically Changing the World."

Sunsara Taylor's presentation began with a description of the horrors that wait to greet the curious reader of the Bible. "I wouldn't give this book to young children to read," Taylor mentions, also calling the Bible, "The most blood-thirsty book." The specifics from the Bible she mentions are the practice described of stoning women who were not virgins on their wedding night, God commanding soldiers to kill children, men, and women who have known a man, but leave the virgins for yourselves, and the series of plagues sent by God.

Citing these examples from the Old Testament of the Bible, Sunsara Taylor makes the statement that you cannot separate the New and Old Testaments, as some more progressive Christians might like to do. Jesus is often separated from the horrors of the Old Testament, however, by what basis would you consider Jesus to the divine without fulfillment of the prophecies found within the Old Testament? "Jesus is not someone you would want to follow or should follow,” Taylor exclaims. "He didn't end slavery; instead he taught how slaves should be obedient to their masters. He didn't stop patriarchy. He continued to preach that disease and illness are caused by sin."

Taylor explores the concept of sin. Sin is caused by the "Fall" of humanity. Christians believe that Eve was deceived by the Devil to eat from the Tree of Knowledge and then deceived Adam. What this means for women who inherit this original sin, is a special punishment or curse, which is painful childbirth and obedience to their husbands. The problem with this treatment of the nature of humanity, is that it creates a society which is patriarchal and these ancient myths should not be carried on today in the modern era.

Next, Taylor ties in ancient Biblical myths with practice in society today. She cites Proposition 8 in California, which defined marriage as one man and one woman. Proponents of a heterosexual definition of marriage use the Bible to argue against gay marriage. However, the Bible doesn't even treat marriage as between one man and one woman. King Solomon, in the Bible, has hundreds of wives and hundreds of concubines. "Sex existed long before people made up religions, and marriage is defined by societies, not by a god," Taylor reasons.

The next section Taylor dives into is all about the difference between science, religious faith, and to a lesser extent, art. "Science is not cold and bereft of meaning," says Taylor. The difference between art and religion is that art does not mandate that you accept it as a representation of reality. "Humanity cannot live without art, but must live without religion," Taylor quotes from the book.

Taylor has peppered her presentation with fleeting mention of being a communist, and mentioned some of the experiences that have formed her opinion of religion, such as attempting to defend an abortion clinic from violent protesters and actually reading the Bible only to learn about the horrible treatment of women, and other violence found throughout the book. At the end of her presentation, she attempts to tie in the rationality and reason of science and atheism and communism.

Taylor, like the books she is presenting, is not meant to be nice to religion, and not meant to take ideas lightly. She asserts that the idea of the "Golden Rule," only works on an individual level, and not in societies. Scarcity is no longer a problem in the world. We have the means to provide shelter, food, and safety to every person on the planet. We can feed the whole world, but people in food producing countries are starving because food is produced, and exported to "imperialist countries, like this one," asserts Taylor. We need to get rid of the means of production relations that are based on exploitation and rid ourselves of class distinction.

What are the options for the individual, according to Taylor? "Faced with the horrors of the world, you have three options," Taylor follows. You can grab all of the goodies and possessions through a global network of exploitation, close your eyes to the exploitation or you can open your eyes and confront the oppression and change the world you live in.

Taylor does not hold back in her presentation. During the evening she called Sarah Palin a Nazi for the practice of charging rape victims for rape kits because they contained emergency contraception. We should not feel good about being American, no matter who is President, because we are a nation which dropped two atomic bombs on cities in Japan, have killed a million people in Iraq, and carry out secret CIA operations, such as hidden prisons. She asserts that abstinence only sex education has genocidal implications and the Bible fuels it. She believes that humans have no inherent nature to be good or bad, and that the problems we see today were caused by the emergence of classes, private property and the state. In order to change the world, you must act in opposition to the oppressor in order to benefit the oppressed.

From the audience, a number of people raised concerns about the viability of a communist society, citing examples of failed attempts in the USSR and China. Taylor lauded the successes of Maoist China in raising the life expectancy from 33 years to 65 years in a short time as the country transitioned from feudalism. Among those who raised concern, one was an anthropologist, another an economist and another merely had concerns that humans, as animals, had a capitalist nature that is difficult to overcome. She handled criticism of communism, which made up the majority of the discussion afterwards, very well. As a speaker, she is confident, assertive, and concerned about understanding the point of view of the questioner.

Bob Avakian’s book, "Away With All Gods," as presented by Sunsara Taylor, is different from other atheist books, like those from Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, in that it proposes a radical political agenda as an opposition to religious fundamentalism.

Campus Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists (CASH) presented Sunsara Taylor. CASH is known as, "The Best Damned Group on Campus, " are an affiliate of the Secular Student Alliance and have been serving atheists, skeptics, and humanists since 1991. For more information about CASH, visit www.cashumn.org.

Bjorn Watland is a board member of Minnesota Atheists and Camp Quest of Minnesota. He also serves as an editor for the SSA eMpirical.

Atheist Women on the Radio

2009-02-24T06:06:00.000-08:00

A change is in the air. Minnesota Atheists, the largest and most active atheist organization in the state, as been led by at least one founding member of the board since its creation in 1991. This year, that will not be the case. Jeannette will be serving as associate president, and I will be serving as president.

What does this mean for an organization of nearly 400 supporters? Well, the same activities and programs will continue, but a greater focus on community building, including activities for families and charitable works will inspire a greater number of people to participate.

To highlight these changes, Jeannette was featured on the radio with new board member Crystal. You can download the podcast here.

Dan Barker v. Dinesh D'Souza "Can We Be Good Without God?" Debate

2009-02-10T18:15:00.000-08:00

On January 29th, with temperatures many degrees below freezing, an estimated 1,300 students and guests filled a lecture hall to hear a debate between Dan Barker, author, former minister, and co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Dinesh D'Souza, author, public policy maker, and Christian. The topic: "Can we be good without God?" Campus Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists joined together with Campus Crusade for Christ at the U of MN and Intervarsity Christian Fellowship to host the event.

Mr. Barker, arguing the affirmative, began by thanking a number of people who did not profess a belief in God, yet performed great humanitarian acts, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Edward Gordon and Clara Barton, founder of the American Red Cross whose organization helps those in need regardless of their belief or lack of belief. Clearly, this shows that one can be good, even extraordinarily good, without a belief in a god.

Mr. Barker then quotes from the bible, Psalm 14:1, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." "The bible is wrong," exclaimed Mr. Barker. He continues to quote Thomas Jefferson, "If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God." Mr. Barker explains, "Thomas Jefferson thought that the urge to do good was an instinct, which is not far from where biology is now taking us by revealing the genetic purpose of altruism." When we hear of a horrible act, such as someone killing their family, we will refer to it as, "an inhumane thing to do." To do good, must therefor, be a part of what it is to be human.

How does Mr. Barker define goodness? "When a person acts with the intentions of minimizing harm in the world."

The best action to take is decided upon by analysis of the situation and requires thought, not blind obedience. If you are only acting in a certain manner because you wish to have a reward in the afterlife, you are acting for selfish reasons. Mr. Barker ends his opening statement by exclaiming that everyone in the audience was "smarter person than the God of the bible, and better people than Jesus ever was."

Mr. D'Souza takes a slightly different approach, first undermining the credibility of Mr. Barker by criticizing his self applied label as an "evangelical atheist." "Why is Dan an evangelical atheist? I don't go around writing books about how I don't believe in unicorns." Mr. D'Souza explains why he feels that Mr. Barker is an evangelical atheist later in his presentation.

He then admits that Christians and atheists can be honest, that Christians don't hold a monopoly on virtue. However, he seeks to examine where these virtues come from, because we take these virtues for granted.

How are we, as Americans taking virtues for granted? Mr. D'Souza follows us through the development of Western Civilization, explaining how the uniquely Christian virtues of compassion, preservation of life, and the abolition of slavery changed the world we live in today.

Mr. D'souza claims that if we are to look to the other parts of the world for our virtues, such as the abolition of slavery, compassion, the equality of women, science as an autonomous enterprise, they are not to be found until the introduction of Christianity. Compassion to Aristotle was "a vice" according to Mr. D'Souza. Christianity was the force behind the abolition of slavery in Europe in the 4th and 10th centuries, and Quakers and Evangelical Christians were responsible for ending slavery in the United States. The concept of Universal Brotherhood is unique to Christianity and serves as the foundation of the rule that, "no man has a right to rule another without consent," and is also the foundation of democracy. No historian will argue that Western Civilization was built upon two pillars, Rome and Jerusalem.

Mr. D'Souza goes on to make an argument that science is based on faith. He states three things science is based on. Those are, "We live in a rational universe. We live in a lawful universe. The rationality of the universe mirrors the rationality in our mind." He then exclaims that, "There is no reason. Science is based on faith. God is rational, so the world is rational. You have to take the fact that the world is rational on faith."

He ends is opening statement by stating that if we are to look at the products of a secular morality, we should not look to countries like Sweden and France, but rather look at the regimes of Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, and Castro. "Atheism is responsible for the mass murders of history." Mr. D'Souza explains that though Christianity may have been responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, which only resulted in 2,000 deaths, and the witch trials, with resulted in only a few hundred deaths, atheism was responsible for the deaths of 100 million people just in the 20th century.

Religion transmits morality, not philosophy, Mr. D'Souza explains. "We can be good without God, but we won't know why," he ends his opening.

Through cross examination and rebuttals, Mr. Barker and Mr. D'Souza focused on the claims made in each opening.

Mr. Barker focused on his opponents claim that the virtues which are unique to Western Civilization can be found in the bible, such as Universal Brotherhood, the sanctity of life, and equality for women. He also was critical of Mr. D'Souza's treatment of the term "law" as it refers to physical laws of nature. He explained the difference between prescriptive laws, which would be the kind a society would create and descriptive laws which are explanations of the results of experimentation.

Mr. D'Souza responded to the opening of Mr. Barker with, "Humans occupy two domains, the way things are, and the way things ought to be. Darwinian logic is selfish, the power to do good rejects the inner voice. An internal voice, “the whisper of God,” is not natural, and speaks against the Darwinian voice." He also was uncertain of the explanation provided by Mr. Barker on the concept of "laws." He asserted that we are still taking science on faith when we assume that the speed of light is the same here as it is on a planet 5 million light years away.

Closing statements by Mr. D'Souza included the assertion that radical Christianity's treatment of the bible is the same way atheists treat the bible. To take the bible literally is wrong. It was written by many people over many years. "What is the motive for unbelief? The main motive for rejecting God is, 'If God is not, everything is permitted.' With God, we can have a more moral life."

Mr. Barker ends his argument by reminding the audience that he has lived his life as a minister and as an atheist. "My life has an atheist has been more fulfilling by far." If Christianity is the standard for morality, then why are there no universal agreements on moral issues? "We need to divorce ourselves from the childish morality of the bible."

Both debaters are skilled and have debated each other before. Mr. Barker appeared to have been arguing from the position that we can be good without a belief in a god. Both Mr. Barker and Mr. D'Souza agreed that one can be good without a belief in a god. However, Mr. D'Souza had two focuses of his argument. One is to prove that there is an external agent required for morality, which makes us different from animals. The other is that Christianity has proved to be a force for the greatest good for humanity. From these two points, Mr. D'Souza could be interpreting that without the existence of a god, there would be no morality, so ones belief or lack of belief is irrelevant. The other interpretation handled by his second point is that you can be good without a belief in a god, but you can be even more moral with a belief in a god.

My Review of Ultimate Quotes Big Lebowski t-shirt

2008-12-11T19:52:00.001-08:00

Originally submitted at 80sTees.com

This Big Lebowski shirt features a number of quotes from the classic cult favorite.

Great way to find fans.

By Not the Dude from St. Paul, MN on 12/11/2008

Fit: Feels true to size

Pros: Stylish, Comfortable

Best Uses: Casual Wear

Describe Yourself: Career

This shirt is a great way to meet other Big Lebowski fans.

(legalese)

Fanaticism is not confined to religion.

2008-12-06T08:35:00.000-08:00

Unquestioned faith that something is true, despite contrary evidence. Doing whatever it takes to prove that you are right, including violence. These sound like the traits of a religious fanatic. However, it also describes many parents who believe that mercury has caused their child's autism. Despite reduplicated studies and piles of evidence, these parents will to whatever it takes to make others believe as they do, including threatening those who speak against them.

It is however, hard to blame these parents. A diagnosis of autism can be scary. Although it's not life threatening, it is definitely life changing. Science has not found an cause for autism yet. Parents often feel scared, alone, and frustrated with their inability to change the situation. I'd like to think a parent would do anything for their child. Finding a cause for the condition afflicting their child and fighting it gives a sense that they are doing something. Anything is better than just lying back and taking it.

This leads to the notion that parents should always be listened to. It is hard to argue with a parent about what is right for their child. It is hard to counter a mother's personal anecdotes about how and when their child developed autism. You can't fight it with evidence, just like you can't fight the existence of god.

It is not a surprise then that religion is involved in this thimerosal controversy. Lisa Sykes, a parent and Methodist minister delivers sermons on thimerosal, converting more parents to her opinions. When Wakefield came to America after his practice was ruined in the UK, joined the Good News Doctors Foundation, a religious group aimed at protecting kids from vaccines. Generation Rescue, the group Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carey belong to, is an advocate for chelation, and refers to it as a cleansing ritual. "We are helping a child's body do what god intended it to do". British geneticist and evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane said "Beware of him in whole reason has become the greatest and most terrible passions". These parents are convinced their belief that thimerosal plays a role in their child's autism is completely reasonable. Because of their strong belief in this truth they will submit their children to dangerous treatments, otherwise deemed unthinkable. The extremes people go to for their convictions can be dangerous.

I love that Paul Offit refers to some of the greatest freethinkers of all time in his book "Autism's False Prophets". One of those is Bertrand Russell, whose teapot argument relates to the topic at hand. The teapot argument is that one can say there is a teapot in elliptical orbit, but it is to small to be seen, even by powerful telescopes. Because it can't be seen, it can't be disproved. The same can be said about scientists. There are things that scientists cannot know, and there are rare unexplainable events. Russell's argument is referring to god, but anti-vaccines activists are using it in their favor creating an industry of dangerous therapies and multi-million dollar lawsuits. Fortunately, the courts don't favor this argument much.

My favorite quote in the book comes from Robert Park, author of "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud". I think it sums everything up nicely. "Many people are uneasy standing on such loose soil; they seek a certainty that science cannot offer. For those people the unchanging dictates of ancient religious beliefs, or the absolute assurance of zealots, have a more powerful appeal". The beauty of this quote is that it can be used for both a belief in god, or the belief that mercury causes autism. The unknowable is scary. Putting belief into something is comforting.

I would like to end by channelling the great Carl Sagan. I hope his advice will be heeded. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Unfortunately, in the case of mercury vs autism, the extraordinary proof just isn't there.

Obama Team to Scrap Orion and Ares 1?

2008-11-29T08:07:00.000-08:00

Science News is reporting that President-Elect Obama's Transition Team is seeking possible changes to the Ares and Orion projects. The information requested by the Obama Team include how much money would be saved by canceling the Ares 1 and Orion projects, but no real alterations in other NASA projects. The Ares 1 and 5 rockets have been plagued with problems, and Orion has come under fire for poor design. Should Orion be redesigned to be used on current rocket technology? Is the Mars Science Labratory worth scaling back? Should we go to the Moon again?

One positive note in the article, Obama's Team is looking into green lighting several Earth science projects which have been ignored over the last few years.

Are You Smarter Than An Elected Official?

2008-11-24T08:27:00.000-08:00

How's your Civics knowledge? You can take a simple test from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute to gauge some of your know-how. The results of the test may be surprising. Americans had an average of 49 percent, while elected officials scored five points lower, at 44 percent.

Good-bye cheese

2008-11-23T07:19:00.001-08:00

I thought I was a hard core vegetarian. I gave up jello and twizzlers, and try to be conscious about buying leather. I was living in happy ignorance about dairy products, when someone opened their mouth about rennet, and now cheese is ruined for me. Rennet is an enzyme derived from calve stomach that curdles the cheese. Granted the amount of rennet in cheese is very small ( 1 kg of rennet extract there are about 0.7 grams of active enzymes) but I can't forget that it is still there. The good news is there are vegetarian cheeses, made without animal rennet, mostly organic and kosher cheeses, but those are expensive. I don't know any restaurant that uses vegetarian cheese. I can also pretty much say good-bye to all pizza chains as well. Giving up cheese will be a gradual process, one of withdrawals and relapses. Cheese and I have known each other for a long long time. We all know how hard it is to say good-bye to an old friend, even if that friend is made from slaughtered calf stomach.

Meet Autism's False Prophets

2008-11-08T10:45:00.000-08:00

Do you remember when kids used to go trick or treating and it was perfectly acceptable to receive popcorn balls and cookies from little old ladies? Then, starting in the 60's and 70's the rumors that there were poisons and razors in candy spread, and parents never looked at Halloween candy the same again. Obviously these rumors had to be true. Why would someone lie about something like that. The candy scare turned out to be an urban myth, loosely based on a couple of stories and it got out of hand. The point is that someone had to initiate the scare. The same is true for the mercury-causes-autism scare. I would now like to introduce to you the people that scared millions of parents into not vaccinating their children, and subjecting them to dangerous alternative therapies.

Andrew Wakefield: The Biggest Loser.
Meet Andrew Wakefield. In 1998 Wakefield held a press conference, claiming he had found the cause of autism. He believed the measles virus in the MMR shot was causing damage to the intestine. The virus was able to pass through the damaged intestine, out into the bloodstream, only to be carried to the brain, causing autism. His findings were published in prestigious medical journal (therefore making it all the more believable). He seemed to really care about the well being of children. However, his studies were flawed. He did them in his own lab, ignored contradictory data, and falsified his findings. He collected blood from children at his son's birthday party and subjected children to dangerous tests. He also had financial gain. He was receiving large amounts of money from personal injury lawyers to prove the link between vaccines and autism. He was also developing his own autism detection kits. Unfortunately, before this information became public, there was a ban on vaccinations, leading to a rise of measles in the UK, and instilling fear in parents everywhere that their choice to vaccinate their children was the wrong one.

Meet Mark and Dan Geier. They also receive money from personal injury lawyers to serve as expert witnesses in vaccine cases. They investigated vaccines by turning their basement into a lab. They are also chelation advocates, charging large sums of money for their own therapies. They also advocated for Lupron, a drug sometimes used to chemically castrate sex offenders, which they were financially invested in. To support their claims they referred to findings recorded in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). This system was inaccurate and could be used to manipulate and support clinical findings to their liking. Because they have no background in autism, toxicology,pediatrics s or epidemiology their expert testimonies of subsequently been thrown out of court.
Famous people are smart and always know best. Robert F Kennedy Jr is from one of the most well known families in America. He is perfect to advocate for anti-vaccine laws. Problem is, he doesn't know what he is talking about. He is an environmentalist who also was a participant in a law firm that regularly sues drug companies. His articles on autism and the CDC have been inaccurate and misleading, but he's a Kennedy, so obviously his heart is in the right place.

This woman obviously knows more than doctors. Jenny McCarthy is such an idiot I don't want to talk much about her, except that her "google" degree has led her to cure her child's autism. McCarthy represents everything that is wrong with parents. Of course parents know their kids the best, but shouldn't be making medical decisions based on a 10 minute Internet search. Her kid may have autism, but now she can be a model and a best selling author. YEAH!

David Kirby is deserving of recognition. He is a journalist who wrote "Evidence of Harm" and anti-vaccine manifesto of sorts.

Then there are the scare mongering politicians that don't know what they are talking about that scare the country into believing something that just isn't true. The top offenders include John McCain (idiot), John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Christopher Dodd.

Lets thank the media for giving these people a voice. A big thank you to Don Imus (always a pleasure), Oprah Winfrey and Larry King Live. Controversy makes for great ratings.

Most of these people had something to gain, money. Money is a huge motivation. Unfortunately, ignorance plays a huge part in this scare as well. I'd like to give these people the benefit of the doubt, and say that all our false prophets aren't hurting children out of greed, but out of a lack of knowledge. It's fun to pretend.

Autism's False Prophet's: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure.

2008-11-01T22:20:00.000-07:00

Lately, I've been growing more interested in autism. More specifically, the controversy that mercury containing preservatives (thimerosal) causes autism. This interests me for a couple of reasons. Firstly, because it has been a dangerous controversy. Secondly, because of the parallels it has to religion. There are people who believe very strongly that thimerosal causes autism, despite contradictory evidence. They are clinging onto a faith in something for comfort and answers. There is so much to be said on the subject. I've been reading this wonderful and very interesting book by Dr. Paul A. Offit called Autism's False Prophtes: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure. I was drawn in by the opening quote by Tomas Szasz "When religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic for medicine. Now, when science is trong and religion is weak, men mistake medicine for magic". The fact that Susan Jacoby also endorsed this book encouraged me that this is a good read. Now only is it about something that I feel strongly about, but it's full of skeptism, a quality any good atheist possesses. I'm not going to attempt to analyze and worhip this book in one blog post. So look for more to come, and seriously...read this book.

Jesus Park: The Holy Land Experience

2008-10-10T23:10:00.001-07:00

"If any of you are visiting from outside of Orlando, you may have noticed that there are a few amusement parks around. Amusement comes from the Greek word, "muse," meaning, "to think," and adding an "a" to the beginning negates the following word. So, an amusement park is a place where you don't think. This isn't an amusement park, this is a musement park." - A presenter at The Holy Land Experience

As atheists, why would we ever waste the time, not to mention, the money on visiting a place called, "The Holy Land Experience?" Simple, history is always fascinating, no matter the subject, and while The Holy Land Experience does feature such elements as a Passion play, it is promoted as a place anyone can enjoy, and I wanted to see how well the educational elements were.

As you walk into The Holy Land Experience, after you have paid Trinity Broadcasting Network for the privilege, you walk into a replica of an ancient Jerusalem street. Along with sights of a made up market, you'll see a basket of fake tomatoes, a fruit native to the Americas, and not present in Europe or the Middle East. While walking through the small market, which sits next to a modern market, the gift shop, you'll hear playing over and over again, Hava Nagila, a song which wasn't written until the 20th, and maybe 19th century, but does a good job of solidifying that this is a Jewish market, after all.

Next, the place opens up to a handy set for a Passion play. For those not familiar, a Passion play, at its simplest, recounts Jesus talking to God in a garden, getting sold out, having a mob of Jews condemn him, the Roman governor washing his hands of the episode, followed by much whipping and beating, the hauling of a cross to a hill, hanging on a cross, forgiving people because they are being silly, the only time, "It is finished," is actually the intro to an intermission rather then the end, a poke in the side with squirting water, a disappearing, reappearing presto change-o vanishing from the tomb, then usually an rise to Heaven preceded by some inspiring words, and a reminder to go tell everyone about Jesus.

The Holy Land Experience features a Passion theater, which are a series of concrete posts with cushions on them, a garden with handy tomb, a hill with crosses on it, a nook for whipping, and the top of a building for inspirational speeches. This play featured live music being sung by one of the actors. Normally, I like singing with a play, however, it wasn't the lyrics which were bad, it was the accompanying electronic keyboard which gives a multimillion dollar "musement park" the feel of a back lot of Joe's country church feel to it. This Passion play was the only one I've seen with realistic whipping with blood across the back. This was achieved by whipping Jesus with bits of hose which had fake blood in them. That's a good tip for Halloween parties. The rest of the play continues as normal, until the spear in the side. In true Orlando amusement park fashion, the water squirts out, almost to the audience, like it's a water effect on a ride.

How would I make a better Passion play? Better music. Less emphasis on Jews as being wicked little tricksters. The crime Jesus was tried for in this play was for, "being evil," and not refusing to pledge allegiance to Cesar and Rome, which I think would add a better sense of the under dog fighting the establishment. But, who cares? Passion plays aren't about realism, or even necessarily Biblical accuracy, because the Gospel stories differ on a few elements on the events. The play is meant to remind Christians, who shouldn't have forgotten the story so easily, of why they should be Christians, and why everyone else should too. So, when your neighbor mentions he's a Muslim, or an atheist, you can clearly visualise Jesus being beaten and suffering to forgive the sins of mankind, and that will compel you to tell your Muslim or atheist neighbor the story of Jesus.

Next, we sat in a mock temple. There was a presentation to see here, and the first minute was educational. The presenter explained the three architectural elements to be found, Roman, Greek, and Jewish. This ended the educational portion of the presentation. For the rest of the 20 minutes, he preached about how important it is to teach your children a catechism. This is after the bit about the "musement park." So, we're supposed to think, but we must think only within the truths told to us through a catechism? Anyway, he told the crowd about the first statement of the Westminster Catechism, which reads, "What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever." He then went on to explain that everyone wonders what the meaning of life is, and that hardly anyone would give that answer the that question. As a hit to atheists, if this life is all there is, life is pointless and meaningless, was his next message. His sermon continued by explaining how great it was to be Christian, but it's a great responsibility too, because it's your job to get everyone else to be Christian too. Then he told a story about symbols and meaning. He used an example of a wedding ring to demonstrate that you can wear a wedding ring without being married, but that's dishonest. Why, it's just like a Christian who doesn't have a relationship with God proclaiming to be a Christian. Golly gee. Just because you're surrounded in Christian imagery and the symbols of the faith, that doesn't mean that you are a Christian. Although, both situations are good at keeping people away. In one case, it's guys looking for a date, and in the other, fundamentalist missionaries.

After the temple, we walked by some fiberglass animals. Strangely, they were in pairs, and figured this must be the kids portion. Kids love the story of Noah's Ark, because there are always fun animals to look at, at least the lucky ones. Kids usually don't ask about the animals and people who God thought didn't make the cut in his "Big Do Over." This part of the park was empty, despite being brightly painted, and including a goofy voice mentioning that, "You can look like you're walking on water, just like Jesus!" This was done by standing on blue paint.

