Christmas

Maybe it's the years raised in a primarily catholic home talking.

Maybe it's the traditional (fake) Christmas tree, with its star trek ornaments mixed among armies of santas and hosts of angels.

Maybe it's the music, with all it's cheesy traditional goodwill.

Maybe it's seeing my uncle, my aunts, and my parents again.

I don't really know what it is exactly that does it, but I really like Christmas.  For some it's a celebration of the birth of their manifest deity, while for others the season celebrates the shortest day of the year and the return of the sun.  Be it Yule, or Christmas, or Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa, for many it's a deep religious celebration.  For me, and many others, it's a celebration of togetherness, of family and friends, and of love.  For all the stress, and rampant commercialism, and rampant religious fundamentalism, it still has that joyous allure for me, and while I'm right there with my fellow atheists in arguing for separation of church and state, and demanding we respect all the different traditions during this time while keeping the "christ" out of "christmas," as that special day nears I find myself caring less and less about the politics of it and more about that simple togetherness.

I'll be seeing my Uncle this Christmas Eve.  My uncle is fun, and I love seeing him every Christmas.  He's also a fundamentalist conservative Christian.  He's also a former hippie.  He's ridiculous in so many ways, yet I still love seeing him.  Every year there's worry of drama, of him finally confronting me, of me finally telling him that I'm an atheist and I don't give a damn about his stories of my miracle birth due to his prayers, or of us simply going at it over the dinner table as we argue one way or the other.  It hasn't happened yet, even though I've been a nonchristian for many years.  Does he know I'm not christian?  I think he may suspect it, but I doubt he realizes I'm a dyed-in-the-wool atheist.  Does it matter?  No, not really.  Even though there may come a christmas where we end up having that confrontation, I'm still happy to see him.  He's fun and I like him.  I like his wife, my aunt.  I like his sister, who is far more liberal and far more entertaining.  I like seeing them all, because it's Christmas.

This Christmas eve I'll be eating carrot pudding, watching A Christmas Carol (the original black and white version.  My family are purists for the classic), and enjoying one another's company.  Things will have changed.  This Christmas my grandmother won't be at her house.  I won't be obligated to take her portion of christmas dinner down to her.  She's not well and it won't be quite the same, but I'll still get to see her.  This Christmas will also bring newer blessings with it.  Tomorrow I drive to the airport to pick up my girlfriend, who will be spending Christmas with us.  She'll get to meet my parents for the first time, see the house I grew up in, and will be a new addition to my christmas tradition.  I like that.  My Christmas will be different, but it will not be bad.

Twenty years ago I cared about presents and loathed the ceremony of Christmas dinner.  I barely remember it.
Ten years ago I was still a catholic and was home for winter break after my first semester at Gonzaga.  I was going to be a famous writer one day and majored in English.
Five years ago I was so very, painfully new age, and I was just going back to school after a very long break, having left Gonzaga for various reasons.
Two years ago I was still religious, but only barely, and I had decided I loved science more than english.
A year ago I was an atheist, and knew that I loved science more than teaching.
Today I am still an atheist, and still remain committed to my goals from a year ago.  What is new is my beautiful girlfriend, who makes me feel like I can accomplish anything.

Looking around me, at the tree I decorated, at the life I had before and the life ahead of me, at the dining room table I grew up sitting at, I feel joyous.

Merry Christmas to some, and to the rest may you feel joy in whatever way you choose.

Don't give money to fetus-killers!

Ruh Roh.  Some funding from some bibles supported an organization that supports a program that happens to be put on by an organization that also sometimes provides abortions:

A Christian publisher is withdrawing copies of the "Breast Cancer Awareness Bible," from stores because the Bible helped raised money for the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which contributes to Planned Parenthood.

Oh, well, it's Planned Parenthood, and that's a bad name among Christians.  They probably put all of those funds to aborting fetuses and dancing naked in a wiccan circle, the heathens.  So I guess it's okay.

