Image via Wikipedia

For a variety of reasons, some Christians erroneously insist that atheism entails absolute certainty that no gods exist. This reflects either a misconception about the meaning of atheism or another less innocent motive. In fact, atheism does not require any particular level of certainty. All it requires is the failure to affirm belief in some sort of god(s).

Consider each of the following two questions for a moment, and notice the important difference between them?

1. Do you believe in some sort of god or gods?
2. Are you absolutely certain of your answer to question #1 to the degree that you have no doubt whatsoever that your answer is correct?

Only one of these questions is relevant to atheism. I'll give you a hint: it isn't the second one. Okay, that is not really fair. Both are relevant, but only the first is necessary to classify someone into the mutually exclusive categories of theist and atheist.

By definition, a theist is someone who believes in some sort of god or gods. That is, one must answer question #1 in the affirmative in order to be a theist. And yes, anyone who affirms question #1 is a theist.

Similarly, an atheist is someone who does not believe in some sort of god or gods. One who fails to affirm question #1 is, by definition, an atheist. Question #2 is relevant in that it contributes information about one's level of confidence, but this is not necessary in order to classify someone as theist or atheist.

One is a theist if one answers "yes" to question #1, regardless of how one answers question #2. Some theists do profess quite a bit of certainty; others report considerable uncertainty. Doing so does not make them any more or less of a theist, although we might call a theist who is very low on certainty an "agnostic theist."

Likewise, those who do not answer "yes" to question #1 are atheists, regardless of how they answer question #2. That is, atheism does not require any particular level of certainty. An atheist reporting low certainty might be called an "agnostic atheist," but that does not make him or her any less of an atheist.

We would not say that a Christian who experiences some doubts about her faith is suddenly no longer a Christian because she does not claim to be 100% certain. In the same way, an atheist who is not 100% certain (or uncertain, if you prefer) does not magically stop being an atheist.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: atheism, certainty, Christian, theism, doubt, belief, god

Image by nick see via Flickr

In commenting on a recent post at Deep Thoughts on the subject of the pervasive nature of religious symbols in the U.S., I found myself conflicted. On the one hand, I agree with most of the others leaving comments in that it is not the personal religious symbols that bother me but the government-sponsored ones. After all, the many freedoms we enjoy in the U.S. include freedom of expression and religious freedom. Government-sponsored displays of religion, however, are unconstitutional, exclusionary, and reflect extremely poor judgment. And yet, I have to admit that something bothers me about even the personal displays of religion.

To be perfectly clear, I love the fact that I live in a country where a Christian extremist can proudly wear a cross around her neck while wearing a Campus Crusade for Christ t-shirt and driving a car covered with Jesus propaganda. Seriously. I believe that our right to free expression is one of the things that gives the U.S. so much promise. If anything, I'd like to see this right expanded rather than curtailed. Regardless of how I might feel about the content of such a message, I am serious about preserving the right to display it.

So what bothers me about personal displays of religion? It bothers me that my right to express a different perspective is so fragile in comparison. Sure, I could adorn myself and by car with pro-atheist or even pro-science messages. I am free to do so in that arrest and imprisonment would be an unlikely outcome. However, I would also be far more likely to face discrimination, social ostracization, and assault for doing so (at least here in Mississippi) than would the Christian.

This difference is what bothers me. If I am expected to tolerate the near constant presence of pro-Christian imagery in my daily life (and I do not argue with such an expectation), then others should be expected to tolerate a pro-atheist or even anti-Christianity message that I might wish to broadcast without resorting to discrimination, vandalism, or violence. Unfortunately, many Christians are not exactly known for their tolerance of contrary viewpoints.

As Autarkis reminds us in a recent post on this subject at Some Steps Ahead,

You are just as valuable as any believer.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: religious, freedom, Christian extremist, propaganda, religion, atheist, vandalism

Related articles by Zemanta

• Bigotry and Religious Freedom (atheistrev.com)
• No Separation of Church and State at Mississippi Universities (msatheists.org)

Bay of Fundie has a great post about the tea party movement, "Teabagging with Jesus (Part 1)," that notes how racism has been involved from the beginning. This certainly seems to be the case. Sure, there are probably some people who turn up at these rallies because they are upset about having to pay for the governmental services from which they benefit. But the center of the movement seems involve a different sort of anger. After all, most of those who attend such rallies are paying lower taxes under Obama than they did under Bush. No, most of those in attendance seem to be upset about something else.

