Image by Bearman2007 via Flickr

I do not spend as much time as I might like reading Christian blogs. I know what you're thinking, but some really fascinating stuff can be found on some of them from time-to-time. I was curious how Christians were reacting to the recent celebrity deaths, and I ran across an interesting post on the subject at DanaPellerin.com. The post was written in late June, so it only mentions Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett. In fact, it was written on the day these two died.

Mr. Pellerin comments on how quickly public interest in celebrity deaths turns into anger over how much media coverage is devoted to such deaths. He's absolutely right. I experienced this personally as what started as mild curiosity rapidly turned into frustration and disgust with the media for essentially making these deaths (especially that of Michael Jackson) the only news story for several days. It wasn't that I suddenly turned into a Michael Jackson hater or anything; it was just that the nonstop coverage got old quickly when it came at the expense of every other story.

One part of Mr. Pellerin's post that I found extremely interesting was how surprised he seemed to encounter similar reactions from his fellow Christians.

As I was following the data stream out there on the intertubes, I noticed several rude comments from strangers, but more surprising, from some Christian friends, that implied that following such stories is a waste of time and we shouldn’t be making a big deal about them.

Why would he expect that other Christians would regard such stories as not being newsworthy? His Christian friends were absolutely right to point out that the excessive coverage these stories received was a waste and that other more important news was being neglected. How would the religious beliefs of his friends be expected to change this?

One person started throwing out stats on AIDS deaths as if dying from AIDS is somehow more noble than dying in other ways... One conversation regarding a child dying in a car accident today elicited a response from another who said “i’m glad that you have something worthwhile to pray about now, not Michael Jackson”. Wow. The callousness of these statements, especially those from Christians, amazes me.

Aside from the flawed assumption that being a Christian somehow prevents callousness, Mr. Pellerin seems to be misunderstanding what his friends are likely saying. It seems to me that the message they are trying to impart is simply that people die in unfortunate circumstances every day and are thoroughly ignored by the media. This is a valid point and one which those of us concerned with social justice are often making.

Here’s the deal; Yeah our culture makes a big deal about celebrities. And that’s wrong. It’s wrong to put people on a pedestal and worship them for simply making use of the gifts only God has allowed them to use. But I don’t think it’s wrong to mourn their deaths.

Wrong to make a big deal about celebrities? That sounds a bit simplistic for my tastes, but if we can change "wrong" to something like "inappropriate" or "detrimental to improving the conditions of others," I'll agree. I'll also agree with Mr. Pellerin that worship of other people, regardless of who they are, is absurd. Of course, I'd say the same about worship of mythical creatures like gods, angels, and the like.

But I don't think anyone is saying that it is wrong to mourn the loss of others. At least, I have not heard such a sentiment expressed by atheists or Christians. If Michael Jackson meant a great deal to someone (for whatever reason), it makes sense for such a person to mourn his passing. I have a hard time believing that any of Mr. Pellerin's associates would feel differently.

No, what I expect his colleagues are trying to point out to him is that it bothers them to see the media lavish attention on someone solely because of celebrity while ignoring those who die every day and mean the world to those they have left behind. Perhaps they worry that the level of adulation being heaped on Jackson has started to sound like worship. Then again, they may simply be reacting to a situation that seems unfair.

As Mr. Pellerin suggests, high profile deaths should remind us of our own mortality. But where he insists that we should also be reminded of "our need for a savior," I'd say that what we really need reminding of is our own humanity.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: Christian, celebrity, celebrity deaths, death, atheist, Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, media, religion

Image by mermay19 via Flickr

It is often said that nothing is wrong with talking to gods as long as they do not talk back. When gods talk back, one is likely psychotic. Of course, a great many people claim that gods speak to them. Some are undoubtedly suffering from serious mental illness, but the majority are either lying to manipulate others or deluding themselves in a way that would not result in a psychiatric diagnosis. This sort of self-delusion is not only socially acceptable but is sometimes met with incredible praise and admiration.