"Though we have assurances that Komen's funds are used only for breast-cancer screening and awareness, it is not in keeping with LifeWay's core values to have even an indirect relationship with Planned Parenthood," he said

Oh, so the money's all going to breast cancer screening and research?  Well...but it is Planned Parenthood, and they're evil bastards, what with the aborting and promoting promiscuity and whatnot.  Just fund some other company doing breast cancer screening and research.

"In all cases, Komen funding is used exclusively to provide breast cancer programs, including clinical breast exams conducted by trained medical personnel," stated the release. "It's important to note that Komen will only make grants to non-profit organizations. As many mammography providers are for-profit entities, we are only to fund mammography services through grants made to local non-profit service providers."



As long as there are vulnerable communities in need, said the release, "Komen will fund the facilities that can best meet those needs."

So you're saying that you really just went for the group that's going to do the most good in the community?  Well, okay then, but still, our Bible-money shouldn't go to such an evil, underhanded organization, no matter how much good it does!

The Komen Foundation issued a statement Thursday afternoon contending that there were "no dollars going to Planned Parenthood programs" from sales of the Bibles.

...crap.

So basically the Bibles were pulled from the shelves because a portion of proceeds went to an organization that redistributed said funds to nonprofits that would help with breast cancer screenings, awareness, and the all-important research....but that organization sometimes put funds into Planned Parenthood-sponsored breast cancer clinics.

How very righteous of them.

Reason clouded by hate.

There are days I really dislike some of my fellow atheists.  This is one of those days.

During Skepticon (a convention I really wish I could go to one year), a Gelato store owner a block away posted this obviously offensive, mockworthy sign.

Skepticon is not welcomed to my Christian Business

This emphasizes my previous complaint about atheists being treated as vile, untrustworthy, generally-not-nice people, and when I first saw the blog post displaying the photo my immediate reaction was to laugh, discount the guy as a bigot, and move on with my day.  I gave it no more thought until I saw this (apparently) genuinely honest apology from said store owner.

To the World:

Hello, my name is Andy and I’m the owner of Gelato Mio, a gelato shop located in Springfield, Missouri. There has been quite a lot of buzz and discussion concerning a picture of the sign I briefly posted in my front window Saturday evening. I’d like to take this opportunity to tell my story and offer a heartfelt apology to your community. I messed up, plain and simple. This is NOT an excuse, but how it happened from my perspective.

I decided to welcome the convention downtown by offering the attendees 10% off their purchases at my store. A lot of the group from the convention were stopping by, being very polite and enjoying my Gelato. Saturday night started out as a great night. Once the store slowed down, I decided to walk down the street to learn more about the convention, fully thinking it was something involving UFOs (“skeptics”). What I saw instead was a man conducting a mock sermon, reading the bible and cursing it. Instead of saying “Amen”, the phrase was “god damn”. Being a Christian, and expecting flying saucers, I was not only totally surprised but totally offended. I took it very personally and quickly decided in the heat of the moment that I had to take matters into my own hands and let people know how I felt at that moment in time.

So, I went quickly back to my business, grabbed the first piece of paper I could find, wrote the note and taped it in my front window. This was an impulsive response, which I fully acknowledge was completely wrong and unacceptable. The sign was posted for about 10 minutes or so before I calmed down, came to my senses, and took it down. For what it’s worth, nobody was turned away. I strongly believe that everybody is entitled to their beliefs. I’m not apologizing for my beliefs, but rather for my inexcusable actions. I was wrong.

Guys, I really don’t know what else I can do to express my apologies. I’ve received dozens of calls and hundreds of emails since the incident, and have done my best to reply to each and every one and express my regret for what happened. For the thousands of you whom I’ve offended, I sincerely apologize. I hope you can find it in your hearts to forgive me. This is me as a human being sincerely apologizing for my actions.

To those of you who accept my apology, Thank You; it means a lot. To those of you who haven’t, I hope you will. I’m just a 28 year old small business owner who made a big mistake. I hope you see that I have not made any excuses, I’ve owned up to what I did, and I apologize.

