The other "A" word

The “A” word that’s worse than “Atheism”

Recently, I participated in a competition called Ideas in the Attic for the second time.  This is a small business contest, and the prize includes $1000.00 in advertising among other stuff.  The contest is open to the public, and has very little publicity.  The site advertises that they will select 14 finalists.  Last year there were 9 finalists and 6 showed for the actual competition.  This year there were 6 finalists and 4 showed for the actual competition.  With odds like this, I think I have a shot.  The idea is to make a 3-mintue elevator speech to pitch your idea.  There are two prizes awarded:  the judges pick and the audience’s pick. 

I sent in my application to pitch the same idea I pitched last year: a social network for atheists.  This time I never got an email saying I’d been accepted or rejected into the competition.  So I emailed three times.  After getting no response, I started to worry.  The event was on May 8, a Tuesday.  The Friday before the event, I got a phone call.

The person explained that they had received my application, but they were not going to allow me to pitch the same idea I had pitched the previous year.  The deadline for submission was fast approaching, so I asked if I only had a few hours to come up with a new idea.  The representative said that it was more of a soft deadline, and if I could put a new spin on it, or some up with an alternative, I could have the weekend to figure it out.  I said that was fine, and jumped online to discuss new ideas with my friends.

The conversation began a little snarky.  In the original idea, I hadn’t asked for additional funding to start the project, so I figured a good new spin was to spend some money.  But on what?  Suggestions for all sorts of things came up, but I thought it should go to some charitable cause.  But many of my friends didn’t like the idea of competing with existing religious charities.  What does that leave us?  Then, I had an epiphany!

There is an organization called the Women’s Medical Fund.  I’d heard of it from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.  Dan Barker, co-president, likes to donate his royalties from his old religious works to this organization.  The Women’s Medical Fund helps low income women pay for abortions.  They do so with relatively small amounts.  On the website, I saw the largest amount was just over $200.00 and some were as small as $50.00.  I thought I had a gold mine!  I could ask for as little as $500.00 and help three or four people get abortions in the first year!  I sent in the new application at 11:00pm that night, only a few hours after the original deadline and way before the end of the weekend.  I even garnered new enthusiasm for my pitch!  People said that they would rather vote for this than for the social network.  I was pumped, but a little worried.  I only had three days to make a speech.  And I had to condense it into 3 minutes. 

I got an email on Monday.  It read:

"Hello Andrew,

We received your new submission over the weekend. After discussing it with our committee, we would like you to present your first idea for the social network at Ideas in the attic.  Let me know if you have any questions. I look forward to seeing you tomorrow.

Best,"

Huh.  Interesting. 

At first I didn’t get it.  Then my wife, who is WAY better at picking up cues, explained that they were so flabbergasted at my second idea, that they decided to reverse their stance on repeating old ideas.

Look, I understood the first ruling.  I mean, who wants to hear the same loser ideas over and over again?  The “no do-overs” rule seemed reasonable to me.  I was happy to comply.  I actually hadn’t considered that my new idea would be so over-the-top controversial, that they’d allow me to do the first idea.  That really never crossed my mind.  It had now.

When I got to the event, I shook the hand of the guy who had both called and emailed me.  I tried to apologize for any misunderstanding.  I told him that it was never my intention to be snarky.  Well, that’s not completely true, I admitted, I did intend to ask for money, but that was as snarky as I wanted to be.  I told him it was never my intention to submit an idea so wild and outrageous that they’d allow me to pitch the original idea.  He looked at me and just said, “Okay.”

I don’t know if he didn’t care, or if he couldn’t imagine my second idea to have been born of anything but spite.  In any event, as I made my speech, I was sure to work in that I wanted to be able to contribute to the community in a way that I think the religious community has failed to endeavor.  I got really confused looks by the judges, and to avoid further controversy, simply alluded to the Women’s Medical Fund and suggested they google it.

I lost, by the way.  The judges picked a bed pan genie as the winner.  Basically, it’s a disposable plastic liner for bed pans.  The other ideas were discounts from car insurance companies if you submit to a drug test, and a kit that converts conventional cars to electric.  I’m not sure how that worked.  The event lacked a stage and a microphone, so I could not hear that guy.  I didn’t have enough buddies to get the popular vote either.  The bed pan genie won both.