Bay of Fundie's thesis is as follows:

The whole teabagging movement has had racist overtones from the beginning. Whether they admit it or not, it’s mostly about white Americans feeling like a minority for the first time ever, and they aren’t happy about it. The anti-tax message is merely superficial. They’re actually tapping into some deep-seated frustration that has been brewing for a while. Anti-taxes is just one small part of what they’re pissed off about.

Not content to make such a claim and expect readers to accept it a face value, the post continues with support for the claim. Most of it comes from an analysis of the demographic characteristics of those participating in the tea parties.

Another far more obvious piece of evidence can be found in the messages of the teabaggers themselves. One merely has to read their signs and listen to their speeches to learn that many are deeply troubled by President Obama's race and the degree to which he is perceived as foreign. As Bay of Fundie highlights, the tea parties can be viewed as protests against multiculturalism.

When I look at the tea party movement, I experience two competing thoughts. First, I find myself thinking that even though I don't agree with their message, it is nice to see that somebody still gives enough of a damn about something to be willing to protest. Sure, many of these things look far more like political rallies than protests, but at least people are willing to get out there and express their discontent publicly. If only those of us who think President Obama is making himself an accomplice of Bush administration war crimes by refusing to demand accountability would do the same!

My second thought is that this sort of white, right-wing rage has been brewing for awhile and will probably get far worse before it finds resolution. Let's face it, a bad economy is an ideal breeding ground for this sort of thing, and the most optimistic among us agree that the economy is not going to rebound anytime soon. If conditions continue to worsen such that even larger numbers of people are out of work, things could get scary on the right-wing nutjob front.

In any case, I think the best course of action for those of us not interested in teabagging (outside of our personal sex lives) is probably one of cautious curiosity. We need to keep an eye on what is happening, and it would benefit us to try to understand what is driving the teabaggers. I do not think that there is cause for great concern yet, but that could change quickly.

The photo used in this post was taken by userjack6880 during a 2009 teabagging in Biloxi, MS

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Image by wallyg via Flickr

I suspect that any atheist who has brought up examples of Christian hypocrisy during interactions with Christians has heard some version of the "not a real Christian" claim. The idea is quite simple: "real Christians" do not do bad things and so anyone who does bad things is de facto not a "real Christian." The Christian making such a claim is willing to ignore the entire body of evidence supporting the perpetrator's Christianity prior to the bad act and dismiss it all because "real Christians" do not do whatever the perpetrator did. But there is another even more important way in which it is meaningful to discuss who is and is not a real Christian. There may even be a role for atheists can play in such a discussion.

If we view Christian belief along a continuum with liberal Christians on one end and fundamentalist Christians on the other, we typically see that each pole accuses the other of not being genuine Christians. Liberal Christians love to point out that the fundamentalist beliefs emphasize a wrathful Old Testament god and miss the compassionate character of Jesus. They criticize the fundamentalists for refusing to allow their religion to evolve with the times.

On the other hand, fundamentalist Christians are equally fond of criticizing the "cafeteria Christianity" practiced by liberal Christians. They accuse the liberals of simply omitting whatever parts of their bible suit them and failing to honor the divinely inspired word of their god.

Indeed, the tension between these two camps focuses on who has the right to regard oneself as a "real Christian." Each side views the other side as missing the point of Christianity and as not being true to the "holy" spirit.

I'd like to suggest that the part best played by atheists in this discussion is one of facilitator and critic. Simply put, we can encourage both sides to think. We can ask the liberal Christians how they justify ignoring the many parts of their bible with which they disagree, and we can ask the fundamentalists to consider the implications of a literal reading of the Christian bible in our modern world. We can ask the fundamentalist Christians why their god seems so angry and punitive when Jesus allegedly spoke of forgiveness, and we can ask the liberals why something "holy" seems to require so much interpretation.