For what it’s worth, an Atheist reached out to me to help me work through all of this and contact your community directly. I graciously accepted his offer.

I will give everyone who comes to my store this week 10% off as a token of my apology. Really, what’s more universal than ice cream?

Sincerely, Andy

Good for him.  Maybe it's clever PR trying to get past the stigma he placed on his shop, but it seems to me like the guy had a gut reaction, overreacted, and wanted to express his apologies for being a douchenozzle.  I think most reasonable people would take it at that, understanding that when we get offended, we tend not to think rationally.  This isn't a christian condition, so much as it's a human condition.  If someone attacks something you value, the first reaction is almost always to go on the defensive.  I know I have on more than one occasion, and I've seen it in my believer and nonbeliever friends.  This is part of my issue with the notion of the sacredness of anything.  If we allow ourselves to be offended by ill-treatment of objects, it clouds our judgement and keeps us from being logical about the issue.  He was affected by this ill logic due to the mistreatment of his sacred book, and overreacted.  The logical response was to understand, shrug it off, and move on with our lives.

PZ Myers doesn't agree:

There is an asymmetry here. GelatoGuy lives in one of the most religious countries on earth, in a particularly intensely religious part of that country, and in a moment of smug self-righteousness, felt he could openly discriminate against people who do not respect his beliefs. And now he thinks he can walk away, forgiven, and return to his blithe happy Christian pocket universe, just by saying a few words. And we, of course, will turn around and think he’s a nice , sincere, classy guy.

Meanwhile, we will still be regarded as the least trustworthy minority in the country; we still have to deal with the fact that we are excluded from the political discourse; we still have to walk into courtrooms with the ten commandments on display; we have to watch these nice, sincere, classy people elect gay hating bigots, anti-science know-nothings, and flaming misogynists to high office…but hey, they’ll apologize to our faces when they risk losing our business. And then go back to church to listen to their priests fulminate against the godless, go into the voting booth and vote against civil rights, go to their school board and piously try to ram their faith into our children’s faces.

I understand his rage.  Christianity as a whole has a very cushy position in America, and the kind of discrimination he displayed is fairly common in certain parts of the US.  Atheism as a movement is regarded poorly, and people think poorly about us.  Yet it seems that PZ and others have lumped all Christians into the same category: people in Jesus-bubbles who can't see atheists in any kind of positive light.  I understand that sentiment, too.  My own mother had the emotional reaction that she was a failure as a parent because I turned to atheism.  Eventually she came to understand and respect my decision, and we're past that point, but that gut reaction is a common problem that many believers share.  Becoming an atheist is like becoming a convicted criminal to many.  You've gone down a notch in the quality of your character by becoming one.

So yes, PZ is very much in the right to be offended, but the offense of the many does not justify disrespecting a single man who, while somewhat prejudiced against us, openly admitted that what he had done was wrong.  Whether he feels we're immorally bankrupt, he acknowledges that treating us like second-class citizens is inappropriate.  No one should discredit this man for being offended.  He has the right to be offended.  Hell, he should have been.  From what I understand, it was intended to be an offensive piece.  He made a really dumb, bigoted mistake, and owned up to it.  What's more awesome than that?

I really like "friendly atheist" Hermant Mehta's take on it:

No one’s letting Andy off the hook for being a bigot. He still disapproves of atheism. Who cares. The point is that he (now) knows that his act of discrimination was wrong. We ought to show some appreciation when someone admits they made a mistake, even if the person isn’t completely on our side of the big picture. The next step is to get him to realize why there’s nothing wrong with what was said at Skepticon in the first place, but that’s a separate battle.

What I don't like is what one of his commentors said:

I completely disagree that this makes everything okay. Say he heard that Pride Day was going on and thought it was some patriotic gathering; he instead saw gay couples kissing, and subsequently banned them from his establishment as a kneejerk panicked response? That would not be quickly forgiven, likely by many; why should this be treated any differently when the bigotry was just as real?