It’s not the losing that bothers me.  It’s that I think they are trying to figure out what the heck they are going to do if they bring this event back for a third year.  They ought to know I plan to apply again, this time ONLY with the funding abortion idea.

It seems there is an “A” word that is more controversial than “Atheism,” and it is “Abortion.”

Links
Ideas in the Attic

Women's Medical Fund

Freedom From Religion Foundation

The Belief and the Believer: the Sin and the Sinner

I don't hate religious people; I hate religion.

Yeah.  I know it sounds familiar.  But I think there are real differences here.  First of all, religion and religious people are REAL.  Seriously, no one denies that both of these things exist.  Unlike sin, which is in dispute.  I don't think sin exists.  For the record, I define sin as an offence to god, or something god would find offensive.  Since I think god is imaginary, nothing can offend it because it does not exist.  Therefore, sin is also imaginary.

But that's not the only difference.  I think even believers dislike religion.  How else do you explain the recent surge of christian lunacy that is the "I love jesus; I hate religion" nonsense.  And this is popular.  More and more I meet people who claim to be "spiritual" christians.  I just raise an eyebrow and ask what in the world that means.  You should see the fumbling.  They don't know what it means, either.  They think it's a smokescreen.  I can see right through it.

Here's another thing.  When I say I hate religion, what I really mean is I hate faith.  I think faith is just plain stupid.  Faith is delusion and it is detrimental to society.  It makes people believe irrational things for irrational reasons.  Imagine the 9-11 hijackers with no faith.  Please.  What would they do?  Sit down and enjoy the ride?  Faith is harmful.

But when people say they hate "the sin", they mean sex.  They don't mean lying or stealing or killing. They are talking about sex.  And consensual sex, too.  Sex between consenting adults.  Good, natural, clean, raunchy, hard-core, nasty, filthy dirty sexy sex.  Excuse me...

Where was I?  Right.  Sex isn't a sin, even if there was a god.  Indeed, there have been many gods dedicated to sex and fertility.  Sex is a god, so it cannot be a sin.  Why all the hate for sex?

I think Darrell Ray, author of the God Virus, got it right.  Take sex out of religion, and you have nothing.

It's too bad people think sex is bad.  So bad they have to fight to keep consenting adults from doing it.  I think we'd all be happier if we all had more orgasms.  I've always said that the key to life is a blend of mastication, masturbation and meditation.

Herding a Community of Cats: Forming communities of atheists

The following is an extra credit assignment for an online class of mine.  The assignment was:  "write about what you think your role is in developing your community and what it means to be a community leader.  

       In the fall of 2010, I had no idea what a group of non-believers would talk about at a meeting.  Yet when a good friend of mine approached me with the idea to start a student organization for atheists, agnostics, secularists, free-thinkers, humanists and pastafarians, I was intrigued and excited.  We talked about why such a group was needed, and within a few weeks, we had drafted a constitution and began to form what would eventually become the Fellowship of Non-Religious Students of Indiana State University.

          It didn’t take long for us to see the many advantages of aligning the group with a nationally recognized umbrella organization.  I contacted the Secular Student Alliance, who quickly came beside us to help organize and support our fledgling organization.  The SSA provided startup manuals, tabling supplies, and even a speaker board that enabled us to bring in speakers at little to no cost. 

          The purpose of the Fellowship is to bring like-minded people together; to allow those of us who lack religious faith to have a safe place to discuss matters of importance; and to educate the public about secular values.  We want to help people who do not believe in gods or deities or supernatural beings a place to know they are not alone.  We exist to provide community to those who think reason and rationality are preferable to faith and delusion. 

While the participation was primarily students at ISU, I had several people outside the university approach me about membership.  They may not be students at ISU, but they shared the vision that the group had and were looking for the community that the group built.  A few happened to be students at Ivy Tech Community College.  I put them in touch with the secular Student Alliance, and helped with a few of the startup activities.  Just this past February, the Secular Student Alliance of Ivy Tech Community College took its official place as the second SSA affiliate in Terre Haute.