Take the case of Marija Lunetti in Shelby County, Alabama. A reader, BamaGal, sent me an article from the Birmingham News about Ms. Lunetti, and it is a great example of why someone might claim to converse with gods.

Over 2,000 people have traveled from all over the U.S. to rural Alabama simply because Ms. Lunetti claims to have daily visions of the Virgin Mary. According to the article, these "pilgrims" make the journey "hoping to feel the presence of the mother of Jesus."

One would think that rural Alabama would have plenty of folks who think they are in communication with spirits, but Ms. Lunetti came all the way from the former Yugoslavia to have her "visions" promoted.

Marija Lunetti, whose reports of daily visions of the Virgin Mary have drawn millions of pilgrims to Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzegovina, has spent the past week in Shelby County. She continues to have her daily visions, including Thursday and Friday at 10:30 p.m.

How nice that her "visions" occur on a consistent schedule. Why, one could probably sell tickets!

Although the pilgrims can't see the apparitions, they believe the Virgin Mary appears and speaks to Lunetti.

Of course they do.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: Alabama, Virgin Mary, mental illness, delusion, religion, Marija Lunetti

God today, no longer represents the same forces as in the beginning of His existence; neither does He direct human destiny with the same iron hand as of yore. Rather does the God idea express a sort of spiritualistic stimulus to satisfy the fads and fancies of every shade of human weakness, In the course of human development the God idea has been forced to adapt itself to every phase of human affairs, which is perfectly consistent with the origin of the idea itself.

- Emma Goldman, The Philosophy of Atheism

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Image by longplay via Flickr

Daniel Radcliffe, the actor who has player Harry Potter in the films of that name, has confirmed in an Esquire interview that he is an atheist. As reported in The Telegraph, Radcliffe not only identified himself as an atheist in this interview but expressed his respect for Richard Dawkins. I suppose Christian extremists have yet another reason to boycott the Harry Potter films.

Radcliffe was quoted as saying,

I'm an atheist, but I'm very relaxed about it. I don't preach my atheism, but I have a huge amount of respect for people like Richard Dawkins who do. Anything he does on television, I will watch.

It is good to see another talented actor join the ranks of the reality-based community.

H/T to Trina Hoaks, Atheist Examiner

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The 39th edition of the Humanist Symposium has been posted at Daylight Atheism. Be sure to check it out. And while you are there, take some time to browse Daylight Atheism. It is one of the atheist blogs that should be on your must-read list.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Image by willem velthoven via Flickr

This is one of those posts that I am writing without having much confidence that I'll actually ever post it. After watching an episode of The Daily Show in which Jon Stewart interviewed Mike Huckabee on the subject of abortion, I found myself thinking about how my life could have been very different if not for having the option of legal abortion.

I was 15 and living in a lower-middle class family on the West Coast. We were comfortable enough, and although I was still aware of living in a smaller and older home than nearly all of my friends, our lack of material success did not bother me as much as it had during junior high.

My first year of high school had been rough for a variety of reasons I won't go into here. I did not fit in very well, have a lot of friends, or do much to endear myself to the "cool kids." But that was about to change dramatically as I turned 15 and begin my second year.

This was the year I finally started to fill out a bit and develop some muscle (I was fairly tall and had been way too thin up to this point). This was the year I would make many new friends, discover alcohol, and lose my virginity.

From the perspective of any reasonable adult, including my parents, I was a terror by 15. Aside from doing well in school, I rebelled in every way imaginable. My friends were any parent's worst nightmare, and our weekend activities were a blur of hard liquor, loud music, fast cars, and girls. This would get far worse as I turned 16 and then 17, but that isn't relevant for the subject of this post aside from demonstrating that this was not merely a brief episode of bad judgment.

Against this backdrop, I somehow managed to lose my virginity. I was 15 at the time, and she was 14. She ended up getting pregnant and had an abortion without telling me about either. Although we were still together throughout this time, I did not find out that she had been pregnant or had aborted it until a few months afterward. She had told a good friend of mine in confidence. He managed to keep her secret too long but did eventually tell me.