I see a couple of key differences here.  The first is that gay couples kissing is not designed nor intended to offend, just as skeptical people sitting down and talking about the flaws of religion or generally making logical arguments are not designed to offend.  The second is that yes, I think the example she gave here should be treated with the same level of forgiveness.  People can be dumb and bigoted, and cutting them off doesn't give them the exposure to get past those prejudices and move past a place of ignorance and into a place of knowledge.  PZ may think people should be confronted with full-frontal atheism from the get-go...

Perhaps, on the schedule, we could print little chili peppers next to the titles of the talks? No peppers means it will praise Jesus, five peppers means the content will send any Christian listeners straight to hell?

I find this whole idea far more offensive than what GelatoGuy did — it is atheists and skeptics rushing to self-censor themselves, to mark some of their ideas as publicly shameful, and to acquiesce to ignorant public opinion. I’m not going to support that kind of behavior at all: sure, welcome the public, including delicate Christians like GelatoGuy, to the event, but don’t coddle them. This is who we are. Be proud.

 

...and I can appreciate that sentiment.  Yet it's not offensive to suggest that he first listen to a milder voice of atheism.  People view atheists as belligerent, condescending assholes, and the best way to break a prejudice like that is to show someone an example of an atheist who isn't a belligerent, condescending asshole.  We can be proud of who we are yet also be reasonable people, starting with little baby-steps and moving onto the great leaps of grokking our ideas.  I became an atheist because of reasonable people who didn't push me, followed by belligerent assholes who challenged me.  I think there's plenty of room for the dicks of the atheist community just as there's room for the "accomodationists," and for PZ to think that being accomodating and friendly is worthy of rage is deeply offensive and, dare I say it, foolish.

There's got to be a middle ground somewhere.  There's room enough in this movement for the obnoxious and the soft-spoken, for the belligerent and the peaceful, for the offensive and the accomodating.  Yet even the most obnoxious shouldn't look at a man's apology as a reason to condemn him.  Give him a bloody chance to grow from this experience and realize that being an atheist doesn't make us immoral, indecent, or evil.

Smut for Smut?

I'm conflicted on this in a lot of different ways:

At the University of Texas San Antonio campus, a college atheist group is offering students pornography in exchange for Bibles, Korans, or other religious texts. The group, Atheist Agenda, calls the exchange "Smut for Smut".

Group members claim that the Bible and other religious texts are just as as smutty as any pornography. According to the group, the Bible contains all sorts of misogyny, violence, torture and questionable sexual practices.

My first reaction to this activity was amusement, I'll admit.  There's nothing better than irreverence in comedy, and I find many things offensive to be quite funny, really.  It's clever, has a catchy slogan, and overall entertaining to think about.  I'd probably trade in a bible for porn just for the shock value alone.  Let's face it: making fun of religion is funny.  If it wasn't, I wouldn't laugh my ass off every time I heard this song:

(The animation in particular makes me giggle)

That said, I also wonder if this is as inappropriate as the qu'ran burning  last year was.  The two incidents bear some striking resemblances, as both involve desecrating what people consider sacred.  Is it as tasteless, or is there a difference in that one is rife with hypocrisy and the other treats everything as irreverent?  It's a worthy question for contemplation, and one I don't really have an answer to.  The only thing I do know is that the inappropriateness is irrelevant, because both activities are and ought to be legal.  None are truly harmed by the burning of the Qu'ran or the trading of bibles for porn, and while I equally support the right of others to protest these actions, there is and should not be anything wrong with the atheist organization doing this.  Reverence belongs to the believer, and has no place in the eyes of the nonbeliever nor the government.

At least that's my take on things.  What do you think about this incident?  Kosher or not?  I haven't given it enough thought to come to a full-on conclusion yet, and I'd like to hear the input of my friends. :)  

Well, Golly, I guess I'm still here.

My bags were packed and everything.  Legitimately so were those of many others.

"I do not understand," said Robert Fitzpatrick, a 60-year-old MTA worker from Staten Island, said after the Rapture never arrived. "I do not understand why nothing has happened."
"I had some skepticism but I was trying to push the skepticism away because I believe in God," said Keith Bauer, who drove his family across the country from Maryland to California for the supposed Rapture to visit Camping's Oakland headquarters of Family Radio International.
"I was hoping for it because I think heaven would be a lot better than this earth," he said.

This is the danger of belief when not tempered with some logic and rationality.  I'm not against belief, only the blind faith that refuses to look at the evidence, such as Camping's previous erroneous claims.  This is a lot like the wish fulfillment hopes that the Rabbi vs Atheist debate I linked to last week talks about.  (Seriously, if you haven't gone and watched the video, it's well worth it).

News around Bastrop

The local newspaper continues to cover Damon Fowler's protest.  For the first time since this began, though, they actually covered the issue from a slightly positive angle.

Within hours after the public learned that the prayer had been removed from the program, principals in the story began receiving hundreds of e-mails of support for the student’s decision to, as Christina Niermann stated, “... finally gain the courage to speak out.”

What really chokes me up is a reported letter from Michelle Robinson, a local, self-professed Christian.  Unlike the more vocal majority,  Robinson was in support of Damon.  Even though she reports that she doesn't have a personal problem with the prayer,

“... I shudder to think of what would happen if a MUSLIM or JEWISH prayer was read. Because of that we must be free of all religious influence in our public institutions. My church will always stand strong and so will my faith. Keep your government out of my religion and I will keep my religion out of your government.”

 The wording is a little iffy, but I understand and respect the sentiment.  Robinson is clearly strongly religious, and holds convictions I no doubt disagree with, but this is a person who is at the very least trying to find that middle ground, to respect the secular law while still holding strongly to their own personal convictions.  It's a little judgmental, but being judgmental really only seems to be wrong when it's a stance one disagreed with.  So yeah, thank you, Michelle Robinson, for proving that not every Christian in Bastrop, LA is completely insane.

Of course, the newspaper also includes an opinion piece by a local pastor, and I don't really know what to make of it.  Ok, well, I do know what to make of it.  It's kinda icky.

As followers of Jesus Christ we should not be surprised of the secular world’s resistance to our beliefs.  The movement of Christianity has met resistance at every turn.  Jesus Christ himself was rejected and removed from many portions of society.

He warned his disciples and future Christians of the resistance we would face related to our faith.  In the Bible Jesus said “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”  (John 16:33)  The power of evil through Satan is largely at work to hinder the love of Jesus in this world.  Anything God is for, Satan is against. Anything Satan is for, God is against.  Scripture warns us time and time again to expect resistance and to persevere in the Christian faith.

The "Christians are so persecuted" complex that seems to pervade religious thought in america is bullshit.  If you want to talk about persecution, move to Iraq or some other strongly Muslim country where your life is at risk for being Christian.  Being denied public, government sponsored prayer is not persecution.  Get over yourselves.  Being told your beliefs are stupid is not persecution.  It's called being in america, where open discourse involves open criticism.  Yuck.

The graduation is today, and I'm sure there will be a video or two of the actual ceremony.  I'll probably post one more response on that this evening, and that will be it.  I can't help but be passionate about this.  I call myself an atheist but don't feel any strong drive to be vocal about it or challenge religion in general.  What I do feel strongly about is the secular condition of our nation, and any efforts by any aspect of that government to sponsor prayer or deny others from personal prayer is anathema to me.

A friend asked me regarding this, "What if they do as Damon Fowler fears, and have a large group of students loudly start praying during the moment of silence."  Although I find that in poor taste, as long as it's not being led by someone (even another student) in a way that could be construed as being sponsored by the school, I think they legally have the right to do that.  It's crude, mean, and spiteful (all the things that make up a good prayer in Louisiana, I guess?), but I don't think it's illegal.

I shouldn't be surprised.

I really shouldn't, not when it comes to people from Louisiana.  The folks at Bastrop High School that I talked about earlier decided to pray in spite of the principal's decision during Senior night.  Watch the video.



