I'm Up For Adoption

Did you hear the Good News? I might be a closeted Christian, and if you are a godless heathen, you might be too! We just need to get adopted!

Catholic League president Bill Donohue has started a campaign called "Adopt an Atheist":

Approximately 80 percent of Americans are Christian, and 96 percent celebrate Christmas. Of the 20 percent who are not Christian, non-believers make up the largest segment, though the number of self-identified atheists is tiny. David Silverman, president of American Atheists, knows this to be true, which is why he is frantically trying to inflate his base. “We want people to realize that there may be atheists in their family,” he told the New York Times, “even if those atheists don’t even know they are atheists.”

We think there is some merit in David’s idea, even if he has things backwards, as usual. Today we are launching our “Adopt An Atheist” campaign, the predicate of which is, “We want atheists to realize that there may be Christians in their community, even if those Christians don’t even know they are Christian.”

Here’s what our campaign entails. We are asking everyone to contact the American Atheist affiliate in his area, letting them know of your interest in “adopting” one of them. All it takes is an e-mail. Let them know of your sincere interest in working with them to uncover their inner self. They may be resistant at first, but eventually they may come to understand that they were Christian all along.

If we hurry, these closeted Christians can celebrate Christmas like the rest of us. As an added bonus, they will no longer be looked upon as people who “believe in nothing, stand for nothing and are good for nothing.”

So, I believe in nothing, stand for nothing and am good for nothing? Could they be any more offensive or wrong? According to them, aren't I a child of God even if I've apparently turned my back on him? So how can I be good for nothing? That's just repellent.

It's a strawman to say we believe in nothing and stand for nothing. Of course this is a blatant lie. All you have to do is ask us. Many of us are Humanists, after all, and as a Humanist I believe and stand for the well-being of all people. I also stand for caring for all life (well, 99.9% of it). I believe as thinking humans we are how the Cosmos can know itself.

I believe in the pursuit of scientific understanding and discovery, in making the world a better place, in creating a world of justice as much as we can, of encouraging and nurturing love and happiness, and reducing suffering.

What do they believe in? That the best they can do in this one precious life is to bow and scrape to an angry god who demanded murder, has no problem with misogyny, and punishes people who actually think with Eternal Damnation?

My friend suggested we encourage these misguided, delusional True Believers to adopt us. Go ahead! Most of us became atheists because we challenged our worldviews, questioned, researched and reasoned. We broke free of indoctrination already.

So, go ahead, adopt me, or better yet adopt my local group, Morgantown Atheists, because we are members of American Atheists. Who is going to have their worldview shaken up? Us or them? (disclaimer: not that you can reason with a True Believer. Reason and Faith are like oil and water, they just don't mix)

By the way, I got the image above from the article I linked to. I think it's hilarious and ironic that it's of a man holding a little boy. We are all born atheists, after all!

A Wonderful and Welcome Dose of Reality

Here is another installment of my favorite parts of The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan.

It's disheartening to discover government corruption and incompetence, for example; but is it better not to know about it? Whose interest does ignorance serve? If we humans bear, say, hereditary propensities toward the hatred of strangers, isn't self-knowledge the only antidote?

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?

In the Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche, as so many before and after, decries the "unbroken progress in the self-belittling of man" brought about by the scientific revolution. Nietzsche mourns the loss of "man's belief in his dignity, his uniqueness, his irreplaceability in the scheme of existence."

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Which attitude is better geared for our long-term survival? Which gives us more leverage on our future? And if our naive self-confidence is a little undermined in the process, is that altogether such a loss? Is there not cause to welcome it as a maturing and character-building experience? (pg 12)

I couldn't agree more. Humans seem to be developing an even stronger sense of egotism and narcissism as time goes on. I see it in so many people today. Thinking the whole Universe is created for us only serves to increase that delusional sense of entitlement.

The Universe Owes Us Nothing

A friend of mine was dumped by his girlfriend recently. Several years ago I would have said, "You'll find someone. There's someone for everyone."

At a holiday party awhile ago, a cousin told us about how she wasn't able to do what she wanted to do, to take a path she had chosen for herself. A family relative who was religious said, "As one door closes, another opens. It will all work out for the best."

Today my friend Jeff realized he had forgotten something. You know how it is. You remember you forgot something, but no matter how you try to jog your memory, it's just out of reach. I used to say, "If it was important, you'll remember." As if the universe knows what's important and what's not and would never let us forget something that we'll need.

But the universe does not owe us anything, and the universe does not have agency. It's easy to fall into these comforting mindsets, but that doesn't make them real.