At the time, I remember being very upset that she hadn't told me. It isn't that I would have tried to talk her out of it - I wouldn't have. No, I was upset because I would have tried to be there for her. I hated the thought that she had to go through that alone. Of course, I suppose that there is no telling how I would have actually behaved at that time had I known what was going on.

I think about this sometimes. I could have had a kid at 15. I can't imagine what that would have been like at the time. I was not one of those people who might have been able to grow up quickly and get his shit together at that age. You hear about some young parents being able to do that. I wouldn't have been one of them. I might have been able to pull it off by 18 or 19, but even that is highly doubtful. But at 15, I would have been a thorough disaster.

And the girl? There was no way her mother was going to allow her to have a child at 14 even if she had wanted to (which she didn't). Had she been 16 or 17, I suspect adoption would have been considered. But at 14, there is no way her mother would have put her through that.

In the debate over reproductive rights, I think we do not stop to consider situations like this thoroughly enough. It is one thing to say that abortion should not be used as a means of birth control among college students or adults. In the abstract, some of us might even be tempted to agree with that. But when one stops to think about one's 13 or 14 year-old daughter getting pregnant...well, I have a very difficult time understanding those who seek to make this a crime.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: abortion, reproductive rights

Image by BL1961 via Flickr

Throughout small town America today, one will see flags, fireworks, and junk food on display. A common sentiment you'll encounter is pride, and many find it necessary to express their pride in being Americans. I'd like to make two small additions to this conversation, neither of which are original and one of which is presented in video form.

First, please consider the following from "10 Things Every Adult Should Know" written by f*cking c*nts:

America is not #1. Well, not unless you count military spending and handgun related deaths. We’re shit at public education. Our health care system is both the most expensive and the least effective in the developed world. Literacy, infant mortality, per capita living below the poverty line and/or without any health insurance … etc., etc. We’re kind of horrible at a whole lot of things, if you want to be honest about it. We’re also, on average, fat as fuck.

Second, consider the absurdity of being proud over something that one did not do and had no control over (i.e., being born in America). But don't take my word for it. Instead, see what George Carlin had to say on the subject:



Have a good day, stay safe, and enjoy spending time with family and friends. Take pride in what you have accomplished (e.g., managing to break free from religious delusion), but don't get sucked into the mire of blind patriotism. I'll try to do the same.

H/T to toomanytribbles

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: America, American, fireworks, patriotism, pride, George Carlin

Related articles by Zemanta

• American War Propaganda Top Ten (oup.com)
• Four Freedom Movements You Should Know About This Independence Day (takepart.com)
• Celebrating the Fourth without a bang (cnn.com)

Image by Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com via Flickr

It is Saturday, and that means another helping of idiocy in the form of the Idiot of the Week series. Idiocy of this magnitude deserves attention, and that is exactly what it gets here each Saturday.

This week's winner is South Carolina's Republican Governor Mark Sanford but not for the reasons you are expecting. Sanford may have been competitive simply because he is a "family values" spouting hypocrite who went after former President Clinton with a vengeance and now refuses to step down himself. And yes, comparing himself to King David was certainly worthy of idiot gold. I will acknowledge that this hypocrisy was what initially brought him to my attention, but it isn't what put him over the edge for Idiot of the Week.

I actually feel somewhat sorry for Sanford. He clearly has not been in love with his wife for some time now, does not appear capable of leaving her to be with his "soul mate," and lacks the judgment to be quiet about it. What an awful predicament! Sanford wins the Idiot of the Week distinction for anchoring himself in a failed marriage when it seems quite obvious that his heart is elsewhere. He is not being fair to himself or his family here. Gov. Sanford, divorce your wife and pursue what makes you happy.

I do have to give Sanford credit for one other thing. The phrase, "hiking the Appalachian Trial" will live in infamy as a synonym for cheating on one's partner.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Image by Jon Person via Flickr

Christian extremist favorite, Sarah Palin, has resigned as Governor of Alaska amidst rumors that Todd Palin was "hiking the Appalachian Trail." Okay, the part about Todd is just in my head, but she really did resign.

This is great news for the people of Alaska. It is also likely to be great news for the Democratic Party if it has anything to do with Palin's plans to run for President in 2012.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Image by alles-schlumpf via Flickr

Most atheist blogs end up writing to their largely atheist audience. This is as it should be, but it is nice to address a different audience every once in awhile. Daylight Atheism has a great post written especially for religious people who find themselves doubting their faith, "To Those Who Doubt Their Religion," up now.

I wrote something similar in January of 2008 that I keep meaning to update: "Doubting Your Faith?" This is a good meme to spread, and I'm happy to see as impressive an atheist blog as Daylight Atheism doing so.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The presence of Christian trolls on this blog prompted me to develop the first draft of this comment policy in May of 2007. What you are reading now is the July 2009 revision.

Introduction

First and foremost, please understand that this is an atheist blog. I am an atheist, and the intended audience is made up of atheists, secular humanists, and other freethinkers. In fact, 88% of those who read this blog are atheists.

I welcome believers in various gods who are genuinely interested in learning something about atheism. However, those interested primarily in argument, antagonism, or proselytizing should go elsewhere. Blogs are not intended as places for readers to debate each other. If this is what you are seeking, check out this list of great forums. You'll see that some have entire areas devoted to debate.

What is a Troll?

There are several forms of blog trolls, ranging from those who engage in "drive-by link sharing" as a form of self-promotion to those who camp out and hurl insults, make threats, or otherwise try to disrupt the blog. Many trolls do not seem to understand how blogs work; others are bent on converting atheists to their particular brand of superstition. However, nearly all trolls share a common feature: They are not here to learn but to argue, and the nature of their argument is irrational.

The best way for rational readers to deal with blog trolls is to ignore them. This deprives them of what they want most - argument. But since many readers cannot resist engaging them, the following policy represents an alternative to full comment moderation.

Comment Policy

The following comment policy was adapted from Lifehacker, Making Light, and God is for Suckers!, with modification to increase applicability to this blog.

1. Stay on topic (i.e., the post topic).
   
2. Contribute new information to the discussion.
3. Don't comment just for the sake of commenting.
4. Know when to comment vs. when to e-mail the author. Use e-mail when what you want to say doesn't contribute to the public conversation.
5. Be respectful and remember that nobody likes a know-it-all.
6. Own your comment (i.e., anonymous commenting is discouraged and will probably not be allowed much longer).
7. Remember that brief comments are more likely to be read.
8. Be courteous and avoid personal insults.
9. Avoid Christianspeak. It makes you look stupid and contributes nothing of value.
10. Absolutely no religious proselytizing will be permitted here.
    
11. Do not feed the trolls. They thrive on argument (the less rational, the better) and will keep returning as long as they find folks willing to debate them. If you find yourself tempted to argue with a Christian troll, please read this first.
    

Minor violations may result in selective moderation of the violator, but more serious violations will result in deletion of offending posts. Repeat offenders may be banned if deemed necessary.

Tags: blog, blogging, comment policy, comment, Christian, atheist, troll

Image by karmablue via Flickr

It recently struck me that one of the recurrent themes that has surfaced again and again at Atheist Revolution involves the question of whether most Christians actually believe much of what they claim to believe. Not only have I written a few posts directly posing this question, but it seems to emerge in some posts and linger just beneath the surface in many others. As I look at it head on, I still do not feel like I have made much progress in finding a satisfactory answer.

Christian Hypocrisy

A common route to this question are the many examples of apparent Christian hypocrisy that show up here and on countless other atheist blogs. Mojoey at Deep Thoughts has done a commendable job tracking Christian hypocrisy, and he has much company throughout the atheist blogosphere.

Blatant examples of what appears to be Christian hypocrisy do make us wonder whether we are seeing genuine hypocrisy (i.e., someone who is acting contrary to a cherished belief) or something more akin to a con being exposed. Of course, it all looks like real hypocrisy because a good con is going to profess belief as well as the true believers.

When we see the parade of fallen pastors, we have to ask whether they really believe what they have been preaching. It often strikes us as more likely that they were simply saying what they needed to say in order to get close to their marks.

Not a "Real Christian"

As we know, whenever a Christian is caught doing something sufficiently bad, other Christians quickly conclude that the offender is "not a real Christian" because a "real Christian" could never do such a thing. This is a popular psychological defense mechanism among Christians and one that they sadly have ample opportunities to use.

These situations also bring up the question of whether many Christians believe what they claim to believe, only this time, the question is raised by other Christians. Surely, they insist, someone who really believes in the Christian god could not commit such acts. How can they have so little fear of hell?

When Behavior Betrays

We find beliefs useful primarily to the degree that they help us understand and ultimately predict behavior. If there was no relationship between what someone believed and how someone behaved, it would be hard to regard belief as relevant. We care about belief largely because it helps us predict behavior.

It is not surprising, then, to be puzzled when we encounter someone who is acting contrary to his or her professed beliefs. We wonder whether such an individual has been lying about what he or she believes, has not bothered to seriously consider the implications of his or her beliefs, or is impaired in some way.

Ken claims to be a "bible-believing Christian" who regards his preferred bible as the inerrant word of his particular god. And yet, he does not expect his wife to submit to him (Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:5, and 1 Peter 3:1), does not forbid her to wear jewelry (1 Peter 3:2-6), and would never dream of offering his daughters up to rapists (2 Peter 2:8. Ken helps his widowed sister out financially even though his bible says he should ignore her plight (1 Timothy 5:5-15). And believe it or not, Ken actually lets his wife come to church with him without either covering or shaving her head (1 Corinthians 11:5-7)! So much for taking his bible seriously, huh?

What are we to make of Ken? If he really believes that his bible is inerrant, he has a very odd way of showing it. His behavior is certainly not consistent with what he says about his beliefs.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: atheist, Christian, hypocrisy, belief, behavior, bible

Image via Wikipedia

In a comment on one of my posts on atheist-theist dialogue, J. R. Miller directed me to a related post on his blog, More Than Cake. After noting that there is a conflict within Christianity as to whether interfaith dialogue "has led some Christians to value appeasement over proclamation of the Gospel," Miller provides a list of eight conditions which he feels would be helpful in promoting effective dialogue.

I know that many of you will be tempted to immediately discount the idea of atheists participating in interfaith dialogue because you recognize that atheism does not involve any sort of faith. Fair enough. Still, I find Miller's conditions worth a look. Perhaps they have implications for productive atheist-theist dialogue. I wonder how our conditions would compare if we were to draft a similar list?

I also realize that it is difficult to get past some of Miller's assertions. Right off the bat, he presents us with this gem:

We cannot escape the necessity of our age to engage the culture with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This takes me back to my thoughts on the topic of proselytizing as compulsion. But I do find myself agreeing with at least some of his conditions.

Condition #1. Deal with the past, but don’t hold individuals responsible for it

If one is attempting to engage in meaningful dialogue with Christians, I see how bringing up references to the Crusades isn't likely to be helpful. Of course, Christians trying to claim that their religion has been good for the world may need reminding that this claim is not without great controversy.

Condition #2. Express agendas with honesty

I really like this one. Dialogue does indeed work better when agendas can either be set aside or at least brought out in the open. Unfortunately, Miller does not appear to care much for the idea of setting agendas aside.

My agenda is to share the salvation hope that comes only through the death and resurrection power of the Messiah–Jesus. This, for me, is the context for interfaith dialogue.

I don't know about you, but this is likely a deal breaker for me. Miller seems to be saying that he is either unable or unwilling to set this aside. I'm not sure how atheist-theist dialogue can proceed from this point.

But what about the atheist agenda? Well, there really isn't one, at least not one so organized or commonly accepted as Miller's. Some atheists simply want to be left alone (i.e., they don't want to hear about the "Messiah-Jesus"), others primarily want to secure atheist rights, and others work toward the gradual decline of religion's power. We're all over the place! If those of us open to the possibility of atheist-theist dialogue share a common agenda, my guess is that it would involve things like encouraging rational thought, presenting an alternative to belief in the supernatural, and attempts to demonstrate the error behind many atheist stereotypes.

We encounter a big stumbling point in Miller's explanation of Condition #5:

As a Christian, I believe in truth. I believe we can know truth. And I believe the truth is found in the person of Jesus Christ who lived, died, and rose from the dead 2000 years ago. BUT, knowing the Truth that is Jesus Christ, does not mean I have all the answers to every question of life.

This feels like a door being closed on the possibility of meaningful dialogue. I'm not sure where to go with this one. There is no evidence for anything close to the alleged resurrection of Jesus. This is a faith-based claim, and we know that faith is not a valid way of acquiring or verifying knowledge. Belief does not equal truth.

What do you think? What would atheist conditions look like, and is there any point to engaging in dialogue with someone who held onto Miller's conditions?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: interfaith dialogue, atheist-theist dialogue, communication, Christianity, religion, Jesus, atheists, atheism, faith

A common complaint heard by atheists any time someone introduces the idea of atheist pride is, "Why would I take pride in something I don't believe?" It is a viable question, but I think it misses the point. Sure, atheism is the lack of god belief, but most of those who would wear t-shirts like the one pictured here and available from Revolution Books (no affiliation with this blog) do so for an entirely different set of reasons. They typically do so to raise the visibility of atheism, to communicate to other atheists that they are not alone, and/or to show that they are not willing to go along with something which they might consider harmful.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Image via Wikipedia

Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, claims to have a direct line of communication to the Christian god. And just what is his god telling him to do now? According to Perkins, his god wants him to organize yet another national day of prayer (presumably because the one we just had worked so well). Under the name "Call2Fall," Perkins is hoping to organize his followers into one big Jesus fest on July 5, 2009. In this post, we'll take a look at an e-mail about the event Perkins recently sent to those he considers his supporters and have some fun with it.

What follows are excerpts from Perkins' e-mail...with commentary. You can find the entire e-mail on Pam's House Blend without contributing to traffic for Perkins' website.

The Lord has impressed on me the need for us, as followers of Jesus Christ, to take responsibility for the broken state of our nation and go to God. But we must go to Him on His terms, in humility, prayer, and repentance as outlined in 2 Chronicles 7:14. Then and only then can we claim the promise of God's forgiveness, healing and the renewal of our lives and our land.

So this all-powerful and loving god of yours essentially wants humanity to grovel before it. Even though this being could solve the problems to which you refer in an instant, what it really wants to see is humans begging.

The day after we celebrate our "Independence," we need to re-declare our "Dependence" upon God in humble and repentant prayer. At minimum, we hope that you will spend at least a few minutes literally on your knees in prayer during worship services on Sunday, July 5th.

Dependence on your god? No, not even you or your deluded followers are truly dependent on mythological creatures. You may find it useful for fundraising purposes to speak as if you were. I understand that. You have made quite an impressive living for yourself out of exploiting the weak-minded. But I think we all know that unless we are merely labeling nature as "god," we are not dependent on any supernatural entities.

Can you imagine what God would do if millions of Christians all across our land would actually do this and mean it?

Yes. Yes, I can. Absolutely nothing. But that suits you just fine, doesn't it? After all, when nothing happens, you can always twist it into evidence that not enough people participated, that they didn't pray correctly, or some other bit of willful trickery.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, prayer, Call2Fall, Christian extremism

Related articles by Zemanta

• National Day of Prayer (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Did you skip the National Day of (Conservative, Christian) Prayer? (dvorak.org)