At this point, you may be asking yourself why atheists should even care about this debate within Christianity? In my opinion, we should care because we live in a predominately Christian culture in which the nature of this debate has implications for us. The future of Christianity is relevant to us even as many of us hope to see a continued decline in its potency.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: atheist, real Christian, Christian, Christianity, debate, atheists, liberal, fundamentalist, bible

Image by Wonderlane via Flickr

One often hears that it is not religious belief itself that is problematic but religious extremism. That sounds appealing until one realizes that the presence of religious believers, including religious moderates, is what shields religious extremists from criticism. The presence of religious moderates provides a context in which extremism doesn't seem nearly as dangerous as it should. Moderate believers makes it far more difficult to question even the most extreme religious beliefs.

Isn't it a bit of an exaggeration to say that religious belief is dangerous? Maybe Islamic extremists are dangerous, but surely there is nothing wrong with Christianity! Let's examine the Christian bible:

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Fairly clear, isn't it? Christians are instructed in their "holy" bible to murder persons who do not believe in their god. Why haven't we heard more about this? Because many Christians are content to ignore certain parts of their bible while obsessing about others. And what of those who do not ignore such parts of their "sacred" text? We call them extremists.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Abrahamic God (atheistblogger.com)
• Do You Really Believe the Bible is True? (friendlyatheist.com)
• Death and the False Comfort of Faith (atheistrev.com)

Cover via Amazon

Uncovering evidence of another Christian extremist organization in the U.S. is not exactly newsworthy. There are many such groups, and they are nothing new. However, when the particular Christian extremist organization proves to be extremely secretive, proudly compare itself to the mafia, and counts many members of Congress among its members, one hopes that a flurry of investigative reporting would be unleashed. Moreover, one hopes that this investigative reporting would continue until all the information worth knowing about such a group becomes public. Now just imagine that the organization we're talking about also proves to be anti-democratic to the core.

Of course, we are talking about "the Family" and their insufficiently infamous C Street "church" for a number of conservative Christians in Congress. The problem with this group and the reason that we need to demand both serious investigative reporting and a dramatic increase in media coverage is not simply that this is a Christian dominionist organization. No, the real problems are that the group poses a clear and present danger to American democracy. They have been convincing our elected officials that they do not answer to us or to the laws we have enacted to preserve our society.

We simply cannot afford to ignore the Family, nor can we allow elected officials to continue to participate in such a group, without expecting seriously unpleasant consequences.

H/T to Stardust Musings and Thoughts for the Freethinker

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: C Street, Congress, government, Christian extremist, the Family, democracy

Related articles by Zemanta

• C Street religious cult (gods4suckers.net)
• God's Senators (firedoglake.com)
• C- Street, THE FAMILY, Home of hypocrites and fornicators - Just a reminder so no one forgets (iflizwerequeen.com)
• Jim DeMint and James Inhofe are members of the C-Street Cult (iflizwerequeen.com)

I don't post many videos here, but when a reader sent me this clip from the Chaser with a glowing recommendation, I figured I better watch it. It turns out the reader was right. This is way too good not to share.



Even though it is funny, it raises an important question which all "bible-believing" Christians should be asked: If you insist that your bible is the inerrant word of your god, why do you feel free to ignore much of what it says?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Misunderstanding science is a widespread problem, especially in the United States. Those of us who live here run into it again and again. Those of us tasked with teaching science often find it beyond frustrating, and yet, we persevere in the hope that we can make a difference. Thus, it is especially disheartening when we see influential freethinkers spreading misunderstandings about science.

John Shook, the Vice President and Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Inquiry Transnational, wrote a recent post in which he advocated for skepticism by spreading a common misconception about science that we are used to hearing from the faith-based community. Shook has a philosophy background rather than a scientific background, but I'd still hope such a prominent freethinker would be more careful.

Just what was Shook's error? After correctly highlighting the role of skepticism in the science, Shook writes,

There's too much loose talk about science proving theories. Actually, scientists spend most of their time trying to experimentally prove hypotheses false, especially their own hypotheses. Inability to prove one's hypotheses false after many kinds of trials against all available evidence, and getting confirmation of such trials by other researchers, is actually the path to reasonably establishing a hypothesis.

Actually, scientists spend most of their time testing hypotheses, not trying to prove or disprove anything. I understand what Shook is trying to accomplish here. By suggesting that scientists seek to prove their own hypotheses false, he is trying to dispel claims of bias. But this is not the most accurate way to explain the scientific method.