There isn't someone for everyone. I know people who have been alone most of their lives, or who have never really had successful relationships. It really sucks. As a friend, I want so much to find them someone, but sometimes for whatever reason, they've been alone and there's nothing they can seem to do to get themselves in a happy relationship.

Things don't always work out for the best. Sometimes it's obvious that the worst happens instead. But most times there's just no way to know if it's better or worse given a turn of events. It's another platitude that makes us feel better when we've been stung, but it's not true. Of course, in hindsight, we might try to find a way to see a silver lining on a bad event, which is good. Maybe you can learn a lesson, or find a way to turn a bad situation into something positive, or find a way to improve yourself. But believing the universe is looking out for you and making sure that every bad thing that happens to you has a silver lining is delusional. Some things are just bad all around. Should you make the best of it? Absolutely. But do you have to sugar coat it? Hell no. That wouldn't be healthy.

And if you forget something, the universe isn't making sure you'll remember it just because it was important. When you forget, sometimes it will be really important things forever irretrievable. Just look at the tragedy of Alzheimer's and dementia as an example. Or if you write something down that's important, the universe isn't keeping track of that paperwork for you if you misplace it. It could be lost forever, along with some special memento or keepsake that you lost. We like to think that if it's important information, art, music, science, etc, that it can't be lost forever. But it can and does, probably even more often than important things being saved.

I've seen people comment about this on HDC regarding events like the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. We know that thousands and thousands of books were destroyed forever in that fire. We know this partly because other books in other places refer to the destroyed ones. That priceless information can never be retrieved.

Why am I saying all this? It sounds so depressing, doesn't it? But it's not. It's just reality.

And as the wonderful Carl Sagan said, "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

So, as we get ready for the Rapture (or if you're like me, the After Rapture Parties on Sunday), let's all embrace reality. Sometimes it sucks, sometimes it hurts, but it's always completely real and honest.

And before you go giving me a hard time, let me just be clear. I am advocating pragmatism and realism. There's no need to be pessimistic, which I think is unhealthy. But in that vein, while it's helpful to have a positive attitude - I recommend it highly - it's actually delusional to be overly optimistic.

Pragmatism/Realism = Good

Optimism/Pessimism/thinking the universe is watching out for you = delusion = unhealthy.

One more thing before I go. I've found that most people are the way they are. In other words, if you're an optimist, you're probably always going to be that way. I can't really help being the way that I am, which is mostly pragmatic, with a tinge of pessimism in some circumstances and a pinch of optimism in others. I do consciously aim to be as pragmatic as possible, though, as I think being realistic is the healthiest approach to life. But I also try to have a positive outlook and perspective.

Have I gone off my medication? Does any of this make sense? I hope so! If not, send all hate mail to philosophicalmumbojumbo@bs.com :P

~

EDIT: here are some definitions to clarify:

Delusion: a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea; a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason

Optimism: a state of mind in which one always hopes or expects that something good will happen; a general disposition to expect the best in all things

Pessimism: A tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest possible view; a general disposition to look on the dark side and to expect the worst in all things

Pragmatism: A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems; action or policy dictated by consideration of the immediate practical consequences rather than by theory or dogma; a philosophical system stressing practical consequences and values as standards by which the validity of concepts are to be determined

Realism: An inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism; awareness or acceptance of the facts and necessities of life; a practical rather than a moral or dogmatic view of things; Naturalism

Spectrum of Theistic Probability

Recently on my FB page, I mentioned that I guess I'm an agnostic atheist. I really don't like the term though, but out of that short scale, it's the best fit for me. I was then told about Richard Dawkin's Spectrum of Theistic Probability which I had never heard of, since I haven't read The God Delusion yet.

This scale is really interesting so I thought I'd share it with you in case you live under a rock like I do. Dawkins says that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis. Is it? I thought a hypothesis was an idea that could be tested. How can we test for a god? Anyway, here is a spectrum of probabilities between two extremes of certainty which are represented by seven milestones along the way.

Here are the seven milestones.

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."


2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."


3. Agnostic leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."


4. Completely impartial agnostic. Exactly 50 per cent.  "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."


5. Agnostic leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."


6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero.  "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."


7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."

I think, like Dawkins, if you are an atheist who values evidence, you would avoid labeling yourself a 7. Dawkins considers himself to be a 6 and I am comfortable with calling myself a De facto atheist as well.