Having sat through a sermon, I wasn't in the mood to walk through the Scriptorium, a collection of Bibles. Jeannette thought we'd be getting our money's worth by going through the hour long presentation, which guides you from room to room showcasing the miracle of the Bible being exactly the same everywhere, despite being translated over and over, it remains inerrant, and flawless. Here's the basics of the presentation: Show papyri which has no significance next to a Middle Ages Bible in Latin, and a Hebrew Bible. Talk about the Library of Alexandria, and make the reason for its destruction about destroying Scripture. Next, explain how difficult it was to copy books by hand, and that monks sat in a scriptorium to do so. Mention that John Wycliff was the first person to create an English version of the Bible (which isn't true) and begin the anti-Catholic start of your presentation by turning Wycliff into a hero, complete with a heroic mock escape through a hidden passage through his fireplace. Get to the Gutenberg press and mention a token bit about Martin Luther and John Calvin in the same display. Show a destroyed press and again expose the Catholic church for being intolerant of Bibles other then the Vulgate. Flash to the Mayflower passengers who were seeking religious freedom, but don't mention why, with their Geneva Bibles in hand. Then, enter a dramatic presentation featuring portraits of characters in the Bible, including a booming God voice, and fiber optic lighting effects on fake stone tablets, with God writing the ten commandments, in Hebrew, of course. Mention again how miraculous it is that the Bible has gone through so much, but hasn't changed, despite the last hour long presentation showcasing many different versions, even in the same language, but never discussing their differences, or why there were different versions produced. Then, finish up with a mock living room with, "all the distractions of modern life," and ask the group, "Where is the Bible in your life." The answer to this question by someone in the group was, "If you came into my house, you'd see at least three Bibles, because I like to have different versions." Then, play some contemporary Christian music to drive the group into the gift shop. Step 2? ... Step 3, profit!

So, how are the gift shops? Well, not horrible. You won't find a copy of The Passion of the Christ here, TBN is too interested in promoting their own products. You will find lots of shelves of anointing oil, olive scented candles, and incense of the Bible, like cedar. Cedar? We also saw Ken Ham's "My Creation Bible," which teaches kids that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs in Eden. In a city famous for a park with a talking mouse, this makes more sense. One interesting thing we hadn't seen before, was a line of Christian supplements, including Valerie Saxion's colon cleanser line to, "rid your body of parasites," and His Water Advanced Clustered Water, with two versions, one for underweight people, and another for overweight people. One is Cat's Claw, the other is mainly ginger. It is not cheap. Four bottles of the Cat's Claw stuff will run you $150. Among the trinkets you can buy, there are Roman shields and swords for children. Is this a Christian version of cowboys and Indians, or just poor marketing? "Aw, come on, you got to be Jesus LAST time!" You can even find a mascot of sorts. Bearnardo the Scribal Bear can be had for only $13.

So, what is the verdict? I got the sense that the park is set up to proselytize, but to whom? Would a Christian who was weak in their faith go to an event all about their faith? Are all Christians in need of affirmation that they aren't alone? Is it for people who have doubted the authenticity of certain parts of the Bible and want to learn the history of the text they are reading, only to be let down by the "museum," which offers no Biblical criticism, mention of early texts, does not date anything except the pieces on display, mentions nothing of the Marcionite texts and how formative they are in creating the Bible people read today. Perhaps that is asking too much, a scholarly approach from a place which treats Jews as some prop for Christianity, can't provide authentic fruits for their market, and sells stuffed bears dressed as monks while simultaneously damning the Catholic church. I can see why this effort has failed. TBN bought the park from its owner, including 8 million in debt, laid off 100 workers, and is trying to turn a profit after dumping 37 million into the park in 2007. I would like to see real Biblical criticism and history, more of a history of Christianity, and less gimmicks. But, of course, this experience isn't for me.

What is the fastest way to ruin someone's vacation?

2008-10-09T09:36:00.000-07:00

The fastest way to ruin someone's vacation is to take your crying child. I don't think I've been anywhere on our vacation where there haven't been children screaming and crying. I just about lost it when there was a child screeching next to me on the Kennedy Space Center tour.

I know children cry. It's the parents that anger me, definitely not the children. When you have children you obtain certain responsibilities, like not being able to do the same things you did when you were childless. Taking a young child on a trip where they can't do anything and lugging them along in the heat is just selfish. It's understandable that parents are just trying to make family memories, but it's a waste of money when the kid won't remember any of it. Vacations are expensive for everyone. When your belly fruit is crying, it not only bothers you, but effects the experience of other paying customers. A tour at KSC is about $60. When I drop that kind of money, I crazily expect to hear the tour I just paid for. Much of what the guide had to say was obstructed by a screaming child, that was only quieted when the mother popped her boob out. I was then distracted and honestly made uncomfortable by the sound of a toddler breast feeding.

My parents waited to take my brother and I on vacation until we were about six. The first couple vacations I went on where sans Bryan. If you can afford to go on vacation you can afford a sitter.

I know I'm going to come off as sounding like a scrooge, but there are appoppriate places to take an infants and toddlers. Infants do not belong in loud places like sporting events and movie theaters. It's not good for their hearing, and it's a very disorienting experience for them. Toddlers to not belong in large amusement parks, and R rated movies. It's boring for them, often frightening, and they usually get cranky from walking and the heat. Bjorn and I have decided, that when we have kids, they won't be going on any vacations until they are at least 5, and staying far away from Disney, until we can take out a second mortgage to pay for tickets, food and merchandise.

10 Things Christians Do Better than Atheists - #2 Giving Money

2008-10-02T06:59:00.000-07:00

Inspired by suggestions from Hemant Mehta.

Ten percent. Ten percent BEFORE taxes. Now, that's tithing. Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Protestants, they all have a rich tradition of giving money to the community, or to the religious institution that they belong to. The religious will give on a regular basis, and step it up a notch for special projects, such as a new building, or aid relief. Having been raised in a religious tradition, I can tell you that not everyone who attends a church will contribute financially to the organization, but will donate time. There are still those who will do neither. The last statistics I remember hearing about the church I last attended, was that half of the membership gave every week, a quarter gave about once a month, and a quarter gave nothing. Still with these statistics, the church was able to build large facilities with class rooms, meeting centers, and worship areas, as well as paying a large number of full time staff. The weekly attendance was around 2,000, which is far greater then any atheist organization I have ever seen, but I have seen churches with membership around 300 who have a building to worship in, pay a pastor and usually a secretary, and still participate in community events.

Are the faithful better at giving money? I think the example provided proves that at least the religious are more focused in their giving. I've known many generous atheists since I've been active in the community. Some feel the need to support atheist organizations, and others spread their money to organizations who actively help the poor by providing shelter and food. There are still others who give most of their money to animal shelters, research organizations for the cure of diseases, and places that help battered women. By the time the local or national atheist organization comes around, they are already worn thin. This is a minority of people, however.

Why don't people feel the need to give money to atheist organizations? Part of the reason, I have seen, is that atheist groups don't do much other than provide a social community. As long as someone brings the cookies, you don't need to raise any money, right? Atheist organizations can be much more than just a group of friends who get together. There are a lot of atheists out there who feel that they are alone. There are atheists who see separation of church and state concerns, but feel like there is nothing they can do. Still others want to help the community by volunteering or donating to a cause, but don't want to sit through another patronizing prayer before getting to work.

When I think about supporting an atheist organization, I want to see them doing something. Even if it is as simple as publishing their position on issues, or writing letters of concern to schools which may be treating the non religious differently. I want to feel like the money I give is going to be used for something helpful. That is why I support atheist organizations who do charitable work. It may be a small part of what the organization does, but I feel that the money I have given has gone to a good cause.

Why don't atheists contribute more to atheist organizations? Part of the blame is on atheist organizations themselves. The local atheist andfreethought groups in the Twin Cities have been shy about asking for money. Minnesota Atheists went over a year without sending out a fund raising letter. When we speak to the general public, we rarely speak about membership and how people can support us. Part of it, I think, is because of the personality types atheist organizations seem to draw. Members are more introverted, and don't want to feel too pushy.

The other reason atheist organizations have trouble raising funds, is that atheists generally see themselves as being independent. I've heard a number of times while working in the public for Minnesota Atheists, "Since when does having a lack of belief in God cost money?" Then, I have to try to explain that renting table space at an event costs money, printing fliers and sending in speakers all cost money, but they still don't get it, and don't find value in supporting an organization which is actively engaged in making the community more welcoming for atheists.

Atheist organizations need to make it as easy and as automatic to contribute as possible. Public media has been very successful at promoting small monthly donations, and offering token gifts to contributors. While more and more organizations do have regular monthly giving options, it needs to spread more. More incentive, even it it's something small, like a book, would help inspire more people to give regularly. Ask a student, for example, to donate $60 to the local atheist student group, and they'd laugh at you. But, say, "Hey, would you miss $5 a month?" After a year, the donation is the same. Most people, no matter how down on their luck, or small their income stream, $5 a month is doable.

As long as atheist organizations make it clear what your money is used for, are not shy about asking for funds to keep them operating, and make it as easy as possible to automatically donate, atheist groups will be able to do more than they thought possible.

10 Things Christians Do Better than Atheists - #1 Charity Work

2008-09-26T08:34:00.000-07:00

Inspired by suggestions from Hemant Mehta.

For all of the faults in theology, Christians have a lock on charity work. When someone thinks of Christian kindness, I doubt that they imagine brainwashing children to fear a non existent Hell and a deity who watches every move and knows your thoughts. Instead, images of soup kitchens, food shelves, homeless shelters, Habitat for Humanity, even sandbagging ahead of a flood are all things churches are known for. Why aren't the same things associated with atheist kindness?

Atheists do give time and money to charity, but how come no one knows about it? I think that atheists are more concerned with helping others then getting recognition for efforts. The side effect of this unselfishness is that efforts of atheists are ignored. Also, atheists don't tend to organize well. While there are great freethought groups out there, an organization of 300 members can have trouble getting enough volunteers to help with a road side cleanup, but it's members on their own volunteer at homeless shelters, animal shelters, collect food for food shelves, donate blood, and help sick children. While this helps humanity as a whole, it does nothing to rid the stereotype of atheists as a bunch of intellectual nihilists who have turned their back on humanity.

So, where to start? First, you need an idea, then you need to promote, promote, promote. Christians use newsletters, fliers, sermons, posters, calling members, television and radio, and the Internet to get their messages out. Any group can get a few people together to brainstorm volunteer ideas. Choose your events carefully. Decide if you want to have an event which costs money, such as donating new toys to kids, or something which takes time, like stocking a food shelf or raking lawns. Many atheists aren't wealthy, so events which involve time rather then money fit well. One way to get around this, is to go door to door asking for donations for your project.

Most organizations have a newsletter, so start promoting your event early and often. That article on the ontological proof for God can wait until next month. Make up fliers and put them up in public places. Coffee shops, grocery stores, and libraries are great places for nearly free publicity. Atheists don't have sermons, but they usually have regular meetings. Take some time, or a whole hour, talking about different volunteer opportunities in your community that you're going to participate in. A variety of events makes sure more people can participate. Not everyone can donate blood, or make it to a food shelf on a weekday. Start a mail list, or an email list of interested people, so they are always up to date on the latest opportunities. Use social networking tools, like Facebook and MySpace or Meetup.com to post invitations to volunteer events. Oh, and be prepared to offer something to your volunteers for helping out. Food is a strong motivator. Use your website to let members know about upcoming events. You can use a Google calendar that people can subscribe to and keep your events there. It's simple to update, and easy for people to stay up to date.

Not every atheist group has access to television or radio programs, but sending out press releases to news papers, radio and television stations is an easy way to get some publicity. This is especially effective if your story is interesting and unique. You should get to know the reporters at your local news papers. Often times, someone will be more sympathetic then others to print pieces about you, and it's good to know who that is. A press release doesn't have to be elaborate, but should have enough information to entice a writer. If all of your efforts to get the word out have failed so far, the Internet is still a great resource for promotion. Email atheist bloggers, conservative and liberal bloggers, any popular blogger who may be interested in your story. They can have more eyes then a local newspaper, and that type of promotion can lead to news stories. Contact groups that produce podcasts and see if they need a guest. If your story is interesting, most producers will like it.

By using resources you already have, and spending a little bit of time, you can pull people together, make a difference in your community, and promote atheists as positive people.

At the Nickelodeon - "Burn After Reading"

2008-09-25T08:46:00.000-07:00

Joel and Ethan Cohen's new film, "Burn After Reading," is an attempt at creating one of those stories where you get fleeting introductions to characters, but eventually all the characters come together. Does, "Burn After Reading," succeed in creating a unique, interesting tale? Or, do you watch each scene while knowing what's going to happen next because it's so predictable? I'd say it's a mix of the two. While the threads of the story are predictable, what happens with each character interaction approach a strangeness common to cult classic films. I won't even bother with a description of the plot, because it's unnecessary, however, this is a good movie to see if you are a fan of the Cohen brothers, like George Clooney, or Brad Pitt? Did I mention that john Malkovitch is also in this movie? And Francis McDormand?

Bjorn and Jeannette on the radio

2008-09-21T00:06:00.000-07:00

Because of a last minute scheduling change, we're hoping in studio for Atheists Talk at 9 AM to talk about our wedding. We hope that our story will help humanist couples who are planning their weddings.