As scientists, we do not approach our work with grand designs about proving or disproving anything. "Proof" is a term one may encounter in philosophy or mathematics, but it is not one you will find scientists using much. We derive hypotheses carefully from the available scientific literature and test them, not solely though experimentation by with a host of research methods. We talk in terms of probabilities, significance levels, and effect sizes, not proof. When we find support for a hypothesis, we conduct more rigorous tests and publish the results to encourage others to do the same.

Now, this may seem like a minor quibble. Perhaps it is. The reason I raise it is that I see it feeding right into the constant tendency of the anti-science crowd to talk about proof. To the degree that "proof" plays any role in science, it would be way down the road at a point that most individual sciences would never see in their own research.

Another surprising error that has more to do with atheism than science:

With rival definitions of atheism now flourishing, I regard skepticism as the simplest broad category for including all disbelievers. You may prefer the label of "agnostic" while others are content with "atheist", but we are all skeptics towards the supernatural and paranormal.

Conflating atheism and skepticism is neither accurate nor helpful. One can be an atheist for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with skepticism. Atheism does not speak on the subject of the entire supernatural and paranormal. One can be an atheist while believing in UFOs, ghosts, alternative medicine, and a host of other absurdities. An atheist is someone who does not believe in gods. That's it.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: science, atheism, Center for Inquiry, skepticism, proof

Image via Wikipedia

It is difficult to imagine how freedom of the press can be reconciled with corporate ownership of virtually all media. After all, why would any self-respecting media baron want one of his so-called news programs to present negative coverage of the various corporations that make up his empire? It would be bad for business. Sadly, mainstream media has become a business, largely abandoning its once critical role as a meaningful check and balance on government. These days, the only way to even get the mainstream media to cover certain stories is to put so much public pressure on them that continuing to ignore a story becomes bad for business.

It is against this context that we learn of what should be a huge story but probably won't. According to the New York Times, the long-running feud between MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and the Fox "News" Channel's Bill O'Reilly came to an abrupt end in early June as a result of a meeting between GE and News Corp CEOs.

Let me be clear about one thing: I watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann almost every day, and I was getting sick and tired of his habit of making Fox "News" a story in nearly every broadcast. All it seemed to do was give Fox more publicity, and it rarely seemed newsworthy. From that perspective, I hope Olbermann will find something else to do besides engaging in the same sort of attack journalism for which he so often condemns Fox "News."

Setting that aside, however, there is an important story here. The forced reconciliation between Olbermann and O'Reilly appears to have resulted from a secretive deal reached by their respective CEOs because it was judged to be bad for business. Whether it was in any way newsworthy does not appear to have been considered. This was a business decision.

So here we have a clear example of the content of mainstream "news" media being influenced by corporate decisions about what is in their business interests. This is not censorship, so please don't make the mistake of using that label. But it is something that should nevertheless be a concern for those of us who think that the news media should be truly independent.

Big H/T to Glenn Greenwald (Salon.com) for bringing this to my attention

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: press, media, corporate, Fox News, MSNBC, Olbermann, O'Reilly, News Corp, General Electric, news

Related articles by Zemanta

• Murdoch and Immelt tried to broker MSNBC-Fox News peace accord (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
• Do MSNBC and Fox News Have a Deal? (mediabistro.com)
• Rupert Murdoch, Jeff Immelt Met To Broker MSNBC-Fox News Truce: Report (huffingtonpost.com)

Image via Wikipedia

It is time once again to announce this week's idiot. Here at Atheist Revolution, a new "winner" is named each Saturday. Competition was unusually stiff, and it seems to be getting progressively more difficult to select our idiot king.

Despite just having honored the entire birther movement last week, I have to go with Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) this week. It isn't just that he's feeding the birthers. It isn't even that he's talking out of both sides of his mouth, suggesting that Obama is an American citizen while continuing to spew birther nonsense. It is this:

What I don't know is why the president can't produce a birth certificate. I don't know anybody else that can't produce one. And I think that that's a legitimate question -- no health records, no birth certificate.

Rep. Blunt is free to despise everything Obama stands for, but by claiming that no birth certificate has been produced when we've all seen it is idiocy of the highest order.

As Fired Up Missouri says,

Either subscribe to the insanity. Or don't. There is no middle ground.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution