Tonight I was a guest for an Atheist Talk TV show on Mormonism. It was similar to the show I did with the Humanists of Minnesota, but I was the only guest this time. I covered some early history, theology, social aspects, and critisims, but really ran out of time to cover what I wanted to, which was, how can atheists leave the Mormon church.
I think there should be a whole show on coming out stories, how different people have dealt with their families, friends, coworkers about their atheism. We shouldn't feel uncomfortable when asked about a camp we may be going to work at, or if someone is going to a talk hosted by a group.
What do you think? Would that make a good show? Feel free to post your own stories here.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Minnesota Atheists Mentioned in Mankato Freepress - On Becoming Atheist
The Mankato Freepress featured an article on September 3rd about the importance of Atheism to Atheists. In it, August Berkshire defines Atheism as a “a lack of belief in God, rather than a belief that God doesn’t exist,” and explains that the decision to identify yourself as an Atheist is not an instant thing for most people.
Mankato attorney Jim Manahan came to the conclusion one day that, "All religions, rather than being equally true, are equally untrue." Another point made by him is the reasoning that, “It makes no more sense to think that humans survive their own death than to believe that dogs, cows, germs, or leaves do so." He is open an honest about his Atheism, doesn't bring it up unless asked, but finds a relief in being able to tell his friends and family.
Berkshire equates coming out as an Atheist to someone coming out gay. When he told his family, "They felt as though they had done something wrong in raising me, until they realized I was still the same person.”
So what about good and evil? How to atheists decide what is moral and ethical? Berkshire looks at consequences. It's as simple as meaning well, doing good for others is good for yourself, and good for society as a whole. Manahan believes people's rights should be respected, and that there are many good people who believe in God, even if he thinks they are mistaken. It's this ability to be comfortable with your own way of thinking, and the ability to respectfully disagree where necessary which opens up helpful dialog about theology. Darrell Jodock, a professor at Gustavus Adolphus College, believes the more comfortable you are with yourself, the more accepting you are of the differences of others.
Overall, this is a very positive article about Atheism. Given it's length, it dispels a few key myths. The decision to label yourself as Atheist isn't made hastily, and for many who have a strong religious upbringing, the process can take years to attempt to resolve your own doubts, becoming an amateur apologist for your own faith, to calm your own questioning, until you ultimately decide that Atheism makes the most sense to you.
Mankato attorney Jim Manahan came to the conclusion one day that, "All religions, rather than being equally true, are equally untrue." Another point made by him is the reasoning that, “It makes no more sense to think that humans survive their own death than to believe that dogs, cows, germs, or leaves do so." He is open an honest about his Atheism, doesn't bring it up unless asked, but finds a relief in being able to tell his friends and family.
Berkshire equates coming out as an Atheist to someone coming out gay. When he told his family, "They felt as though they had done something wrong in raising me, until they realized I was still the same person.”
So what about good and evil? How to atheists decide what is moral and ethical? Berkshire looks at consequences. It's as simple as meaning well, doing good for others is good for yourself, and good for society as a whole. Manahan believes people's rights should be respected, and that there are many good people who believe in God, even if he thinks they are mistaken. It's this ability to be comfortable with your own way of thinking, and the ability to respectfully disagree where necessary which opens up helpful dialog about theology. Darrell Jodock, a professor at Gustavus Adolphus College, believes the more comfortable you are with yourself, the more accepting you are of the differences of others.
Overall, this is a very positive article about Atheism. Given it's length, it dispels a few key myths. The decision to label yourself as Atheist isn't made hastily, and for many who have a strong religious upbringing, the process can take years to attempt to resolve your own doubts, becoming an amateur apologist for your own faith, to calm your own questioning, until you ultimately decide that Atheism makes the most sense to you.
The Meek
Psalm 37:11
But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
Rolling Atheist Blogroll
Check out the new Atheist Blogroll on the site. No worries about stale sites, just active, interesting blogs.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Jewish Extremism
The Associated Press reported on August 27th on a controversy in Israel. Ovadia Yosef, a strong spiritual leader of the Shas movement, an ultra-Orthodox political group in Israel, made controversial statements about Israeli soldiers. Speaking during a weekly televised sermon, he said:
"Is it any wonder if, heaven forbid, soldiers are killed in a war?" he said, "when they don't observe the Sabbath, they don't observe the Torah, they don't pray every day, they don't put on phylacteries every day. Is it any wonder that they're killed? It's no wonder."
Of course this statement was met with outrage by the families of fallen soldiers. "Foolish words" by a "primitive man," is what Ran Cohen, a lawmaker from the dovish Meretz party, said of Yosef's remarks.
The head of the Shas party, Eli Yishai, quickly prepared a statement that Yosef was misunderstood, and would be issuing a clarification.
Yosef called Hurricane Katrina "God's Retribution" for President Bush's support of the Israeli plan to withdraw from Gaza.
Falwell and Robertson were silent on Katrina, but Yosef filled in for them. This is an example of religious extremism we are familiar with in the US, however, may not have heard much from Israel. Is this the result of basing your life on a religious text from thousands of years ago? The moderates were quick to condemn Yosef's statements, however, isn't he right? If you look at the Torah, isn't he right? Doesn't God punish those who don't follow his covenants? The moderates condemn him, but do they have a religious reason for doing so, or are they using reason, and common sense?
Moderate religious adherents allow extremism to flourish by using the same scripture as they do, but choosing to ignore parts they don't agree with. Modernity has allowed for much greater tolerance of people, and a more practical means for establishing ethics then stoning homosexuals or disobedient children. However, modernity, in a religious sense, has not updated scripture with the times. Is this because scripture is set in stone? Are there no more divinely inspired works because we now have the means to quickly discredit would be prophets? Why do we not treat ancient scripture with the same scrutiny we would treat David Koresh? If you are going to tell me that if I don't pray every day, and keep Mishvot, that God will kill me, you'd better have good evidence, otherwise, I'd just be wasting my time. Like Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"Is it any wonder if, heaven forbid, soldiers are killed in a war?" he said, "when they don't observe the Sabbath, they don't observe the Torah, they don't pray every day, they don't put on phylacteries every day. Is it any wonder that they're killed? It's no wonder."
Of course this statement was met with outrage by the families of fallen soldiers. "Foolish words" by a "primitive man," is what Ran Cohen, a lawmaker from the dovish Meretz party, said of Yosef's remarks.
The head of the Shas party, Eli Yishai, quickly prepared a statement that Yosef was misunderstood, and would be issuing a clarification.
Yosef called Hurricane Katrina "God's Retribution" for President Bush's support of the Israeli plan to withdraw from Gaza.
Falwell and Robertson were silent on Katrina, but Yosef filled in for them. This is an example of religious extremism we are familiar with in the US, however, may not have heard much from Israel. Is this the result of basing your life on a religious text from thousands of years ago? The moderates were quick to condemn Yosef's statements, however, isn't he right? If you look at the Torah, isn't he right? Doesn't God punish those who don't follow his covenants? The moderates condemn him, but do they have a religious reason for doing so, or are they using reason, and common sense?
Moderate religious adherents allow extremism to flourish by using the same scripture as they do, but choosing to ignore parts they don't agree with. Modernity has allowed for much greater tolerance of people, and a more practical means for establishing ethics then stoning homosexuals or disobedient children. However, modernity, in a religious sense, has not updated scripture with the times. Is this because scripture is set in stone? Are there no more divinely inspired works because we now have the means to quickly discredit would be prophets? Why do we not treat ancient scripture with the same scrutiny we would treat David Koresh? If you are going to tell me that if I don't pray every day, and keep Mishvot, that God will kill me, you'd better have good evidence, otherwise, I'd just be wasting my time. Like Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Minnesota Atheists Podcast Demo
Check out the first demo of a proposed new Minnesota Atheists Podcast to be published in addition to Atheist Talk TV and other Minnesota Atheist events. You can find it here. Please leave comments about the show here.
Atheist Symbol
Should there be an atheist symbol? The advantages of a symbol allow for easy identification with a particular set of beliefs. It can establish a loose community, and potentially allow others to be more open. There are many atheists who feel like they are the only one, because openly discussing religion is taboo. For Christians, an easy identifier is a cross, or "Jesus Fish" as represented by the Greek letter "alpha." Atheists and Secularists have adopted the Jesus Fish, and made it their own, in different versions, prompting a "fish war" of sorts. Now you can find Darwin Fish with legs, an Evolve Fish holding a wrench, a Shark Fish which is eating a bunch of Jesus Fish, even a lutefisk fish. The Darwin Fish and the Flying Spaghetti Monster paraphernalia are the most popular tools of identification among atheists. Although, just because someone has a Darwin Fish, doesn't mean that he or she is an Atheist. He or she could be a Christian, who takes offense at Creationism. The Darwin Fish and FSM movements are funny, and poke fun at religion in general, and Christianity in particular. This seems to be the attitude of younger atheists. It's a problem with atheism at large as well. There is no cohesion. Atheists reject dogma, and will argue to the bitter end to defend their point of view. Because of that, the adoption of a symbol is difficult. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is without god. How can you have a set of ethics and morals which stem from that? There are other movements, like the secular humanism movement, which establish a framework of ethics and morals.
Back to symbols. The Out Campaign is gaining steam off the back of Richard Dawkins. It advocates the outing of yourself as an Atheist, reaching out to the larger Atheist community, breaking down stereotypes about Atheists, and making it more acceptable to be Atheist. The campaign also seeks to keep the supernatural out of public policy and moral principles. Their symbol is the 'A' depicted as a Scarlet Letter. It's less direct, and more serious then a Darwin Fish, but isn't easily recognizable to others who aren't aware of the campaign already. "What's the deal with the big 'A'?," some people may ask. The campaign does make some assertions, like Atheists are good people, and good friends. If this were a Christian group claiming that Christians are good people, and good friends, then Atheists would jump all over them, for their broad generalization that someone's belief in a set of dogma and superstition make them good or bad. By that same example, Atheists are not good by virtue of their disbelief in a god. Christians do terrible things all the time, and so do Atheists. We shouldn't attempt to become hypocritical by asserting that Atheism makes you good. Although Atheists are probably not as bad as other think we are. But, here I am, skeptically nit picking at an honestly good attempt to allow more people to feel less oppressed and less intimidated by religion.
Should Atheist say anything about you as a person? Isn't that prejudice, whether good or bad? As an Atheist, you could be a miser locked away in your basement reading Ayn Rand, wanting nothing to do with anyone. You could also be someone who attends meetings with other Atheist groups in an attempt to emulate the experience of growing up in a religious environment. You may just not care about religion at all, don't like going to meetings, but like wearing witty t-shirts with the Flying Spaghetti Monster on them. You may care deeply about politics, and find it is your civic duty to challenge policy makers who make ethical decisions which you find are not based on evidence or scientific study, but on religious belief, for example stem cell research, or gay marriage. Then again, you may be Atheist, but will heavily study world religions, and enjoy hearing others experiences; Respectfully disagreeing on methods, or means to reach ethical decisions, but agreeing with results, where appropriate. There is much diversity in Atheist practice, because there are no rules. This becomes even broader when you include Agnostics, Secular Humanists, and Skeptics. And that's even leaving out Unitarian Universalists. Which such a great diversity, how can one symbol encompass them all?
American Atheists has a symbol to identify their group, and I have seen that displayed as jewelry and even tattoos. But, that is identification with one group. The Jesus Fish is applicable as an identifier to any Christian, not just a member of a particular denomination. Minnesota Atheists has a logo as well. Jeannette likes the American Humanists design, even considering getting a tattoo of that. How do you represent simply, a lack of belief in something? Any ideas? How about an amoeba, representing a unified origin? It could symbolize a unification of people, with similar origin, that we are all born Atheist, and anything else that represents us after that point is secondary to the origin, whether that be a religion, a Twins fan, or an Apple devotee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)