Ugh.  I don't normally get angry, but this just makes me furious.  It's blatantly disrespectful, not to mention illegal.  I don't have a problem with these people wanting to pray, but when the government (in the form of a high school here) actively sponsors or allows a captive audience, they break the establishment clause.

Damon Fowler continues to astound me with his courage:

Back from Class Night... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaD8iQFaw7I&feature=youtube_gdata_playerDealt with people staring at me, calling me names, talking about me behind my back (even teachers). I'll walk across that stage tomorrow, whether they want me to or not.

I can't even begin to imagine living in that environment, to have my teachers berate me like that.  I went to a catholic high school, and the teachers would never have treated an atheist student like that; in fact, one of my best friends was an atheist and he never once was treated with anything but the utmost respect.  Those teachers should be ashamed of themselves.  If there is a christian God, I'm sure Jesus is.

Remember the Establishment Clause? Damon Fowler does.

Damon Fowler is a brave student.  Living in the bible belt, he demanded that administration-endorsed prayer be removed from his graduation commencement.

My graduation from high school is this Friday. I live in the Bible Belt of the United States. The school was going to perform a prayer at graduation, but due to me sending the superintendent an email stating it was against Louisiana state law and that I would be forced to contact the ACLU if they ignored me, they ceased it. The school backed down, but that's when the shitstorm rolled in. Everyone is trying to get it back in the ceremony now. I'm not worried about it, but everyone hates me... kind of worried about attending graduation now. It's attracted more hostility than I thought.
My reasoning behind it is that it's emotionally stressing on anyone who isn't Christian. No one else wanted to stand up for their constitutional right of having freedom of and FROM religion. I was also hoping to encourage other atheists to come out and be heard. I'm one of maybe three atheists in this town that I currently know of. One of the others is afraid to come out of the (atheist) closet.
Though I've caused my classmates to hate me, I feel like I've done the right thing. Regardless of their thoughts on it, basically saying I am ruining their fun and their lives, I feel like I've helped someone out there. I didn't do this for me or just atheists, but anyone who doesn't believe in their god that prayer to Yahweh may affect.
Moral of the story: though the opposition may be great, majority doesn't necessarily mean right. Thank you for reading. Wish me luck at graduation.
EDIT: Well, it hit the fan a couple hours ago. They've already assembled a group of supporters at a local church and called in the newspaper. I've had to deactivate my Facebook account and I can't reason with any of them. They refuse to listen. The whole town hates me, aside from a few closet atheists that are silently supporting, which I don't blame them looking at what I've incited here. Thanks for the support though.
If anyone would like to offer support, the superintendent is who I emailed and the school's website is mpsb.us
Thanks for the support. It's really helping. This has just gotten sickening.
Edit: I've had requests for my Facebook info... I don't mind giving that out at all. Damon Fowler - Bastrop, LA. I could use all of the support I can get. Not sure if this link will work: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001146281052

The guy has serious courage to stand up to his entire class, knowing he's getting ostracized for it.  Of course, the local news paints things against him.

Mitzi Quinn has been on the staff at BHS for almost 25 years, much of that time as a senior advisor. In the past, Quinn said there have been students who were atheist, agnostic and other non-Christian religions who “had no problems” with the prayer.


“They respected the majority of their classmates and didn’t say anything,” Quinn said. “We’ve never had this come up before. Never.”

She sounds so shocked.  With an environment like the Bible belt and the way people there were and are treated for being atheist, being vocal about your rights is a dangerous, humiliating task.  I'm grateful that I've never had to live in a part of the nation where being atheist marks you as a second class citizen, and where speaking out would give you this kind of negative attention.  The worst part about Mitzi Quinn's response, though, was this:

“And what’s even more sad is this is a student who really hasn’t contributed anything to graduation or to their classmates,” Quinn said.