For the past two years, at ISU’s Human Rights Day, the Fellowship of Non-Religious students has provided a speaker and held a table.  At this event, several high school students stop by and greet us.  This year, I’ve had a few inquiries about how to begin a group at the local high schools.  It is very possible that within a few months, Terre Haute will see the first SSA chapter at a high school organize.

But I’m not content to only focus on students.  Too many regular, everyday people also feel isolated.  Too often people feel as though there are no other atheists or agnostics around them.  They are wrong, and there is no need for them to feel alone.  I’ve begun to lay the ground work to begin a chapter of Recovering Religionists, a national group founded by Dr. Darrell Ray, author of “The God Virus”.  This will be a group open to the public and focused on helping people who have left religion behind or who have never professed belief in the first place.  More communities mean more connections and less isolation.

I never thought I’d be the person who would bring atheist communities to Terre Haute.  It’s just worked out that way.  The challenges are many.  Atheists remain the most hated and mistrusted minority in the nation, according to recent polls.  We are also the fastest growing population, seeing increases in numbers in all fifty states.  Yet there are many of us who remain in the closet, afraid to be known to the world for fear of retribution.  It is because of this bigotry that I feel compelled to bring people together and allow each of us to share our experiences with each other. 

To be sure, it is a battle.  There is no unifying dogma for atheism.  No system of belief, no code, and no creed is required.  Only a lack of a belief in deities is shared among us.  For this reason, the organization of atheists has often been compared to herding cats.  Cats tend to be so independent that they rarely unify into a cohesive group.  Yet I think that this can be a major source of strength.  It is this wide variety of backgrounds, personalities and philosophies that will others to relate to our movement, and join our cause.  After all, we have science, reason, rationality and evidence on our side.

I'm a no-good atheist

Heh.  I've been kicked off my debate blog.  Apparently, I'm not taking the christian's arguments seriously.  I mock them instead.  Well, it's true.  I DID indeed mock them.  The argument from design is so flawed, all I can do is mock it.  I tried to show why it is laughable, and why it fails so badly, and why it is an example of bad reasoning, but I guess that wasn't good enough.  If any of my atheist readers want to take up the baton, go to andrewvtim.blogspot.com and apply to be the new atheist.  If you want, I'll brief you on all of the "dogma" of the SMAD and the dragon in my pants.  Good Luck.

The freedom of worship is a problem?

The freedom of worship is a problem?

I guess you have heard of the birth control controversy.  I thought I’d lend my thoughts on the subject.  First, I know there are many people arguing that birth control pills are prescribed for a myriad of reasons outside preventing pregnancy.    That’s fine, but I think it is just fine to also prescribe birth control pills for the explicit purpose of preventing pregnancy.  And since this IS the primary reason these drugs are administered, why not embrace it?  What’s wrong with people taking charge of their reproduction?  People ought to be able to control when they do and do not want to be pregnant. 

I’ve tried listening to the Catholic radio guys to get a feel for why they are so opposed to the recent mandate that all insurance companies pay for birth control.  What I hear is that since the Catholic Church opposes birth control, they should be able to exclude the coverage from the insurances offered to their employees. 

Further, they argue that this “attack” on religious freedom is an effort to limit the freedom of expression to simply the freedom to worship, and that is unacceptable.  The free-exercise clause of the First Amendment should guarantee the right to decide which benefits are and are not acceptable to an employer.

This is just plain crazy.  Most people I know immediately recognize the danger of this kind of thinking.  If we allow employers to decide which benefits are allowable and which are not based on nothing more than religion, what is stopping anyone from refusing to offer any benefit to anyone at any time?  Where does it end? 

It seems to me that the Obama Administration actually got this one right.  Well, kinda.  I mean, there are still loopholes for some religious institutions, but they are narrow.  And there is a delay for the mandate to take effect.  But the fact that our government has ruled that discriminating against women should not be protected by the veil of religion is a good thing.  Religion does not give people the right to discriminate.

That doesn’t mean it is illegal for you to be a bigot; it just means your bigotry will not be allowed in law or in public practice.  We don’t want religion to be the reason people are lacking medical care.