"Secular Weddings" with recently married atheist couple Bjorn and Jeannette Watland.

"What's the Difference Between Atheism and Humanism?" with Scott Lohman, president of the Humanists of Minnesota, and August Berkshire, president of Minnesota Atheists.

SPONSORS:

American Humanist Association

PODCAST COMING SOON

SUBSCRIBE TO THE iTunes PODCAST

SUBSCRIBE TO THE STANDARD RSS FEED

Write a review of Atheists Talk

Listen to AM 950 KTNF on Sunday at 9AM Central to hear Atheists Talk produced by Minnesota Atheists. Stream live online. Call the studio at 952-946-6205 or email us at radio@mnatheists.org

Scarry Halloween Costumes from 2004

2008-09-19T13:04:00.001-07:00

It's getting to be about that time. It's the time when I drive to work and the sun isn't up, and the whole day is ruined. It's also time for pumpkin pie, and Halloween costumes. In my research for ideas, I stumbled upon a site with the Scariest Halloween Costumes of 2004. Featured are Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, an electronic touch screen voting machine, Lyndie England, a Bush protester, and Jenna Bush's liver. part of me wants a kid, just to dress them up in comical costumes.

Impeach for Peace Co-Founder Jodin Morey Shot With Rubber Bullet at the RNC

2008-09-04T13:14:00.000-07:00

Jodin Morey, co-founder of Impeach for Peace was shot in the back during a peaceful demonstration in the free speech zone in front of the RNC in Saint Paul, MN. It is easy to blame police violence on violent protesters, however, this is an act of police brutality and unnecessary use of force against a peaceful demonstration. Some of you may have met Jodin. He was the singer in our wedding about a month ago. He is also generous with his time as a volunteer for Camp Quest. To hear his account and to see videos, click here.

Summary of Sarah Palin Speech

2008-09-03T22:04:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama will take all of your money, so when the terrorists kill you, you'll have no money to will to your children and if you do have any money left, Obama will take your fortune away in a Death Tax.

Richard Greene from Clout on the Psychopathology of The Republican

2008-09-03T05:38:00.000-07:00

Last night, Jeannette and I wandered over to the Como Lakeside Pavilion where a crowd of Democrats assembled to hear talk show hosts, musicians, and politicians speak. The last speaker of the night was the host of Clout, Richard Greene, gave an interesting speech in which he explains how he reasons a way to talk to Republicans. He asked the audience to raise their hands if anyone was friends with a Republican, got along with them great, except on political issues. Nearly everyone raised their hand. How could we understand their worldview and where they are coming from? To be rational with someone you don't understand, you first need to understand them. A moment of clarity for Greene took place at the DNC last week as he moderated a debate between Dennis Prager and Thom Hartmann. What Prager said was:

"I don't think we're basically good, as it happens/ And that is at least a theoretical political divide . . . It is so obvious to me that people are not basically good that I stand in awe of those who think that people are basically good. You have no evidence for it. . . . Babies are not good . . . What is so good about a baby . . . This notion that we are born good is nonsense . . . We don't start off good. This is fantasy . . . We aren't basically good. People stink as a rule. . . ."

He goes on to write that it is this base understanding that people are not inherently good which drives the actions and positions of Republicans. We must dominate or else we will be dominated. We must combat and be on guard for evil always. Within every child is a potential Hitler or Stalin.

I have heard this before, "The Republican Party is the Daddy Party, and The Democrats are the Mommy Party. When we're in a time of war, we need a Daddy Party to protect the country. When we aren't in war, the Mommy Party can make everyone feel safe and take care of health care and education."

Greene uses an example of a child afraid of the Boogyman in the closet. They know that there is a Boogyman in there, and they are terrified. When someone is so frightened, they don't think, they can't reason. Whether it is terrorism, attacks on lifestyle or morals, or the weather, no amount of reasoning will work, because they are not listening. They know that if we are not victorious in Iraq and around the world against terrorism, that before we know it, terrorists will be at our door killing our children. No amount of reasoning will change that.

What does Greene suggest? Shut up. Stop talking. That is a big sentence for a talk show host to say, but it makes sense. They aren't listening to you. But, that doesn't mean that you do nothing. What do you do to calm a child who is afraid of the Boogyman? You don't fling open the door at them, they'll just hide under the covers and prepare for the impending attack. You need to ask questions. That starts the reasoning process, until they can understand for themselves that there is no Boogyman.

This analogy, while not perfect all of the time, is helpful for me, at least. I think people are naturally altruistic to a point, and selfish and greedy to another point, but I don't have the view that everyone is out to get me.

You can read The Psychopathology of The Republican here.

Anti-war and RNC protesting

2008-09-01T16:23:00.000-07:00

Jeannette and I usually go to the Labor Day festival on Harriet Island this time of year, but since there are several new visitors in town, i.e. the RNC, we skipped that. We met up with Laura who was a CIT at Camp Quest, saw a camper on the march route, and marched with Jerry Rauser and friends. I'm more anit-war then I am anti-Republican. I don't think those are the same things. I trust someones actions regarding policy as more important then their party affiliation. I think war is wrong, and I can think of nothing which is more expensive, and destructive to humanity then that. The counter protesters stood in silence while angry protesters yelled at them chants of "No More War", "Four More Months," and "No Blood For Oil." The counter protesters all had the same sign, "Victory Over Terrorism - Let Our Soldiers Win." War is an absolute last resort. War on terrorism doesn't make sense. David Cross once said, "War on terror? You can't win a War on Terror. That's like a war on jealousy." This treats an action which consequence is to prevent the loss of life and suffering for people as a game which must be won. In this game, there is no goal line, there is no 10th frame, there is no 18th hole. How do our soldiers win? They get to go home. As long as our country keeps sending troops into war, we all lose.

Seeing a launch in October

2008-08-25T21:05:00.000-07:00

Our culture makes you take vacation after you get married. Well, we did get away to Duluth for a couple of days, which did have a lot of honeymooners for such a town. But, our for real vacation will be to Florida to watch a group of highly talented scientists and pilots get strapped to massive amounts of fuel to be launched into a very high orbit, all the way to the Hubble Space Telescope to make some upgrades and repairs. Part of the work will involve removal and replacement of circuit boards aboard the telescope, which will require the astronaut to take out over 100 tiny screws while in a space suit, and wearing a protective glove. I'm lucky if I can take out 25 screws on a laptop, and not lose one. Hopefully these screws are a bit bigger, but still, I'm glad I'm not doing it. We landed tickets to see the launch from the Kennedy Space Center, along with a huge crowd. We also picked up "lunch with an astronaut," which is actually at 11:30 that night. I hope the launch happens on schedule, but we'll be there all week in case it's postponed for weather. We plan to make the most of the visit, including catching a glimpse on Endeavor out on the second shuttle launch pad before it's rolled out to 39A for its November launch. Yay space exploration!

Professional Wedding Photos

2008-08-22T18:39:00.001-07:00

Our professional photos are in. You can visit them here.

Minnesota Atheists Talk Radio at the MN State Fair

2008-08-18T07:38:00.000-07:00

This Sunday and the following Sunday at the State Fair Minnesota Atheists will be broadcasting at the usual time of 9 AM at the AM 950 KTNF booth. A tentative show schedule will feature on hour on atheism, and the following week on humanism. Stop by and ask you question live.

Farting Televangelist

2008-08-14T17:50:00.000-07:00

Just because we're married doesn't mean we can't enjoy simple pleasures, like televangelists and farting.

Secular Ethics and Living Biblically

2008-08-14T17:10:00.000-07:00

This year at Camp Quest, I was in charge of teaching ethics. However, I was tired of the same scenarios presented, and I'm sure the kids were too. So I took a new approach. One of the main things I'm asked when I tell people I'm an atheist is "Where do you get your morals"? Atheists don't have the bible and the Ten Commandments to guide them in moral living. Telling a non-atheist that "morality is innate", though true, comes off a bit lame. You have to delve deeper. I waned to give the kids an intellectual arsenal. So I kept it simple. I stuck with two of the commandments. I started with "Thou shall not steal" and had the kids come up with as many people as possible that stealing effects. The point was to show kids that one action can effect many people. So when you have a moral decision to make, think of not only how it will make you feel, but what the long term effects are. The things they came up with were amazing. They talked about house-foreclosures. They talked about the effects of the economy. They talked about how a store owner could go bankrupt and take it out physically on it's family, and the rise of prices in the store. I'm not saying they fully understood the economics. I was really impressed however of their awareness of others.
However, I also found it necessary not to bible bash, because camp teaches respect for other cultures. It also got me thinking about the messages the bible holds. There's a lot of really horrible stuff in there, and this is going to be atheist blasphemy, but there's some good stuff too. Over the summer I read a wonderful book by A.J. Jacobs, called "A Year of Living Biblically". Jacobs is a secular Jew who decided to take the words of the bible literally. What struck me the most is that he found some great ways of living from some pretty obscure bible laws. Here are some of my favorites:

no wearing clothes of mixed fibers: What good could possible come from this? Jacobs found that most clothes without mixed fibers were white, so he started wearing white. Wearing white made him feel more joyous in his everyday life.
no plowing the corners of your field: it's believed that not plowing the corners of the field, was so that the passing poor could eat the gleanings the farmers left.
not coveting: You can really waste a lot of time being jealous and wanting things. Instead of looking at gadgets at the Sharper Image, get out there and spend time with family and friends.
tithing: I don't think a lot of the board member of MN Atheists would complain if we required our members to give 10% of their income. I don't know about anyone else, but I feel damn good when I give money to a charity.
Proverbs 31:6 -"Bring wine to the depressed" I'd take some booze for depression instead of being prayed for any day.
Observing the sabbath: Not doing anything is silly, but is it really such a bad idea to give yourself some rest?
Saying Grace: this can be a helpful tool to help you be grateful and not to take things for granted.

This one is my all time favorite-Proverbs 5:1-23 "Rejoice with the wife of your youth....may her breasts satisfy you always, and may you be captivated with her love". I don't think this one needs any explaining.

I know I'm skipping over a lot here, like the token Elisha and the she-bears story, and the whole curse of Ham thing, and......anyway.....

I liken the bible to a Martha Stewart Catalog. I hate the woman, but if I pick up her magazine for whatever reason, and see a kick ass cupcake recipe, I'll sure as hell give the old bitch some credit. I'm humble enough to do so...(speaking of which, the bible teaches humility, and I personally find humble people easier to deal with than ones with inflated egos). The point of all of this is not to promote the bible. I'll be the last person to do so. Where you get your motivation from is not as important as what kind of life you end up living.

Geocaching at Gooseberry Falls

2008-08-14T07:08:00.000-07:00

After the wedding, Jeannette and I hopped in the car and left the city for another city, Duluth. Let me tell you, Duluth is a quiet, romantic town, with many copies of restaurants from Minneapolis. You'll find Grandma's from the West Bank, and Hell's Kitchen from Downtown. So, at least you won't go hungry. The skies are clear, and the lake is cold. We had a fun time.

On our last day, we set out to find Betty's Pies. Find it we did, and stuffed ourselves before going to Gooseberry Falls. Now, this is how a state park should be designed. The visitor center was clean and modern. There were lots of educational displays around for people to learn about rocks and the rivers and the lake in the area. One display stood out as a banner in a few places. Best Buy has not been sloppy when it comes to marketing. Their green banners inform you about the Geocaching History Challenge going on at Minnesota State Parks.

What is Geocaching?

It's a good way to get geeks outdoors, that's what it is. So, you have a GPS, right? Well, you can find any point, as long as you can see the sky, if you are given the right coordinates. Geocaching at the State Parks starts off with a coordinate, you enter it into your GPS, then you go track it down, like a treasure hunt. Gooseberry Falls are one of the Demo Parks, so you can use a GPS from them if you don't have one. We borrowed a little Garmin eTrex unit, and set off. It lead us along a trail we never would have gone on, to a view of the river emptying into Lake Superior. it was a great view. Inside of a typical Geocache, you'll find a log book, and trinkets. Sometiems you'll also find a Travel Bug, which hops from cache to cache. The State Park caches also have a postcard for the park. You can collect all 72 and earn medalions. You can earn regional medalions for completing a series in a region. Inside the ammo box, which make the best caches, we collected our card, a coupon from Best Buy, and wrote our name in the log book. Since it was hot out, we had no water, and Jeannette was in flip flops, we headed back.

Geocaching isn't limited to Minnesota State Parks. Visit www.geocaching.com to see other caches, including ones with puzzles to determine what the coordinates are. If you want the coorinates to the State Park caches, visit http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/geocaching/index.html .

A Humanist Wedding Ceremony

2008-08-12T16:58:00.000-07:00

Now that our wedding and mini honeymoon are over, we thought it would be a good idea to describe our wedding ceremony to offer some help for couples who are interested in having a Humanist wedding.

Where did we start?

Who performs the ceremony?