This woman is an educator (an english teacher according to the school's website) and she treats one of her own students in such a disparaging way.  This argument only serves to make the student feel bad and offers no real substance.  It is despicable.  I messaged Damon Fowler with some small words of encouragement, but I also e-mailed Mitzi Quinn.  I encourage you to also e-mail Ms. Quinn yourself (mquinn@mpsb.us) and let her know that this is absolutely inappropriate.  A school should be a welcoming environment for any student, no matter their faith.  Here's my e-mail to her.

______________________________

Ms. Quinn,

I'm writing to you regarding your comments on the Bastrop Enterprises website regarding Damon Fowler's demand that prayer be removed from commencement. (http://www.bastropenterprise.com/features/x2132687894/Student-challenges-prayer-at-Bastrop-graduation).  While I certainly respect your disagreement with the student in question, I find your treatment of the student to be entirely unprofessional and inappropriate.  To say that the student in question "really hasn’t contributed anything to graduation or to their classmates" is an inappropriate and hurtful statement directed to one of your students that is altogether questionable.  Whether you agree with his stance or not, there is no reason to ever throw ad hominems at the young students that you are supposed to be supporting.

Beyond that, he is in the right to protest.  If a school were to have a prayer to Allah, or to Vishnu, or to the Goddess of many Pagan faiths, you would feel any student would be within their rights to protest and rightly so, even if that student were the only non-muslim/hindu/pagan in the school.  The right of the students and parents to pray during graduation has not been impacted, only the official state endorsement of the prayer.  I trust you are a reasonable woman, and I ask that you listen to reason in this regard and offer a public apology for speaking rudely to one of your students, even as you strongly and passionately disagree with him.

Regards, 

David Merriam

Thoughts on an afterlife

There's a really nifty video involving debate between a pair of rabbis and two prominent atheists, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.  I know it's a little dated (although Hitchens is still dealing with cancer here, he looks a lot better than I've heard he's been doing lately), but it's the first time I've had a chance to sit down and really listen to it.  It's good.  Really good.  I think anyone listening will think their "side" of the argument won the debate.  I like that quite a lot, since it means that the unbiased listener should (hopefully) walk away with some different arguments from both sides.

If you don't listen to the whole thing, at least listen for the first 6 minutes or so.  Sam Harris speaks so very eloquently in a way I'm inclined to agree:

The afterlife comes into the midst of this reality as a promise that all of this is going to make some sense in the end, that somehow at the end of existence we're all going to be let in on the punchline and have a mightly laugh with the almighty god for eternity.  Now there's no evidence for that and I think therefore that this concept of the afterlife really functions as a substitute for wisdom, as a substitute for really absorbing our predicament that everyone is going to die.  There are circumstances that are just catastrophically unfair.  Evil sometimes wins and injustice sometimes wins and the only justice we are going to find in the world is the justice we make and I think we have an ethical responsibility to absorb this really down to the souls of our feet, and this notion of an afterlife, the happy thought that it's all going to work out and it's all part of god's plan, is a way of shirking this responsibility.

This is the crux of my problems with the afterlife.  There are a lot of other people who seem smarter and wiser than I who assert that they are comfortable with the idea of everything just ending when you die, but it's a concept I've struggled with and will undoubtedly continue to struggle with.  I do not like the idea of my own mortality, yet somehow I equally do not like the idea of my own immortality.  No matter how I feel about this inimical shadow of death, though, my desires should not rule over my wisdom.  I don't want to cease existing, but the truth of the matter is, as far as I can tell, I will at some point.  There would be no greater surprise nor greater joy to find consciousness is not tied to the mind, but I have to be honest about what I see.  If it turns out the joyous surprise is real, then I can enjoy that after I die.  If it is not, then I will be gone and there will be no agony nor pain to worry about.

Some of the rabbis' points are really quite good, too.  Bradley Artson Shavit makes a very good counter-argument to the statement that religion is man made 38 minutes in:

As you say, it's man made, and I agree, it is man made, as is medicine and law. But the solution to bad medicine and bad law is not to get rid of it, the solution is to have open discussions and continue to refine it and surpass it.