God doesn’t belong in the medical profession.  Doctors do.  And any doctor is free to belong to whatever religion he/she wants to be.  But when it comes to administering medicine, that doctor had better grab a medical journal, not the bible, for research.

Let Freedom Ring

This week, Jessica Alquist won a hard-fought court battle over a prayer posted in her public high school’s gymnasium.  The court found the prayer unconstitutional, and ordered its immediate removal.  Jessica is an inspiration to the ideals set forth in the First Amendment.  She is a credit to her school, her community and her nation.

Not surprisingly, the backlash has been harsh for Jessica.  Indeed, the judge in his decision noted that the school board meetings she attended would often turn into religious revivals.  People in high-ranking positions flagrantly chastised Jessica for standing up for her rights and the rights of all Americans.  The opposition used religious language, and even quoted the bible.  In the end, this noise helped Jessica’s case.  Part of the Lemon test is if the subject of dispute holds a primarily secular purpose.   With people espousing personal religious beliefs and quoting scripture, it was clear to the judge and to all that this banner was in no way primarily secular.

More than this, since her victory, Jessica has been bombarded with renewed harassment.  All this animosity is curious to me.  The anger and spite shown to Jessica is astounding.  And yet, her victory ensures the people who disagree with her, can still disagree.

See, the thing is that this wall that separates church and state protects the church just as much as it protects the state.  While religion is kept out of government, people will be free to worship any god or gods they choose, or none at all.  We enjoy free exercise, and live without any pressure from government to have or not have faith.  This is the principle of the First Amendment.

Perhaps religious people don’t understand that if there is no wall, we all lose.  Perhaps they think everyone thinks like them.  Perhaps they think people will convert if the government endorses their position.  Perhaps they should figure it out.

Victories like Jessica’s aren’t just for atheists.  They are for the religious as well.  Perhaps even more so.  This victory allows the debate over the triune god, the salvation by faith, the transubstantiation, the virgin birth, and all other theological questions to go on.  This keeps those differences, those denominations, those sects alive.  This empowers the religious people to hold to their delusions as much as they want.  They will receive no criticism from government.

But they will from me.   

Positive Atheism

If you listen to the Atheist Experience, you’ll hear their motto is they promote “positive atheism and the separation of church and state”.   I like the phrase, “positive atheism”, but what does it mean?

I don’t think the AE crew means that they promote “hard” or “strong” atheism.  That is the belief that god is imaginary.  This is slightly different than the “soft” or “weak” atheist, who simply lacks a belief in gods.  I’ve said before that I am a strong atheist, but since I don’t think that is what AE means by positive atheism, I’ll save all that for later. 

I think the AE crew means that there are positive things about atheism that are often overlooked.  Perhaps there are also things about atheists that are misunderstood, misconstrued, or misinterpreted.  I think the idea is that there are positive things that come from the absence of god belief, and they want to try to emphasize them.

I heard on another podcast the term, “goblin atheist”.  This was used to describe the stereotype of atheists.  I think the pod cast was Ask an Atheist.  Anyway, the person using the term defined it as the atheist most religious people think is the norm, yet I’ve met none.  This atheist is angry ay god, having suffered some horrible twist of fate that the atheist blames god for inflicting upon him.  The “goblin atheist’ is angry, callous, mean, and hurtful.  He sees god as most religious people see the devil, as evil, diabolical and vicious.  The point was that this person, while there may be a few who fit the stereotype, is not the most common sample of atheist.  This is the outlier, the anomaly, the abnormality.  I have to say, I’ve met many atheists; I’ve not encountered a goblin.

Instead, I find atheists who are filled with joy, harmony, peace, and skepticism.  I find people who seek knowledge, truth and wisdom.  I find atheists who look for community and friendship.  If they are bitter about anything, it is the ever-encroaching, ever-intruding, ever-perverting force of religion.  If they are angry about anything, it is how victories in freedom of speech allow nutbags like the Westboro Baptists to protest funerals.  And yet, they remain focused on helping those who have come to reason to find each other, to network together, and support one another.

I think atheism is a positive thing.  It holds no supernatural savior will help us; we must help ourselves.  We must help each other.  God isn’t here; we are.

Jesus is a moral failure.