If you are a member of a church, or temple, that's an easy question. It becomes a little tricky if you are a couple of mixed denominations or religions. For Humanists who want a ceremony which is more familiar then having a judge and two witnesses listen to your vows and make a pronouncement, you should find a Humanist Celebrant. You can sort of think of a Humanist Celebrant as a religious mentor of sorts, except that Humanism isn't a religion. You'll want to check with your local laws to see if a Humanist Celebrant can legally perform a wedding. If they can not, get your representative at the state level to sponsor legislation to make it legal. If you can't wait that long, a "minister" of the Universal Life Church, which can be anyone, can usually get a certificate and be registered with the state to perform the ceremony. If that won't work either, you can find pastors out there who will perform completely secular services. Some think that spiritual is still secular, so make sure he or she knows where you stand.

You should get in touch with your local Humanist organization. Paul Heffron was our officiant, and an active member of the Humanists of Minnesota, so over the past year leading up to the wedding, we were able to see each other often, so it wasn't strange at the wedding. You can also find former pastors who are now Humanists and may still be registered with the state under their old affiliations.

What do you do for a Humanist wedding ceremony?

As a Humanist, your options are wide open, and can be as personal as you'd like. Weddings have a long history, and now there are certain elements which make a modern ceremony. The minimal requirement is usually making vows, making a pronouncement, and signing a certificate of marriage. For some, just signing the marriage certificate with witnesses is enough. But if you want to get your friends and family together, you should come up with a ceremony with some of the following: Opening music, a greeting, a welcome message to families, various readings and/or songs, lighting a unity candle, binding of hands, vows, pronouncement, a kiss or many, and a procession out of the place. The good thing is that you get to pick what you want.

What did we do for a ceremony and how did we come up with it?

We looked through some books from the British Humanist Association, and the Australian Humanist Association to get ideas of ceremonies, as well as looking online for inspiration. Our ceremony is a combination of all of those. We chose music and readings which we already enjoyed.

Processional: The Bride walks towards the guests across a bridge while classical music plays. *We chose Aria da Capo by Bach

Welcome: Celebrant: Welcome, friends! It gives me great pleasure to welcome you all here on this happy occasion to celebrate and witness the marriage of Jeannette and Bjorn who now wish to make their vows for a life-long union in the presence of their family and friends. They have written this ceremony themselves to allow them to express to each other, and before us, what this occasion means to them, and the commitments and aspirations they share for the future. Jeannette and Bjorn have created this ceremony to express their understanding of love and marriage as they stand on the threshold of a great undertaking. They believe that marriage is a journey, chosen by two human beings, based on mutual love and respect that allows an individual to grow more powerfully and more beautifully then if each walked alone. Marriage is not only linking our lives to another individual. We are entering a new dimension of understanding which goes deep into our heart. The happiness that Jeannette and Bjorn embrace today contains many wishes, for they will be able to explore and enter into the mystery of who they are. The happiness that they hope for in marriage embraces the spoken and the unspoken wishes for fulfillment. What they offer to each other is the opportunity to explore, enter, ans fulfill notions of who they are and what they can be. It is the maturing of love, freely given, and gladly returned that is both ordinary, and extraordinary, because it is about everyday living, Jeannette and Bjorn are grateful that you have chosen to be here and by your presence, honor their decision to venture forward as wife and husband.

Reading: Whoever loved as we did? Let us hunt for the ancient cinders of a heart that burned and make our kisses fall one by one, till that empty flower rises again. Let us love the love that consumed its fruit and went down, its image and its power, into the earth: you and I are the light that endures, its irrevocable delicate thorn. Bring to that love, entombed by so much cold time, by snow and spring, by oblivion and autumn, the light of a new apple, light of a freshness opened by a new wound, like that ancient love that passes in silence through an eternity of buried mouths. Pablo Neruda

Welcome message to guests: Bjorn and Jeannette spend a minute talking about each others experience so far in their relationship, about their favorite things to do together, and share an interesting annecdote that friends and family may not know about them. *Bjorn shared a story about locking his keys in his car on their first date. He never forgot again. Jeannette told a story about a bee that got into Bjorn's car, and how he ran out like a fool, but she's still with him even if he can be embarrassing at times.

Honoring the Families: Paul speaks about the importance of family and the generosity of parents.

Reading:

Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments. Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds, Or bends with the remover to remove. Oh, no! It is an ever-fixed mark That looks on tempests and is never shaken; It is the star to every wandering bark, Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken. Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks Within his bending sickle's compass come; Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom. If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved. William Shakespeare

The Guests Say their Vows of Love and Support

Today I invite you to share the joy -- the joy of these two people who have found joy in each other. I invite you to hear their understandings of love and marriage. You, their friends, are all especially welcome here because you form a circle of love. Jeannette and Bjorn are as they are, in part, because they have known all of you. The loved ones in this circle have shared concerns, they have shared both agreement and disagreement, have shared tears and laughter. Through that sharing, Jeannette and Bjorn have become more as persons. You are not just spectators today. You are all a part of their past, and by your presence here, you promise to care with and uphold them as they move into the future. To show your support I ask you to make your pledge: Do you promise to love and support Jeannette and Bjorn as they begin their new life together? If so, say “We Do!” --- ALL: “We Do! “

Vows:

Bjorn:

Where is peace?

It is in your smile.

How do I cope?

Your hand steadies my nerves.

Why do I wake?

Because you are there with me.

Why should I be better?

It's you I impress.

Why do I cook?

Your happy tongue is worth it.

Why should I learn?

The things we teach each other help us grow.

Why should I love?

Never have I missed or have been missed more.

Why should I marry?

When together, I find myself.

You find my faults and strengths. I couldn't be who I am without you. You are my first thought and my last. No force affects me more then your smile or your tears. You are my future. You are my home. Your compassion and love can see past my flaws. With you, I am as best as I can be. I can give so much more with you beside me then alone. You are my reason for doing. All I can give, I give to you. I give you my promise to love and respect you. We are different and equal. Together we are more then two. I know pledging to love you is right. Nothing makes more sense to me. Gravity is less certain to me. Each day with you is like a holiday.

I, Bjorn, choose you, Jeannette to be my wife. I will respect you, care for you, and grow with you, through good times and hard times, as your friend, companion, and partner, giving the best that I can, to fulfill our lives together.

Jeannette:

You are my best friend. We are friends who fell in love with each other. We are friends who have shared some incredible moments together. We are friends who laugh and cry together. We are friends who have a mortgage and bills together. We are friends who will grow old together. I'm so lucky to get to spend everyday with such a wonderful and caring person. Any words I say can't do justice to how much I really love you. I feel the same bliss of my childhood. It may not be as carefree, but I feel as happy and safe as I did when I was little, and know I know I'll feel that bliss everyday for the rest of our lives.

I, Jeannette, choose you, Bjorn to be my husband. I will respect you, care for you, and grow with you, through good times and hard times, as your friend, companion, and partner, giving the best that I can, to fulfill our lives together.

Rings:

The ring has long been a symbol for marriage. Made from metals drawn from deep within the earth, may these rings remind you that your love, also, must be drawn from deep within you. Forged in heat and with great effort, may these rings remind you that your marriage is also crafted daily and tempered in the forge of daily giving and forgiving. Bright like the sun, may these rings remind you that your love is meant to illumine your lives. Round like arms that embrace, may these rings remind you that human love is a grace upon this world. Bjorn: Jeannette, In pledge of the marriage vows made between us, I offer you this ring. Let it be to you and to me and to all the world, a symbol of the covenant of marriage we have entered into. Jeannette: Bjorn, In pledge of the marriage vows made between us, I offer you this ring. Let it be to you and to me and to all the world, a symbol of the covenant of marriage we have entered into.

Pronouncement: As Jeannette and Bjorn have given themselves to each other by solemn vows, with the joining of hands, and with the exchange of rings, in the presence of this company, I pronounce them husband and wife. You may kiss! Recessional: Music plays and Bride and Groom exit down center aisle followed by wedding party. Officiant invites parents to follow immediately after, then explains to guests that they should follow the party back to the reception hall for a champagne toast. *We had a dry reception, but everyone had fun!

Should you tell your family it's going to be a Humanist wedding?

The answer depends on how many gifts you'd like. Just kidding! This is a personal question which you'll need to answer based on how you think it will effect you and effect your family. Religion is a big part of my family, and to a lesser extent, of Jeannette's family. I respect my family's beliefs. In turn, they respect mine, even if they don't agree with them. With dialog, things get better, not worse, however your mileage may vary. Sometimes, if a Humanist wedding ceremony is done in a certain way, even without mentioning God or anything spiritual, people won't notice that you've left God out, so you can get away with not telling anyone where you stand theologically, and letting them guess.

My immediate family knows I'm an atheist. My extended family, if they didn't know I'm an atheist, probably have a clue now or at least think I'm non-religious. While it's more difficult to be honest to people who you know will be upset with you, it feels more ethical to be honest, despite the consequences. I think that some people are irrationally fearful of the consequences, when they aren't that bad, but that will have to be your decision, and the decision of your partner.

Secular weddings and Humanist weddings are becoming more and more popular. What this means for you, is that you should be able to choose the style of wedding which suits you, without spending half an hour explaining what Humanism is.

Bjorn and Jeannette get married!

2008-08-12T09:21:00.000-07:00

Yep, we're all married up. Thanks to our friends and family for making an ordinary day extra special. No fights broke out, and we even got to go on a gondola ride! We'll be posting pictures to here: http://picasaweb.google.com/bjorn.watland/WeddingPhotos

And at Shutterfly: http://bjornandjeannette.shutterfly.com/

Brian Spient of the Rational Response Squad bends Uri Geller

2008-08-05T11:56:00.000-07:00

Uri Geller, yes, that Uri Geller, of spoon and key bending fame, among other psychic skills, and his company, Explorogist Ltd. issued a DMCA take down demand for a YouTube video which contained 10 seconds of footage copy written by Uri Geller. The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a suit on behalf of Sapient to challenge the DMCA violation. The EFF and Explorogist Ltd. have settled the case, and as a side effect, the clip in question will be licensed as Creative Commons content.

It's hard to cheer for skeptics. They are always showing you the man behind the curtain. But this is one case when it's easy to applaud.

Why is Camp Quest needed?

2008-08-05T06:17:00.000-07:00

Jeannette just got back from Camp Quest of Minnesota where she and others worked with 30 or so kids. Camp Quest is pretty much like other camps. There is camp food, smores, camp fires, sing-a-longs and cabins. There is swimming and canoeing, tie-dye and sponge ball. The thing which makes Camp Quest, is that the programming is designed for kids of secular parents.

So, what does that mean? Does that mean that kids are taught to hate religion and religious people? Not at all. To their parents, humanism is an important philosophy and learning about critical thinking, science, and famous freethinkers help build a community. Each year, religious literacy is improved by having a group, such as pagans, Hindu, or Baha'i, give a presentation and offer to answer questions from the kids. While the kids aren't converted into any religion, it helps to foster understanding between people.

Why is there even a Camp Quest? From talking to Jeannette who has spent the last two years counseling at Camp Quest, the kids who go every year really look forward to it. Why? Some kids have a hard time making friends. For some, it's because of their views on theology which makes them an outsider. For others, they have a fascination with science and science fiction and might be part of a handful in their school like them. At camp, they don't have to think about who is going to ask them which church they go to, or treat them differently because of what they think about the supernatural. They can have open discussions about ethics and morality and determine for themselves how they think about different issues, like abortion, assisted suicide, killing in general, stealing and bullying, and eating animals. Critical thinking is as important for problem solving as it is for morality.

Atheists and freethinkers can feel like outsiders in the United States. While our government is secular, the majority is Christian. Our culture is filled with religious language, religious symbolism and religious traditions. For one week, it's nice to get away from that, hop into the woods, watch Stargate SG-1 and play Risk.

Only 51 more weeks until the next Camp Quest!

The Antikythera Mechanism

2008-07-30T12:30:00.000-07:00

Found in 1900 near Crete, the Antikythera mechanism is a 2,000 year old mechanical calculator used to calculate astronomical positions. The exact purpose of the device is unknown, but the journal Nature speculates that it could have been used to determine when Olympic Games would start.

The device is made up of at least 30 precision gears. It's technology appears equivalent with 18th century clock making. It can track the movements of the Sun, Moon, as well as Mars, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn.

Work continues on analysis of the device which keeps surprising researchers with its complexity and sophistication for something so ancient.

You can read more about the Antikythera mechanism at Nature.

Nature has also produced a video which you can stream from here.

What kind of liberal am I?

2008-07-29T09:46:00.000-07:00

Thanks to TUIBGuy.com.

My Liberal Identity:

You are a Reality-Based Intellectualist, also known as the liberal elite. You are a proud member of what’s known as the reality-based community, where science, reason, and non-Jesus-based thought reign supreme.

Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com

Bjorn on the radio

2008-07-27T14:50:00.000-07:00

C.L. Hanson, of Letters From A Broad blog, and author of Exmormon is visiting her family in Minnesota. I had a chance to interview her for Atheists Talk, the weekly radio show by Minnesota Atheists. Check it out if you want to know more about the book, and about Mormonism. You can download the show from here: http://mnatheists.org/content/view/154/1/

Sickeningly sweet engagement photos

2008-07-23T13:06:00.000-07:00

Here is Bjorn and Jeannette on a rock. How cute! We met with our wedding photographer for an engagement photo session for an hour at the Rose Garden in Minneapolis. It's a familiar place, as it's where I soiled my knee proposing this hair-brained idea of marriage. So, we trotted back, and posed, and hugged, and posed and kissed. If you like her work, consider giving Melisa Peters' a call at 612-860-0304 or email. She's professional, experienced, reasonable, and looks like she does this sort of thing for fun, not for the money.
For more classy photographs, click here.

Test your surround cuteness

2008-07-18T21:29:00.000-07:00

Thanks a lot, boingboing.

Anti-Evolution Note Left on Neighbor's Car

2008-07-18T07:02:00.000-07:00

While Jeannette and I, the friendly neighborhood atheists, were out at the library for a Minnesota Atheists board meeting, our next door neighbors must have had a party. When we came home, there were more cars then usual parked along the side of the little rode which passes in front of everyone's garage. Some people were parked in front of a "No Parking" sign.

Later that night, our door bell rings, and our neighbor is frantic, wondering if we left a note on one of her friend's cars. The note went something like this:

"Apparently "Evolution" didn't give you the ability to read a "No Parking" sign. Not only are you out there insulting everyone's religious beliefs, but you're blocking traffic."

We'd be the last people to use evolution to insult someone. We haven't found out who the unfriendly neighbors are yet, but we have some ideas.

Engagement photos coming soon

2008-07-18T06:57:00.000-07:00

Melisa Peters met up with Jeannette and I in the Rose Garden in Minneapolis to shoot many photos for free! (as in beer) Of course, it comes as part of the package for her to shoot our wedding as well. She was dedicated and interested in getting things right. You can tell she does this for fun. We look forward to seeing her on the 8th. It's so nice to have pictures of the two of us together, which we're usually missing, because we're taking pictures of each other.

Image Fulgurator

2008-07-14T06:39:00.000-07:00

This is a bit of subversive art. Basically, the inventor rigged a camera to use slide film as a projector, and attached it to a light sensor which activates the projector for only a few milliseconds when a flash is detected. It's similar to how people photograph lightning. This first test in public overlaid a message on top of a sign at Checkpoint Charlie that people die crossing the US / Mexico border, while tourists cross borders every day without threat.Link.

Cracker, please! - Or silliness begets silliness

2008-07-11T13:17:00.000-07:00

PZ Myers, a grumbly biology professor in Morris, MN, incited some Danish style violence, by mocking Catholics who are over reacting over a student taking the Eucharist out of the church. There are calls for the student to be expelled from school for this "hate crime." Not to be out done with outlandishness, PZ steps it up a notch with a humor which is drier then a communion wafer writes this:

So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address.

So, the silliness of overreaction is met with even more silliness and even more overreaction. Not to be out done, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, has launched a campaign to get PZ Myers fired from his professorship at the University of Minnesota Morris by calling on its president to remove him, even appealing to the Minnesota State Legislature. Since then, PZ Myers has received lots of email, scads of death threats, and his employer has to deal with attention it wishes were on the successes of research teams at the school rather then on the silliness of some professor dealing with summer fever. PZ's actions won't change any one's mind, except to think that atheists, and liberals, are all a bunch of baby killing hate mongers, which isn't much of a change.

Watching the rocket's red glare

2008-07-09T08:08:00.001-07:00

The booster rocket for the Space Shuttle, that is! Jeannette and I had no idea what we'd do for some sort of honeymoon. We've gone on plenty of trips together, each one was special, but another vacation doesn't hurt. So, Jeannette and I are returning to Florida, where each of us had gone as kids, but missed out on some things. We're going to be leaving the first full week of October, so if the weather holds up, we can catch a Shuttle launch on the 8th. Jeannette gets her beach, and I get geeky space stuff. It's a perfect combo! We have no hotel picked out, so if anyone has a recommendation, leave it in the comments. Also, if there are any out of the way places which are not to be missed, leave those too.

Ducklings in a bathtub

2008-07-03T07:25:00.001-07:00

Just because.

"Few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques"

2008-07-02T05:42:00.000-07:00

How about social workers overloaded with welfare cases, police, nurses and support staff in hospitals and clinics, emergency response people responding to all sorts of disasters and food shelf volunteers? I would say these people are closer to the people because they assist based on need, regardless of which congressional district you are from, your sexual orientation, race, or religion. They do not seek to change your views on theology or religion, but seek to keep you safe, healthy, and your rights protected.

Senator Obama, riding high on a swing back to the Democratic leanings for the nation in response to years of Republican dominated governing, made a speech on July 1 which angered many an atheist.

First, some background. While atheists are not alone in their support for the separation of church and state, some Baptist groups strongly support separation as well, they are the most vocal. This often leads people to believe that separation of church and state is anti-religious, or proposes to remove all elements of religion from the country by the secular left. Perhaps atheist organizations, and the people which make up their membership, are more sensitive to issues concerning the entanglement of religion and government. I can see how one's point of view would be different if attending a liberal congregation which prides itself in responsible use of Federal money to fund secular projects to help the community. If that were the case, Faith-Based Initiatives would be seen as a good thing. It was started by President Clinton, after all.

As with most things, without stronger oversight, and control, abuse becomes rampant. Let's say you're the Salvation Army, and you are receiving Federal money to fund a program, and you're busy hiring staff. Let's say one of your prospective staff, interviewing for a Psychologist position is Jewish and you find out during the interview, and refuse to hire based on his religion. That's discrimination. However, courts have upheld the rights of religious groups to discriminate. But, when you're being funded by the public, you need to play by the public's rules.

Not For Profit Organizations are required to keep report on income, while religious groups do not. Without this transparency, that $200,000 grant to fund school presentations on the dangers of drugs could become attractive when the roof leaks in the church's gym. Since there is no oversight of accounting, that temptation can be quite strong, after all, it's all in the service of God? Right? To atheists, it is serious, and exposes the problem which arise when government and religion become entangled.

Currently, programs for Faith-Based Initiatives are not evaluated for effectiveness. What this means, is that Federal money which would go to the Boys and Girls Clubs would go to a church run camp, even one run by Pat Robertson's church. This is also a concern when states choose to fund abstinence only religious based sex education over comprehensive reason based sex education, without looking at the dangers of not providing students with education which can help prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy.

Senator Obama has spoken strongly about the separation of church and state. I think ending discrimination in hiring practices, and providing better controls and oversight are better then not. However, before Charitable Choice and Faith-Based Initiates, religious groups and secular groups were on an even playing field, able to compete fairly for the same grants. Now there is a bias towards supporting Christian organizations over others, and both parties are guilty of throwing money at overtly religious programs and churches which use money to proselytize unwilling recipients of programs, discriminate based on religion, sex, and sexual orientation, and may not provide better services then secular counterparts.

Reform is good, but others are not satisfied. Americans United, and the Secular Coalition of America both have positions that the Faith-Based Initiatives program be ended by the next President, as the program is created by the Executive branch. The concern is that a religious group, such as a church, would receive funding for a program, which may be secular, however, allows the church to spend it's budget on religious activities, rather then on the secular program. Providing charitable works can increase visibility of the organization, and potentially increase membership and donation to the church, and can be viewed as endorsing a particular religion by funding an important part of the organization.

I'm in the middle on this issue. I do like the reforms, but I do not like the bias towards religious groups as being inherently good and ethical. I think that Federal money should be given to programs which seek to help the public in a nondiscriminatory way, but I don't see a need to allow religious groups to participate in Federal programs while maintaining the religious nature in their services. While there are abuses of the current system, especially in supporting religious organizations in certain districts for political purposes, most of the recipients are not abusing the program, and are using money responsibly, and within the law.

Should the program be scrapped. I think so. I don't think there is a good reason for it. If a religious organization doesn't have the funds to run a charitable operation, why should I fund it? Is it my fault they can't get enough donations to be self sufficient? Maybe they need to work on marketing themselves better, or the charitable organization needs to be separate and secular in purpose and operation. This is keeping in mind that secular does not mean anti-religion, but neutral to religion.

UPDATE:

As Mr. Metha reports, atheist groups have been weighing in on the issue since yesterday when the speech happened. Some have been very harsh, others pleased that the Religious Right isn't happy about church's having to allow atheists to be hired. The tone has softened a bit since the Fox News article about expanding Faith-Based Initiatives was released, because some groups see the move as rather clever. It's a way to appear supportive of the program, while introducing elements which seek to keep the separation of church and state present.

I do agree with the position of the Secular Coalition of America:
Direct federal funding of houses of worship, regardless of how the funds are used, is a violation of the separation of church and state.

But, Constitution, Somstitution, right? It's just written on paper, and paper can be erased, right?

Sheaths for Kitty Weapons

2008-07-02T04:33:00.000-07:00

Since moving into our new place, our cats have adjusted well. There is much more space for them to wander about. One of our cats was picky about her litter box, which had the side effect of her peeing on all sorts of things. That problem was cured by getting a Litter Maid automatic litter box. We haven't had a problem in three weeks.

Our other cat enjoys clawing door frames, and doors for attention. In the short time we've been here, she's made her mark known. Sure, we could get her declawed, but invasive surgery for some behavioral problem isn't a good solution. So, I went to Safe Pet Products, and picked up Soft Claws cat nail caps.

It's only been one day, but our problem cat now has purple nylon covers over her nails. The solution is pretty simple, just cover the cat's claws. The nail caps are applied after trimming the nails. Just trim the nail, and slip on the nail cap which sticks on with super glue. For the first minute or so, she tried to chew them off. But she gave up quickly, and now just looks funny with purple claws. She even attempted to claw a door frame. Replacing the annoying sound of ruined wood surfaces was a squeaky sound. So, for now, Soft Claws works.

A Gay Old Weekend

2008-06-27T11:45:00.000-07:00

This weekend is the Twin Cities Gay Pride Parade and Festival in Minneapolis. Minnesota Atheists will be marching and have a booth present, right next to church booths and religious groups. There are rarely any fights, and reactions are usually positive. There have been some comments which people have found offense to the booth, because "God made me gay" almost as an excuse for the discrimination they face, like it's not my fault, or the fault of society for how I'm treated, it's God's will. That's a little strange, but I've met gay people in all sorts of states regarding coming to terms with their gayness. Anyway, Jeannette and I will be marching in the parade to show our support for a group of people who have seen rates of discrimination against them rise by 135% over a year ago.

To honor Gay Pride, Minnesota Atheists are featuring on their radio show Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out discusses “Exposing ‘Ex-gay’ Ministries” and Jane Bowman of Project 515 discusses “515 Minnesota Laws that Discriminate Against Gays.”

Wedding Do's and Don't - Why people go overboard

2008-06-27T09:01:00.000-07:00

I have MSN Messenger on my workstation at work. It pops up with MSN Live! Today! or whatever marketing phrase they are calling it now a days, which includes tiny helpful elements, like number of emails, or the weather, large spaces for ads, and articles with popular entertainment news. Much of the "news" lately has been about weddings. Due to a sudden lack of crises at work, I clicked a link on wedding dos and don'ts.

It's written as a casual conversation between a handful of women. It's probably a raw transcript. The message of the article is to encourage simple weddings. Weddings today are massive affairs.

From the article:

"It is the biggest throwaway and means nothing later. It's the biggest waste of money and effort that I've ever heard of. It's like a big party where you just blow everything out; you have nothing left. It's got to cost $30,000."

So, what happens when couples and families spend this much money? A few things happen. I have seen couples go into $20,000 of debt right after a marriage. The husband felt that he should show his love for his wife through the wedding ring and engagement ring, which he spent $15,000 on. Why? It's what is expected. A diamond ring is a must, and it must be large. That is the message of the "Louder Yes!" campaign by Wedding Day Jewelers. A simple "yes" just isn't enough. You must provide, "pure, unadulterated elation." Of course, this elation won't come cheap. Now, you can spin this into buying a creative ring, but what companies like wedding Day Jewelers are looking for is financing opportunities. They want to fit you into a "manageable payment plan." All of this for some ring which is probably be lost, stolen, sold for much less, or damaged. Don't forget the ring insurance! No one should suffer economically for some piece of jewelery.

So, that's the guy's way of starting this mess. The woman takes over next, with her family, of course. Jeannette and I have argued over what should be done for a wedding, and the largest sticking point we've had has been over prices for things. From the previous article,

"But when it came time to actually get married, something from all those little fairytale books that she read when she was little came through. I think you carry that stuff in a backpack in your head. And she just wanted the glamour and the huge ... the romance of the whole vision. And we did. She had the biggest dress with the longest train and the most people."

All of the bridal magazines, wedding fairs, TV, and the rest of society with a fixation of materialism feed a many billion dollar industry which thrives on that "backpack in your head" of what it is like to get married, of what is expected. This is one expensive backpack. Only certain families can afford to throw this extravagant wedding people seem to be born with the idea of having. It's unrealistic and damaging. So, you buy the wedding dress, which won't be worn again, bridesmaid's dresses, which won't be worn again, accessories for your dress, and you're out a few thousand dollars for clothes which could be thrown away the next day. It's a waste, unless you can donate your clothes to people who can't afford what you've already bought.

Flowers can cost a few thousand dollars, the photographer can cost a few thousand dollars, transportation for guests can cost a few thousand dollars, tuxedo rental can cost a few thousand dollars, and facility rentals for ceremonies and receptions can cost a few thousand dollars. So, you're out $10,000, even before you pay for entertainment and food for your reception. Let's say you have 200 people at your wedding. An average cost of a meal is $18-$20. If you are providing drinks, you need to add another $10 on average per person. So, your food, including renting dishes, napkins, and other silly things which all have a line item, is $4,000-$6,000. And, that's if you do things cheaply. That can easily get to $10,000. A DJ or music can cost $1,000 to $2,000. Your total can easily get to $20,000 to $30,000, just for things which are expected.

What is the side effect of a $30,000 wedding? Immediate families, by tradition only the bride's family, but more often both families, will help pay for the wedding, or pay for all of it. Now, couples are paying for the event on their own, because immediate families have bills of their own, and can't take on the added burden. This then gets passed to extended families and friends with requests for money to help fund the wedding. From the article,

"the greed associated with weddings today is incredible. And the bridal industry, in recommending all these expensive things, is full of little hints about how to beg for others to help finance it, which is a revolting idea."

So, you can't afford what is expected, and it's your Big Day, and you're terrified that you'll be in debt for years and be miserable because of what you're going through to put on this one day. Brides get horribly stressed. Jeannette and I have been able to handle things pretty well. We're very lucky to know the owner of a restaurant who is providing catering. The reception will be very expensive, but we want to throw a fun party for our family and friends.

Houses keep you from getting bored

2008-06-25T06:13:00.000-07:00

Jeannette and I are now in debt to our eye balls, but in exchange for the debt, we get to live in a condo/townhome thing. Moving in was a piece of cake, but here are the surprises which popped up in the few weeks here:

1. The first day, I was stuffing things under the kitchen sink, and the drain pipe popped off. Lesson learned; Don't bump pipes, and it's pretty easy to fix, once you learn which O ring goes where.
2. The toilet in the main bathroom was a little funny. You had to hold the handle down to get it to flush. So I popped open the lid, and the flapper was all white and spongy. Just as a note, it used to be rubber and red. Menards had a sale on toilet repair kits, so that was a piece of cake. Lesson learned; Don't put up with finicky toilets, it's easier to just fix them.
3. Again in the kitchen, the sprayer in the sink dribbled, rather then sprayed. So, I bought a replacement sprayer. Jeannette was off getting presents, so I had time to monkey with the sink. I crawl under there, and start to undo the nuts holding the faucet to the sink, and the bolt just falls off. I take off the other nut, and remove the faucet which had turned into a pile of rust in 25 years. So I run to Menards again to seek out a replacement faucet, and find a clearance set, with sprayer for $25. During the replacement process, I kept hooking up the hoses to the lines, and forgetting other parts which needed to be assembled. I took apart and reassembled the faucet about four times before getting it right. The good part, everything worked, and I didn't get soaked. Lesson learned; simple projects are rarely as simple as they seem.
4. Last night, I hear Jeannette shout up from the basement, "Bjorn, come here quick!" I thought one of the cats had changed the color of its fur by how loud she was. It had nothing to do with a cat, but a skunk. There was a baby skunk stuck in our window well. So, I took off the bit of wood fencing in place to keep critters out and I stuck a board to be used as a ramp to get out. I dropped cheese down there to entice the skunk, and put more cheese on the board, and left it alone. I checked on it until night, and it didn't move, but ate the cheese which hit the rocks on the bottom. So, I was left with a board with two slices of cheese on it and a skunk in a hole this morning. I tried calling animal control just across the tracks, and they were closed at 7 at night. I wasn't looking forward to trying to get a hold of them in the morning to make an appointment to get rid of the skunk. So, as we were getting ready this morning, I grabbed a length of networking cable, and a broom handle and made one of those fancy cinching pole things they use on those ASPCA shows. Well, it worked. The skunk looked miserable getting hauled out of the well, but when I let it go in the yard, it ran under the deck, and looked OK. It was walking alright. A few minutes later, and we saw it playing with a pine cone. So, we didn't have to bother animal control, and we weren't even late to work. Lesson learned; Reality TV shows can teach you something. That, and skunks are adorable.

Gift Registry Heaven and Hell

2008-05-27T06:21:00.000-07:00

Here are my priorities for gift giving for our wedding:
1. Give a gift to your favorite charity in the wedding couple's names.
2. Cash
3. A dozen crock pots.

In the Midwest, giving cash is like telling someone you don't care enough to really shop for them. Out east, it's much more common to get cash as a wedding gift.

So, to prevent number three from happening, we've created two gift registries, one at Target, and the other at Bed Bath and Beyond.

Let's start with the good. With Target, I created the registry online, added a couple of items, and later, when we were at a store, added more stuff. It's a simple process. You go to a terminal, log in, print a welcome sheet, get it scanned, and you get your scanner, in full color, loaded up with all of the items in your registry. You can go forward and back to modify quantities and delete items, right from the scanner. At Target, we were never asked once if we "worked there." We wandered the isles, picking some things we'd like. When we were done, we had about 40 things chosen, some expensive, others were pretty cheap, but all things we could use.

Then, we went to Bed Bath and Beyond. This store was nearly dead, and the only people we saw, aside from a handful of wanderers, were people either creating a registry, or buying things from a registry. It's as if the whole focus of the store is registries. They do have a price guarantee, but still, everything seemed over priced. This is the first time we had been to Bed Bath and Beyond since they redid their store. What did they change? They created a special gift registry section located in fine china. When you create a registry, you're assisted through the registration process. You're offered a bottle of water or candy, which is nice considering that you'll be bringing in a ton of business for them.

How do you bring in all of their business? Well, we have most of everything we need, even if we are moving into a larger place. We'll add bit and pieces here and there. Without qualifying us at all, by asking questions, like, do you two live together now? Are you living in an apartment? Do you do any entertaining? We're told we need to purchase place settings for twelve people. Then we're walked around, told that "casual dinner ware" is crap, because there are more bubbles in the clay, and that "this" stuff in fine china, even if it isn't china, is much better, and will last much longer. Which may be true, but styles change all the time, and place settings change. It's not going to break my heart if I'm not eating off the same plate for 20 years. We don't have any interest in fine china. even if we're entertaining, I would much rather use one everyday set, rather then keeping some special dishes locked away to be used once or twice a year. I just don't dig it. Maybe I'm still worried about cabinet space, and don't want to tie up the extra space with dishes.

Next, we were shown the flatware, again, which changes styles, but the expensive stuff was just so fancy it'd last forever. With the flatware in fine china, they come in the huge sets, with every fork, spoon, clam cleaver, etc. you could ever need to dismantle any food on your plate. We're not picky about forks and knives. Even if we're entertaining, I don't think the character of our guests is such that we would be scoffed for our flatware.

In order to "get rid of" 2/3rds of the options in cookware, a manager is called over to sell us pots and pans. I have a really nice pasta pot, a sauce pot, and a skillet, which is all I can ask for for making pretty nice Italian dishes. He never asked what kind of food we usually cook, or how often, or what pieces we currently had together. The only pieces I could ask for would be a nicer wok, and a larger skillet with a top. I don't care if all of the pieces look alike, come from the same manufacturer, or are all stainless steel or all nonstick. Calphalon is a brand I've never paid any attention to. They have worked their way into being a required gift set for any wedding. An 8 set will run $299, 10 set $399, 12 set $499. Oh, but don't worry, your guests can buy pieces at a time, then you can come in and finish your set, and you get a special one day 10% completion discount.

One thing sticks out about these three areas we are shown personally by staff. They are all high markup items. The whole store is filled with items which have high profit margins. From bedding and towels, tooth brush holders, and cutting boards, I can imagine at least a 50% markup on most items. Sure, they have guaranteed prices, but much of what they sell is unique to their store. Their return policy sucks as well. Oh, let's say you bought a pot, and needed to return it. You'd get a credit back on your card. At Bed Bath and Beyond, if you receive a gift, you get a store credit. While this makes sense to protect the liability of the store, and maintain a high volume of sales, it stinks for the couple returning gifts. Why would you ever have to return something on a registry? Well, if you register at different places, your gifts will overlap, because no everyone has a Bed Bath and Beyond near them. There are only 100 stores nationwide. So, you put the same things on the Target registry, which means you may get two of what you wanted. You can get a check sent back, but the requirements are so high that it's much easier to just get a gift credit.

Now, that isn't to say that Target doesn't sell nearly exactly the same stuff, and have similar margins on cookware, and Dyson vacuums, but we felt better that we weren't pushed into adding fancy stuff we really didn't want or need.

We're still keeping the registry at both places. Knock yourself out and buy something from there if you feel like it, but our top two priorities are still donations to charities, followed by cash.

Bed Bath and Beyond registry number: 4576120
Target registry: http://www.target.com/gp/registry/registry.html/ref=cm_cw_sr_1/602-2049229-9524606?ie=UTF8&type=wedding&id=2J57N6TEOKYQU&jsebd=1

The shot, the lawsuit, and the mitochondria

2008-05-17T18:35:00.000-07:00

We really take for granted our little powerhouses. However, mitochondria could be responsible for a million dollar lawsuit. The lawsuit however, was over vaccinations and autism. The controversy over thermisol was just starting to die down. The fear of vaccinations were dimming. Measles rates in England and the United States were receding. It seemed as if people were actually listening to scientific research and peer reviewed studies. Then, in March 2008, the U.S. government awarded the family of a nine year old girl compensation for the autism they claimed was caused by common child hood vaccinations. This was pure fuel for the anti-vaccination blogs. They had won victory. The government proved that they were right. They are finally admitting vaccinations cause autism.
Actually, it appears as if the vaccination didn't actually cause the autism. It merely aggravated an already existing mitochondrial disorder. This leads researchers to believe that autism could be a mitochondrial disorder. Which actually makes a lot of sense. Mitochondria are the body's energy source. So if something is wrong with them, autistic like symptoms are bound present themselves, such as lack of communication, and interest in social interaction.
However, mitochondrial disorders are rare, and little research has been done on the matter. It's very possible that the symptoms would have pervaded with or without the vaccinations. One possible explanation that has been given, is that it wasn't the vaccination at all, but the stress associated with getting a shot, that aggravated the disorder.
With so little research, nothing conclusive can be said. Maybe in the end it was the vaccinations all the long. One million dollars is a lot of money. You'd think the government would have to be pretty sure they were right, before they shelled out that chunk of cash. Or maybe there are other motives. Take for instance the fact that there are more than 5,000 cases of parents asking for compensation in the U.S. Is it possible that one huge win was their way of consolidating all the small cases? Its a bit suspicious that the reasons are being kept hush. Only time, and hopefully a lot more research on mitochondria will tell.

I wonder if......

2008-05-14T10:53:00.000-07:00

For someone who has a blog on scienceblogs.com PZ Meyers spends a great deal of time bad mouthing the religious. Unless you can consider ridicule a scientific art. I was scrolling through his archive ( I tried reading the actual posts, but I've learned I just can't stomach them), and the majority of his "science" posts consist of talking about this whole "Expelled" affair and bad mouthing creationists. There were a couple of titles that I thought would be promising, but were filed under the "kooks" category, which is completely unnecessary. Granted there were a couple of good posts about his damn cephelpods, some about animals,a few more about reproductive rights, but everyone that I read was laced with negativity and cynicism. The comments don't provide anything promising either. It's his followers sitting around circle jerking about how great and wonderful they are for being such scientific atheists. Nothing new or worthwhile is ever added. The man's only name to fame is his snarky outlook on religion. PZ stated on friendlyatheist.com that his last words would probably be "I wonder if"..... Is he going to be reflecting about whether or not his blog would be half as popular if he stuck to science?

Update: I realize that this post seems incoherent. I did it in a rush during my lunch break. I will probably vent in post later on precisely why I don't like PZ Meyers, since by atheist friends seem so incredulous whenever I mention it.

Wedding Invites Coming Soon!

2008-04-12T21:22:00.000-07:00

Of course, we may be have a new RSVP address by the time the cards are out.

Art and Science - Lynn Fellman

2008-04-12T17:15:00.000-07:00

I'll be on the radio tomorrow morning at 9AM on AM950 KTNF. I have the honor of interviewing Lynn Fellman of Fellman Studios. She blends DNA research and art to create a unique portrait. Also on the show, PZ Myers will recall how he was not allowed to see a screening of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in which he appears.

John McCain on Autism.

2008-03-15T19:41:00.000-07:00

I will be honest. I haven't been following the presidential campaign all that closely, largely because I'm not overly impressed with any of the candidates. Because of this I haven't developed strong feelings one way or the other on any of the runners. However John McCain finally said something that caught my attention. He went on record saying that he believes mercury preservatives in childhood vaccines is causing autism. This is a very touchy subject in the SLP world, one that I can get pretty riled up about. One reason is that it is dangerous to make those claims. Parents end up not giving their children important shots, because of anecdotal claims. Children have been suspended from school, unable to attend class because they haven't received these required shots. While it's true that there have been tests done that show that autism rates tend to be higher in areas with high mercury content in the water, extensive studies have not been done. I could go on a boring scientific rant citing peer reviewed studies, but I won't. There are whole books on the subject of the evils of mercury. While digestive causes for autism cannot be completely ruled out it is unlikely. Autism can be observed in prevaccinated children. However the most damning evidence is that the mercury preservative HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT OF VACCINATIONS! It is no longer being used, and yet we are still reporting new cases of autism. I am a firm believer the the genetics argument, but etiology isn't my area of concern. There is a lot of need for parents to place blame on their child's disorder. Whether they see it as a testament to their own bad genes or they just don't know enough, blaming isn't going to make your child communicate any better. Let's lay off the mercury people. It is so 1990's.

This quiz is way too easy

2008-03-07T11:26:00.000-08:00

It's easy, and I should have done better. That's what reading the Book of Mormon will do to you.

You know the Bible 88%!

Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses - you know it all! You are fantastic!

Ultimate Bible Quiz
Create MySpace Quizzes

Jeannette interviews Hemant Mehta, the "Friendly Atheist"

2008-03-02T16:27:00.000-08:00

Jeannette did a great job interviewing Hemant Mehta, chair of the Secular Student Alliance, author of "I Sold My Soul on eBay," and blogger at friendlyatheist.com. She was able to take over for me last minute because I have a cold, and would have coughed through the whole thing. You can listen through the show notes article on the mnatheists.org site, or download it below.

Listen Now!

Is there an Austism Epedemic?

2008-03-01T09:35:00.000-08:00

We've seen the celebrity fund raisers, car ribbons and bracelets. Autism has become a common household word, where, maybe twenty years ago, the diagnosis of Autism was rare. Autism rates have been steadily rising since the mid nineties. Parents and professionals alike call it an epidemic. Roy Richard Grinker author of "Unstrange Minds" disagrees with the term "epidemic". The word itself implies that it is a contagious disease. Autism is obviously not contagious and appears to be genetic, although that has yet to be determined. It also suggests that there are more people today with autism than there were in the past. Grinker, as well as myself disagree with this. Using the history of psychiatry and modern diagnostic techniques, some plausible reasons for the rise in autism cases can be seen.
Awareness plays a huge role in diagnosis. As I said earlier, autism awareness has made its way into pop culture, and medical settings. Mainstream teachers, psychologists, clinicians and parents are educating themselves thanks to the growing resources on the internet and peer reviewed journals. Because of this, the behaviors of an autistic individual are more recognized leading to an earlier and more appropriate diagnosis. A child with Aspergers ( a high functioning form of autism) would have been seen as socially awkward years ago when the diagnosis didn't exist. Many historical figures have been believed to have autism, from Einstein, to many of the great poets and writers. On the other end, children with low functioning autism were noticed but had a completely different diagnosis. Many times it was mental retardation or childhood schizophrenia. They were put into institutions by well meaning psychologists that no idea that there was such a thing as autism. Reading old mental health journals, reports and case studies, there are many individuals that displayed obviously autistic behaviors. They just held a different diagnosis. Like Newton (ironically another hypothesized autistic) "discovering" gravity when it has always been there, so to with autism. There were always people with autism, they just went under a different name.
There are economical reasons for autism cases as well, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. In some states a child can only receive insured care with a diagnosis of autism. A clinician may see a child that needs help, for example a child have a developmental delay, or even mental retardation, but insurance may not cover specialists, such as SLPs. for those diagnosis. So they diagnosis them with autism instead. Sometimes it is so the child can receive more appropriate therapy. Most clinicians have the sense to diagnose to the benefit of the patient, even if it is not by the book.
In this country at least there is less stigma attached to autism. Up until almost the seventies the blame was placed on the so called refrigerator mothers. Mothers were to blame for everything, from their genetics, to their work choices, to their motherly care. They were hesitant to have their child receive a diagnosis of autism, because it reflected poorly on them. Fortunately modern research has shown that this is not the case and autism isn't something to be hidden away from the world and the diagnosis is welcome. In other countries this isn't the case. I won't talk in length about it but some other countries have a very interesting and unfortunately negative view on autism, such as South Africa, India, Korea and France. This countries, even today, have been known to put autistic individuals in cages or to exorcise them. I don't want to give the wrong impression of these countries, or make them seem backwards. The parents (usually mothers, but not always) are just as caring there as they are here.
Finally I can talk about my experience ( how little there has been so far). Autism has almost become the preferred diagnosis. It seems to give hope, where there is no hope with mental retardation. There is less impairment. They can be "cured". It is almost fashionable. I have had parents convinced their child has autism, and want their child to be put through every test imaginable, from MRI's to standardized tests. When anything but an autism diagnoses comes back, the SLP is the incompetent one. Parents are misled by youtube videos, and anecdotes on the web. They mean well, they love their children, but this insistence on having a certain label is certainly something to think about. Of course this is a completely subjective field. Every clinician can look at an individual and come up with something different. The most important thing, no matter what the numbers, or parental pressure, is that the patient gets the most beneficial care possible.

Lawrence Lessig on Obama

2008-02-13T18:47:00.000-08:00

Lawrence Lessig, a guy who's ideas I respect, and who's book I have yet to read, despite it sitting on my shelf for three years, has created a video in response to a letter requesting an explanation of why he supports Barack Obama. His response is clear. He calls the Clinton campaign "Rovean." He explains what each campaign means by "change." Clinton wants change, but limited to the removal of George W. Bush, and the GOP from Washington, and Barack Obama, and other Democrats want a fundamental change. They want to change the way we do things. Are we going to keep taking money from large economic interests, because they represent, "real Americans?" Or, will we treat running a campaign, not as a means to censor suggestions or ideas from anyone, as Clinton may make the case Obama and others do when they refuse funding, but as a way to make the system more fair. The large financial interests already have the means to campaign for themselves, in the media and elsewhere. They are free to compete in the democracy of ideas at a level much greater then anyone else. Their voice is loudest. It has been this way through out our history. But, while the influence of large companies is strong, a candidate can make a stand regarding the impact of large corporate influence on their campaign. Does this mean that large corporations should be censored, that Barack and others are anti-business by refusing campaign assistance? No. Corporate interests already have such a large influence that they need no further help. Now, I do detest the treatment of "THE BIG BAD MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS," as something evil and wicked. Not every large organization is evil, and not every multinational organization wants to crush the worker. However, I do not find value in giving further influence and assistance to organizations who have such a great advantage in the marketplace as it is. These companies are made up of people, and doing what is right for the people who make up the company as a whole will benefit the company as a whole.

So, do we want the kind of calculated moral character of Clinton, or the principled decisions of someone willing to lead and inspire hope? I am far from a cheerleader and am always skeptical of anyone with power and influence. I do not like the idolization of political figures because is creates a sort of celebrity which involves dissection of each detail about an individual which I find unhelpful. However, this idolization at the same time simplifies a candidate. There are now single words to describe the campaigns of both candidates, we and she. It's this open ended simplification which allows people to make judgments in their own mind of how a certain person is personally, what they may do in certain situations and how they will be as a leader. Rather then selling you a complete story, it creates a pitch for a general idea you can stitch together and make your own.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and am being duped. At some level we're all exposed to a barrage of ideas, and select those ideas we value and give them a little more credit. I don't have the sense that voting for Obama is a safe vote, or a calculated vote. It just feels right. Some have argued that Clinton will be the strongest on defense and terrorism. They feel we'll be attacked again soon, and Clinton will give the strongest response. I see this as old thinking. Our strong responses do not prevent terrorism, but make it worse. Do our enemies attack us for no reason? Or, are we viewed as invasive, intolerant, and preemptive? If we had a fundamental change in our foreign policy, would that be better at preventing aggression against our interests? That's the hope.

Are Science and Religion Compatible

2008-02-10T17:38:00.000-08:00

On Thursday Bjorn and I saw a fairly interesting and relevant "debate" at the University of Minnesota. I say "debate" because for the most part the two sides agreed with each other. The question was whether science and religion were compatible. Arguing the negative was PZ Myers, and on the positive was Loyal Rue, a non theist teaching at Luther College.
I'll start with the argument that Bjorn and I obviously agree with, that it isn't. PZ states one can be religious and a good scientist because people are complicated, and as humans we encompass many views at once. We are also very good at ignoring contradictions making science and religion able to coexist. As a scientist himself Myers believes that science is everything and that the world is material. The problem with religion is that it makes claims about the world, but we now are knowledgeable enough that these religious methods of viewing the word have become irrelevant and unnecessary. He thinks that religious thought is antithetical to scientific thought.
Rue states that religion and morality is naturalistic. Religion is a myth, meaning story. It brings facts together with values. Religion comes from the Latin word meaning to bind, which, to me at least, makes a lot of sense. To him, it binds together values with explanations for how things came to be. It unifies our vocabulary for talking about our world, and our values. It is the ultimate explanation for facts and ultimate justification for values. For this reason it is important to have this story, religion, to guide us. We still read Greek myths after all. There has to be a reason for it. He states that God is a metaphor of a person and explains how the world came to be as well as justifies what we do. Religion should help us achieve a personal wholeness, a sense of social solidarity. He also thinks that we have a need for ritual, that it is therapeutic, and that religion can fill that role. His solution is to borrow the pillars religion is based on, institutional, experiential, artistic, ritual, etc., and build a religion of a naturalistic cosmology and develop a new story which is more compelling then the dualistic cosmology we currently observe in major religions.
PZ Myers agrees that religion fuses truth and justice and that it brings us together. However, religion is a tainted word. He urges all of us to keep the bible because it is a part of our history. It shows us how people lived, and thought thousand of years ago. Place it between The Odyssey, and other great works of literature.
As for me, I definitely do not think that the two are compatible. I recently looked at the winners for a Creationist science fair. The second place winner for the middle school level was Why Women Are Good Homemakers. Needless to say that is the most insulting science project I've ever seen. The winners for the high school level proved that the Arc was scientifically possible by suspending mice in a cage, and that praying over bacteria will make them more resistant to antibacterial agents. Everything that science tells us spits in the face of every argument an ancient book claims about how things are. I won't go into those obvious discrepancies. I am interested in what you guys think. I'm really looking forward to some convincing arguments that the two are indeed compatible., I haven't heard one yet.

Don't forget your Mittens

2008-02-07T09:44:00.000-08:00

CNN is reporting that Mitt Romney is suspending his campaign, after a disappointing Super Tuesday. John McCain has risen from the dead, almost being counted out in early predictions, now he's in the seat. What will we do without constant reminders about how crazy Mormonism is? How will I live without hearing "magic underwear" everyday? Romney was bred for the role, and will have to settle for a lesser political position, or bounce back into business. I just don't want to see him selling used cars. So, McCain, the darling POW who democrats are soft for, and the "Dittoheads" hate. Who would the red states back if not Huckabee?

Here's a little game

2008-01-18T22:54:00.000-08:00

Name the album this photo is from:

His Dark Materials

2008-01-17T18:08:00.000-08:00

While reading Philip Pullman's, "His Dark Materials," I had to remind myself that this book was marketed toward children. However with themes like physics,philosophy and theology, it is easily enjoyed by adults. While I won't talk about the plot of each book there were some interesting themes that I thought worth discussing.
Daemons: This is the physical manifestation of one's soul as an animal. What I found interesting is that when a person's daemon dies, the person dies or becomes catatonic. Is there something inside people who make them people? If Terry Schiavo had a physical daemon the decision to starve her to death would have been easier to make. Unfortunately for her, her family, and her insurance company seeing is believing, at least when it comes to human consciousness.
Dust: This is Dark Matter in our world. Dust is conscious. The church believes it is the manifestation of original sin making it the target for ultimate destruction. One character says, "for all the church's history it's tried to suppress and control every natural impulse. When it can't control them, it cuts them out. It tries to obliterate every good feeling." Maybe our universes aren't so parallel after all. The church makes a big deal of separating children from their daemons because Dust is less attracted to children. Thus, by cutting the child away they would never know original sin and live their lives as mindless servants to the Magesterium. That would NEVER happen in our world. Finally we get to the controversy....
If people thought the "Golden Compass" was controversial than wail until they make a movie about "The Amber Spy Glass." First off, this book reveals the Christian Heaven to be a lie. The children visit the land of the dead, only to find out that every one thats ever died lives in a bleak, bland world... kind of like Indiana without the racism. Then there is the criticism of organized religion. Mary Malone, the character I related most to, says of Christianity, "The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing lie, thats all."
Mary Malone could possibly be my number one literary hero. Her character left the Church and described it in a way every atheist can relate to. It was hard for her because she let down her family. "It felt as if something they all passionately believed in depended on me carrying on with something I didn't." Those atheists out there that have a supportive family, I envy you. For the majority of us, we are made to feel as if we did something horribly wrong, and the only way to right our crime is to lie about the way we feel. However she also describes the relief, the huge weight off her shoulders with my favorite line of the book, "Now I can do something with my whole nature, and not just half of it."
I recommend His Dark Materials not only to atheists, but to people who simply like a good book. The story is suspenseful and there is love, redemption, and all those other good things that make something worth reading.

Why I havent' been blogging

2008-01-15T11:58:00.000-08:00

I'm the web guy for mnatheists.org now. I opened my big mouth, and wanted extra features, so I've taken over the domain with a redesign. It's a giant work in progress, but there certainly are more features now. Oh, and I was mentioned in the Pioneer Press yesterday. If you go to twincities.com and search for "Minnesota Atheists" it'll be there.