 Kudos to Hitchens for quoting Star Wars and saying, "I can quote literature and scripture, too."

Also, much love for David Wolpe.  I know nothing of him outside of this, but he took the debate with a great amount of cheer and good humor, and I can respect him for that.  He also made a really good argument towards the end about how you should not bother with anyone who argues their stance from logic and reason and your own from psychology, playing you as the weak-minded one.  "There are believers in the afterlife who are weak and fearful, there are believers in the afterlife who are courageous and strong.  There are atheists who are weak and fearful, there are atheists who are courageous and strong."  Seriously, major kudos for arguing that point.  Additionally, his statement, "Can we all agree that whether there's an afterlife or not, the point of life is to live in such a way that you deserve one?" is quite possibly my new favorite line.

There's a lot of brilliant quotes from both sides that I didn't include.  Even though it's an hour and a half long, it's really worth listening to!

Whatsoever you do to the least...

I'd like to think, as far as atheists go, that I'm pretty reasonable.  In that light, I'd like to think my displeasure at reading this is also fairly reasonable.

Well, yesterday's sermon was a big hit! We had a mass execution of 200 feeder fish that I pulled out of a fish tank and then threw all over the floor. The kids were in shock and then started to pic them up and put them back into the fish tank. Obviously, most of them died in the effort…the point however was made that they cared ore about .15 cent feeder fish then they do about their friends dying w/o Christ.

Pardon my language as I say "What the fuck?"

As far as I'm able to discern, this is a real event that happened with the Main Street Christian Church in Russiaville, Indiana.  I don't have a lot of details since they've turned their profile to private and I can't see the original thread (though it's been linked to on numerous different sites, just do a google search for any or all of the above text), though, so I can't confirm.  I'd like this to be a joke of some kind designed to make religious zealots look foolish, but I suspect it's all too true.

The really bad thing I see about this is how it related to the children.  The animals themselves suffered needlessly, which is bad, but the children were directly confronted with this pain, which was worse.  I remember my time in catholic elementary school, and I clearly remember that my pastor was a man who could do no wrong.  I was taught he was a holy man with a connection to God, and it wasn't until I grew older that I came to accept him as a man and not some divine figure.  The fact that it was this pastor who was deliberately cruel to these animals tells the children that it's okay to be deliberately cruel, especially if it's to make a point related to God.  How will that message be received by these children?

The torture of the animals directly is a more tricky subject.  We utilize animals for a number of purposes in our lives, from food to clothing to scientific experimentation, and it's not always pleasant for them.  I've looked at live goldfish under microscopy before, and I doubt the experience was a pleasant one for them, but it aided my learning and I feel no guilt for causing them temporary discomfort for the sake of furthering my education.  Animal experimentation in major laboratories is a very real thing, and people fish with live worms as bait.  Still, I think what really gets me about this case is the vast number of animals brought to suffer for a purpose that could just as easily be demonstrated by words or even in a way that utilized animals but brought no lasting harm to any of them.  To talk about a "mass execution" and tie it in as a "big hit" seems a break in thinking to me, not because animals were harmed but because the animals were harmed without any regard to their well-being.

It's ok that we use animals for a variety of things in our daily lives, but I worry about the philosophy that leads to the willful disregard for the suffering of any creatures.  Our willingness to cause harm to any animal without respect for life numbs us to suffering, and we should be aware of that.  Animals suffer due to our advances and our well-being, but those who work with them should always treat them with respect and minimize suffering as much as is realistic.

As a final point, the argument the pastor made was a very weak one at that.  The goldfish were not capable of telling these children to leave them alone, and probably would not have done so if they could.  The analogy to "friends dying without Christ" is flawed here because we are perfectly capable of telling people to leave us alone.  I respect a person who believes that I'm going to suffer forever trying to reach out to me, but when I say I'm not interested, I expect you to respect me in return by not pressing the issue.

In happier news, here's some pictures of animals with stuffed animals.