Every so often, I’m confronted by people who want to tell me that this jesus character was the picture of morality.  They want me to think that this guy was the best example of a human that ever walked the earth.  Now, I don’t think for a second that there even WAS a jesus, but if he did exist, he was an asshat.

First, let me say that if jesus was a fictional character, he has lots of competition for this, “best of the best human” award.  As far as superpowers go, even the Wonder Twins knock jesus out of the park.  Jesus walked on water?  One of the Wonder Twins changed into water!  Jesus healed the sick?  The other Wonder Twin changed into an eagle!  Oh, but they weren’t human.  That’s a good point.  Wolverine is human.  He heals like crazy. 

But to jump away from comics, if jesus was real, he still loses.  Anyone who has not condemned people who don’t like them to eternal torment is better than jesus.  That makes Hitler more moral than the savior.  Nice, huh?

But even if we just look at the saving part, jesus is ethically compromised.  We are supposed to believe that this guy has taken upon himself the weight of the sins of all people for all time.  This sounds suspiciously like a scapegoat.  Now, scapegoats are not a moral practice, right?  You know the origin of the scapegoat, no?  In summary, the people of a village would symbolically place upon a goat the weight of the sins of the village.  Then the animal was lead out of the village and killed.  The sins left with the goat, and the village would be safe from the retribution from some petty deity.  Jesus is a scapegoat.  That’s not ethical.

Our morals have evolved past stupid scapegoats.  We understand that if you err, you cannot place the responsibility on a goat.  You messed up; you deal with it.  If I get a jail sentence, I cannot pay anyone to serve it for me.  That’s not allowed, and that is the deal you MUST take from the savior.  The deal offered to you in christianity is a scapegoat, and that is not an ethical practice.

We have moral issues today, but they will not be solved by invoking a Bronze Age book.  They not be solved by invoking an imaginary deity.  They will be solved by you and me.  God isn’t here; weare.

Guest blog: How an Atheist finds meaning and purpose in life

In my debate blog, a friend of mine posted an extraordinary response to the question, "How does an atheist find meaning and purpose in life?"  This is Mande Hubbard's response.  If you like it, tell her so on her facebook page.

No purpose to life? The first assumption is that we gain understanding of life through evolution, which we do in a biological and scientific manner, but if you're speaking to a philosophical perspective, evolution doesn't address that.

 What I will say is that nowhere in evolution is there 'no purpose' to life, nor is there purpose. Evolution is not an entity. Evolution is a method or system by which organisms continue on, natural selection is the way that this works most effectively in a changing and stable environment (some environments are stable, some are not, see the red queen hypothesis for more information regarding the outcome of different environments on parasites, asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction). The purpose of life from a purely biological standpoint, is to survive and produce viable offspring that can further your genetic makeup for generations. So in essence, the biological standpoint would place the continuation of one's genetic makeup as the sole purpose. If you mean to ask what the purpose of life is on a grand scale, I ask...does it matter? This is my first question because you can't delve into purpose and meaning on a grand scale immediately. We have to conclude whether or not it matters what the end result of all that is and will be, is important, or if there would need to be a purpose. To that I say it doesn't matter. Whether the universe has no sentient purpose, or does, is irrelevant to us, because we are so small and insignificant that we will never really take part in anything on such a massive scale. Our minute lives will not change or alter if we discover that the universe and all of time has no purpose. Nor will our lives change if we discover that the universe and all of time has a complex purpose. Our lives are small in comparison to time. Humans live, on average, about 80 years. When we examine the time line of the universe, 80 years is merely a microscopic piece of time that on its own is meaningless, in the way that a speck of dirt is meaningless to the whole of the earth. It would be pointless for a speck of dirt to base it's life or existence on the purpose of the earth, as it's presence is neither felt nor missed. So if you're asking what evolution (because you seem to think we derive all values from evolution for some reason) has planned and what is the purpose of all time and the universe, I say it's irrelevant. A curiosity, certainly, and one I think we should examine, but it's not going to alter or change the fabric of anyone's life if we discover it.

But let's move that and ask the question in a smaller scale. What is the purpose of life on earth? We should also define by what we mean when we say purpose. Do we mean, what is the value of everything on the earth in the context of the whole picture? Where does each individual life lead? In that we have to further define purpose. Do we mean, what is the ultimate end result of the earth? What does each life before that moment mean in the context of the end result? How does each individual life contribute to the end result?

Already we're having trouble defining such an abstract idea. Sure we can examine the dictionary to define it for us, but then we run into further problems. The best form of the definition which will give us a more concrete understanding of purpose essentially defines purpose as a goal, or intended result. This is going to pose problems because 'intended' implies consciousness (something we're not entirely sure even we have). Consciousness implies sentience (again, a loose term). So the problem with the concept of 'purpose' is that we don't really know what 'purpose' is, even in a definitional way, we still come to a very loose, abstract idea that is difficult to define in a way that we can all agree.

So in a way you could say that evolution has no purpose, largely because it is not sentient and has no intended goal. That still confounds problems because you're implications are that somehow we attribute evolution to the basis of our ethics (I don't say morality because I see ethics and morality as the same, except that morality is religious and ethics are secular). This is a false idea. Evolution does not work on ethical behavior, it functions to maximize behavior that is conducive to the spreading of genes from one generation to another. More specifically, it further behavior in the individual which provides the most 'fitness' (which is measured generally by how many offspring survive and reproduce, in a basic sense). Evolution then builds on behaviors that are both ethical and not ethical, because evolution is amoral (not IMmoral, A moral, meaning it has no morality much like the wind, or water, or gravity). Ethical behavior can only be exhibited by sentient beings (again, a loose term, and not going to extrapolate it further to define sentience), so evolution can not have ethical behavior. It can only create and propagate the best ideas for survival, such as, the motivation different ethnic groups have to eradicate each other due to limited resources.

My point is, evolution is not the basis for ethics and therefore not the basis for the purpose of life, because it has no stake in it. It's the same as using gravity as a way to define purpose and ethics. They don't fit together. Now we can examine the evolution of ethical behavior in animals and find out why ethical behavior is programed (we have done this already) and utilize the human and animal behavioral models to maximize ethical behavior so that all can benefit from the positive aspects of the universe (if that makes sense to anyone). But to assume that anyone basis their ethical behavior and meaning on evolution is to invoke the naturalistic fallacy, which is absurd.

Ethics and 'purpose' are and individual preference. Religious find purpose and 'ethics' within their doctrines, which when read fully and not cherry-picked can call into question the legitimacy of the claim being presented. There are several passages in the bible where even Jesus condones murder, while then turning around and condoning kindness to others. Gaining morality from a book is a questionable procedure largely because few religious people take extensive amount of time to work out the logic of such a moral choice. If we take gay marriage for example, some will say it's wrong because the bible says so, and when pressed, will express that it's not a natural state for animals. This is generally as far as it goes, because there are hundreds of species which engage in homosexual behavior, including homosexual pairing. If you were to ask these same people, after showing the act being done by other animals, routinely, in nature, there is little reason to have a negative opinion other than to invoke god. I don't see this as commendable, because then you are gaining your 'moral' behavior from someone purely on the basis of 'I told you so.' This is blindly obedient and can lead far more to immoral (such as genocide, see WWII as a more recent example) behavior because these people do not question or invoke rational thought to explain their behavior. This happens more often than someone might think and there is plenty of psychological evidence to support the fact that people will do horrendous things if they view the person as superior and as having authority. Putting religious people into this position their entire lives, concerns me, because good people, do horrible things out of this 'I told you so' mentality.

My ethical behavior is derived from continuous thought. How do my actions effect other individuals? How do my actions effect humans versus animals? Do each of these groups feel pain, happiness, etc, and to what extent? How do my actions effect the environment, and how would that, on a larger scale, impact the future of the earth, and potentially the universe? My list could go on, but this is a sample of the sort of questions I ask. When confronted with my own values, I ask questions that may or may not challenge them, and I pose possible scenarios for the impact of these values on others, negative and positive. My ethics, are therefore derived from continuous refinement, previous philosophers and their logical arguments, and the potentiality for my behavior on an individual and large scale to invoke harm or good to other humans, animals, the earth, and the universe. In the end, my desire for all other life is to see it respected and to see it content. Is this possible? To an extent and my values reflect this. Is there room for refinement and improvement? There always is and that is the difference between myself and someone who takes their pastor's word for it. My values and ethics change depending on new information that is derived about the world about me and how I, as an individual, can improve that world for everyone. I do not require a man in a pulpit to tell me how to do that, as I am an intellectual, and I am a thinking being who as compassion and motivation. I would even dare to say that my ethics and my values, are superior to any who derive all of their values and ethics from an ancient, and I would be prepared to test that any day.