Because, after all, I am an atheist based on lack of evidence of gods. If there were verifiable, repeatable evidence from a god (and I could prove it wasn't hallucinations, delusions, insanity, etc), and everyone saw God, well, it would have to be pretty substantial, but if there were extraordinary evidence that was repeatable and verifiable, then I guess I'd have to change my mind.

Where do you fall on the scale? Why? And what would it take for you to change your mind?

Jerusalem is Populating a Biblical Zoo

And I said, WTF? Then I remembered, people in Jerusalem are there because they believe its the promised land, given by God to the Jews. They are just as nutty as the christians, the muslims and all the other religions.

So these zookeepers over in Jerusalem are trying to sort of reconstruct the animals from the bible (old testament, of course) in Israel. They aren't trying to repopulate the area with the biblical predators like bears, but they are trying to bring back vultures, even though Levitucus 11:13 called them detestable. Which makes me wonder why they'd want to nurture and breed them. And why cherry-pick certain animals but not the rest from the bible? But why try to get logical now?

Almost 100 animals were mentioned in the bible, according to the fluffy, credulous HuffPo article where I found this ridiculous story, so of course, I am quite skeptical. I guess that's how Noah was able to get them all on the ark, then. He only had 100 or so to deal with, not the millions found in the world today.

There are nearly 100 different types of animals mentioned in the Bible, many of them key players in well-known stories: the lions in Daniel's den; the dove that scouted for dry land from Noah's ark; the ram that was sacrificed by Abraham to save the life of his son, Isaac.

Today, many of them are gone, hunted to the point of extinction or driven away by ongoing conflict. Of the 10 animals that are listed as acceptable dinner fare in Deuteronomy 14 -- ox, sheep, goat, deer, gazelle, roe deer, wild goat, ibex, antelope and mountain sheep -- only two (the gazelle and the ibex) could still be found in the historical boundaries of Israel in 1960. ...

"... I want to keep the vultures because they were mentioned in the Bible that it was a common animal and that's good enough for me."

God Thinks Like You and He Personally Cares For You, Plus a Video To Cheer You Up

I have 2 studies to share with you then a video to cheer you up afterwards.

The first paper is titled 'Believers' estimates of God's beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people's beliefs'. It found through a series of 7 studies and surveys that people believe that god has the same beliefs that they have. Here is what they concluded:

The researchers noted that people often set their moral compasses according to what they presume to be God's standards.  "The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing," they conclude. "This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God's beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing."

Isn't that convenient? It certainly explains how god can hate all the same people they hate, and basically agree with them about everything. It's like knowing your dad will let you do whatever you want because he thinks just like you. It's a license to act any way you like, with your god's blessing.

Also, are you sure people set their compass according to god's standards? Maybe instead they set god's compass to theirs. That would be interesting to find out, although I don't know how you'd do it.

The second paper is titled 'Socioeconomic Status and Beliefs about God's Influence in Everyday Life.' It used data from two recent national surveys of Americans to examine people's beliefs about god's involvement and influence in their lives. Here are some of the findings:

Overall, most people believe that God is highly influential in the events and outcomes in their lives. Specifically:

• 82 per cent say they depend on God for help and guidance in making decisions;


• 71 per cent believe that when good or bad things happen, these occurrences are simply part of God's plan for them;

Don't Assume I'm A Sensitive Soul

I received this email from a woman the other day. After careful thought I replied to it and decided it was worth sharing.

Here is the email in its entirety:

Thank you for sharing “Wild Geese”. After Joe Biden used most of this poem as his reflection upon the anniversary of 9/11, I went in search of the poem. The two of Mary Oliver’s collections I own did not include it. I was happy to find it at your site and amazed, actually. Amazed and delighted, because a poem I find so “religious” is at the same time such a balm for you. I grew up Roman Catholic; I am now an Episcopal priest. I am convinced after 20 years that what most people throw away – the cats they heave – are indeed worth heaving. Sometimes we have to go deeper, below the interpretations of history, to find our own deeper truth.

Yes, a “barbarous” God exists in the pages of the Bible: What all-kind God and Father would will the death of a Beloved Son? How could God command Abraham to kill his son Isaac as a test of faith? Isn’t that sadistic? Yes, indeed. On the face of it. For us in the 21st century these stories are barbaric. They are foreign to our experience. They were not foreign to the persons for whom they were written when the “first fruits” in ancient societies were offered up to the deity – including in some cases, the first born child. In some places in later writings there seems to be a critique of these practices in the Bible itself. The question becomes, it seems to me, is it worth reinterpreting these stories for our own time, or do we jettison them and replace them with our own stories of sacrificial obedience and love? Yes, life does involve sacrifice – we give up our children constantly to the gods of war who exact a savage price. There are no rams in the thicket to take their place …

But the same source of barbarism comments on itself in texts of amazing love and mercy. We cannot hear these texts enough.