 As far as purpose is concerned. There is no purpose to the universe because the universe is not sentient. It has no goal in mind because it is not sentient. This is not a problem, but a freedom. Consider, if the universe has nothing in mind, this gives us the opportunity to find our place, our individual place, within the world and define ourselves based on how we would that like world to look. If we think of the universe as a pond. A pond has no purpose. A pond is a bowl of water that sustains life, but it has no goal, no purpose mind. It simply is. The fish within it, the algae, the bacteria, the microscopic organisms, are all that is within the universe (if the universe is like a pond). The fish do not define their lives based on the goal of the pond. That would be silly. The fish define their lives based on that which is around them. Their goals, their desires, their motivations, define their purpose in life. Likewise, we define ourselves within the context of our fish bowl. We look to that which is around us, the devastation, the hope, the pain, the happiness, and with our own motivations, we define ourselves and therefore our purpose in life. What are goals besides desires to do something. It is all this which creates purpose on a grander scale.

Now you could say, well, some people want only to hurt others. This is true, no matter the religion of the person, there are, in all species, defectors and cheaters of the system. Religion doesn't make these people better, it obscures them, as they thrive in particular environments if given the chance, and even religious offer the chance to advance oneself despite being a cheater or a defector. However, in the whole of the population, these people are a small percentage as the population can not survive with a large percentage of these people. If they grow too large, their niches start to collapse. Consider if lying was condoned, people would lie all the time and then few people would trust one another, and eventually the system collapses (plenty of science on this, it's a prisoner's dilemma). So you'll always have cheaters and defectors no matter how many religious or nonreligious you have. It's independent of it. So using this would be an invalid critique of defining the self based on personal motivation and desire. 

My point to this entire post, is that purpose can be found in the self, and for many of us, is, and then further defined by outside information. With religious, purpose is defined by the self and the church, which again, is questionable. Ethics can be defined without religion as many of us take a great deal of time and pain to meticulously polish our values to suit what maximizes happiness and pleasure among not just humans, but often other species as well.

The invoking of not having morality or purpose, or any such thing against atheism is an old stone that has been thrown and immersed by plenty of logical statements debunking that fallacious argument.

Bravo, Mande!!  Bravo!

Closet? What closet?

I’m not one to be in a closet.  As soon as I found atheism, I was out.  It never even occurred to be that I ought to consider being in the closet.  I’m just not that kind of guy.  You probably guessed that by now.

But now, things have changed.  My son is getting involved in Cub Scouts.  He really likes it.  I find scouting to be a complete waste of time and energy, but he finds it enjoyable so he can go have fun.  This weekend he went camping with his Nana.  He had a blast.  He went and sold popcorn.  He was very good at it.  He looks forward to meetings and participates well.

Now I know most Scout leaders wouldn’t give a shit if my son is the child of atheist parents.  But even so, I know the official stance of the Boy Scouts of America is to shun those without religious faith.  So for the first time since I became an atheist, I’m in the closet.  Somewhat.

I recently went to a LGBT meeting at my local public library.  It was a really cool meeting.  It reminded me a lot of my meetings for my atheist group.  They told coming-out stories, shared experiences of discrimination, gave support and encouragement to those who had felt lost, lonely or isolated.  That’s exactly what my group does.  They talked about the closet.  It’s never a comfortable place to be.  Now I get it.  I never really did before.

It sucks.  Many of the other parents of scouts are people who we see all the time.  These are my son’s friends’ parents.  We talk often.  Eventually, someone will say something and I am SO BAD at biting my tongue.  It would truly suck if I got my kid kicked out of a group he enjoys so much.