Religion Is Evil And Contagious

But don't take my word for it. How about an Oxford professor whom you know and love? Richard Dawkins, of course! I found this 2 part video he did for the BBC in 2006. It's a very good overview of his ideas and concepts of religion, evolution and atheism. See below for the descriptions of each episode.

The Root of All Evil? Part 1: The God Delusion. (Richard Dawkins, 2006) - 47:51



The Root of All Evil? - The Virus of Faith (2 of 2) - 47:58



Here's a description of the first episode:

A Thought Experiment With Your Religious Friends

I am reading several books right now (I have them all listed in the left sidebar). One is called The God Virus and I just started it the other day. On page 18, Darrel W. Ray describes an experiment. I think I've heard of it before, but I thought I'd share it with you because it shows how religion attacks the critical thinking skills of the mind. As Mr. Ray says, it leaves the skill intact for other religions but disables critical thinking about one's own religion. It really is like a virus of the mind.

Here's the experiment as explained in the book:

You have a serious conversation with a deeply christian friend. Your friend is intelligent, well educated and knowledgeable. You agree to record the session. The topic is islam. During the session, you discuss that mohammed was a self-appointed prophet and that he claimed he talked to allah and the angels. He wrote a book that he claimed was infallible, and he flew from Jerusalem to heaven on a horse.

During the conversation, you agree that mohammed was probably delusional to think he could talk to god. You agree that the koran was clearly written by mohammed and not allah. It is ludicrous for him to claim that he is the last prophet and that all others are false. Neither you nor your friend can believe that he flew to heaven, let alone on a horse. It all sounds too crazy, and you both agree it is difficult to see how someone could believe such a religion. At the end of the conversation, you say that muslims did not choose their religion; they were born into it. Anyone who was exposed to both christianity and islam would see that christianity is the true religion.

Debating Evolution is a Waste of Time (yeah, I know it's been covered before)

Debating Evolution with religious folk is a waste of time.
With the unknown, one is confronted with danger and discomfort--the first instinct is to abolish these painful states. First principle: any explanation is better than none. We all do it, we hear a strange noise and we quickly come up with a guess to explain the noise, i.e., wind, a ghost, a…? All tribes/social groups through time have come up with myths to explain unknowns, answers arrived at not through reason or logic, but to tranquilize the fear of the unknown, providing comfort.

Religious folk form their identities through their religious teachings and any information that doesn’t fit their belief system, triggers feelings of insecurity and fear; emotionally, they feel they are being personally attacked--they must abolish the danger and discomfort they feel. They can’t use reason or logic to evaluate any of the millions of facts supporting evolution--because they are indoctrinated and imprinted as children to feel shame and fear if they question their church's authority.

Don’t waste your time debating Evolution with a creationist; respect the right of others to believe as they wish, but never miss an opportunity to demonstrate the irrational paradox and dangerous delusion that is religious faith.

Anywhere in the world, where education increases, belief in religion declines and inversely, women’s rights increase. The greatest intolerance for religion comes from religious folk’s intolerance of other religions or sub-groups within their own religion.

It's time to tax all religious businesses and for the greater enforcement of the laws separating church and state; including, but not limited to, the armed forces, religious schools and donations to political parties.

Delusions and Wishful Thinking: Pope Not InFALLible

So I guess the pope is not infallible. Since he fell. Get it? in-fall-ibility? LOL!

Pope Benedict XVI quipped to well-wishers: “My guardian angel didn’t prevent my mishap, certainly on orders from on high. Perhaps the Lord wanted to teach me more patience and humility to give me more time for prayer and meditation,” said the unholy father, who is expected to make a full recovery from his injury.

What has the pope been doing instead of praying to baby jesus that he needed to be punished in this manner? Too much time playing on his Wii? Too much time surfing for boy porn on the interwebs?

Not to mention, believing in fairy godmothers or guardian angels is wishful thinking. And delusional. But since so many sheeple believe it I guess it's ok, right? No? No. I didn't think so either.

Maybe, just maybe, he fell because he's old and frail, clumsy or drunk on sacramental wine. Sometimes bad things happen to good bad people.

(please thank Jenny, my good friend, for giving me all kinds of insight on this story.)