12.31.08
Posted in Politics at 8:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
This isn’t really atheist-related.
A couple nights ago, Rachel Maddow was discussing the Israel/Hamas situation on her show. She opened with a brief overview of what the fighting is all about.
I thought it was easy-to-follow and really informative. Is it simplified? Absolutely. But in five minutes, not bad at all.
So for anyone who reads headlines with the words “Middle East,” “Hamas,” “Fatah,” “Israel,” “Palestinian,” and then skips to another story because you have no idea what’s going on, check this out:
Permalink ~
Posted in Dating, General, Trina Hoaks at 4:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
(This is a guest post by Trina Hoaks. Trina is the Atheist Examiner at Examiner.com.)
…
In her article, Darwin shouldn’t be hijacked by New Atheists — he is an ethical inspiration, Madeleine Bunting accuses atheists of using Darwin as their poster boy, so to speak. With this in mind, it is not so hard to understand why she has such a bad reputation in certain circles. Her article, if nothing else, can be seen as controversial, as the original article has generated approximately 600 comments since it was posted yesterday. Add to that another 100+ comments to the same article on Richard Dawkins‘ site and it is obvious that people are outraged.
It is funny how she, who accused atheists of kidnapping Darwin and his work, used the upcoming 2009 dual Darwin anniversary as an excuse to point her condemning finger at atheists.
Pot, kettle — kettle, pot?
In her article, she pretends to know what Darwin’s reaction to atheists embracing his work would be. She said that “what would have baffled Darwin is his recruitment as standard bearer for atheism in the 21st century.”
I suppose now we can add the title “Psychic” to her professional repertoire.
She went on to say:
Yet bizarrely, the whole 19th-century collapse of faith is now pinned on Darwin. While he was poring over his pigeons, biblical scholars were hard at work radically revising the historical understanding of the Bible and arguably doing as much as he ever did to undermine the possibility of a literal reading of scripture. The work of the Victorian geologist Charles Lyell debunked the idea of seven days of creation in Genesis long before Darwin.
Does anyone else sense Bunting’s downplay of the significance of Darwin’s contribution to the understanding of life in her paragraph? Perhaps it was just poor wording choice on her part or faulty inference on my part. Speaking of “poor wording choice,” one can only hope that that is the reason she makes it seem that she thinks that Darwin was intentionally working to undermine the Bible. That is one of the greatest false contentions of religious anti-evolutionists — that scientists do their science to debunk religion.
When will these people realize not everything is about them? As I said in my own book, “[i]t is the misguided person who does not comprehend that when scientific evidence challenges religion it is, by and large, purely incidental.”
Bunting called out a couple of atheists who will be participating in celebratory events honoring Darwin in a less-than-favorable way. She said:
The fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the New Atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that Darwin pointedly never took up). Many of the prominent voices in the New Atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in God and accept Darwin’s theory of evolution; Richard Dawkins and the US philosopher Daniel Dennett are among those due to appear in Darwin200 events. It’s a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.
Dawkins wasted no time in posting a comment to Bunting’s article, included here, unedited, in its entirety.
A telling litmus test of an ignoramus on the subject of Darwin is their rendering of the title of his great book. The [diagnostic] solecism — remarkably common — is to stick a ‘the’ before ’species’. Sure enough, Madeleine Bunting falls right into it, exactly as you would expect. The correct title, of course, is On the Origin of Species.
It is true that Darwin declined to call himself an atheist. But his motive, clearly expressed to the atheist intellectual Edward Aveling (incidentally the common-law husband of Karl Marx’s daughter) was that Darwin didn’t want to upset people. Atheism, in Darwin’s view, was all well and good for the intelligentsia, but ordinary people were not yet “ripe” for atheism. So he called himself an agnostic, largely for diplomatic reasons..
In any case, what Darwin chose to call himself, as a pillar of his local parish in the nineteenth century, is of less interest than the cogency of the arguments themselves. Before Darwin came along, it was pretty difficult to be an atheist, at least to be an atheist free of nagging doubts. Darwin triumphantly made it EASY to be an intellectually fulfilled and satisfied atheist. That doesn’t mean that understanding Darwin drives you inevitably to atheism. But it certainly constitutes a giant step in that direction.
Richard Dawkins
So, what say you?
Are atheists “shoplifting the pootie” from Darwin? (Sorry for the Jerry McGuire reference. I couldn’t help myself.)
Permalink ~
Posted in General at 3:01 pm by Hemant Mehta
Dan Savage’s reader asks the question in his latest column:
Dear Dan: Is “saddleback” a sex act? If not, can you define it as one? Or if it is, can you popularize it? Each time I hear about Rick Warren, I can’t get past the name of his church.
Jeffy Lube
Stephen Colbert joked on his show that “saddleback” was a sex act, but he didn’t define it. So I guess we’ll have to. Suggested definitions can be sent to saddleback@savagelove.net.
Remember, Savage also helped define the word Santorum to mean something completely different from anything former anti-gay Senator Rick Santorum would have wanted.
So what exactly is someone doing when he is “saddlebacking”…?
And how would Pastor Rick Warren feel about that…?
(Keep it as clean as possible in the comments.)
(via The Invisible Pink Unicorn)
Permalink ~
Posted in Babies at 1:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
It’s the end of the year. Must squeeze in one last baby posting.
Mmm… sugary baby:
Dressing babies in food costumes = win.
Permalink ~
Posted in General at 10:00 am by Hemant Mehta
Greta Christina has already written about how non-religious people can become atheist allies.
Now, she has written about how we atheists can be better allies ourselves. What can we do to help others who share our progressive, rational beliefs?
The full list with explanations is on her site, but here’s the condensed version:
- Treat other groups the way you want to be treated.
- Don’t assume that religious believers are stupid — and don’t talk to them or treat them as if they’re stupid.
- Don’t be quick to assume malice or willful ignorance.
- If you’re going to talk about religion, tread carefully.
- Be careful about making analogies.
- Remember that it’s not always about us.
- Support other atheists whose methods are different from yours.
The list is a good one. I agree with almost all of it.
That last item bothers me, though. Maybe because “support” is the wrong word.
I don’t support atheists who tear down religious people to make their point.
I don’t support atheists who think ridiculing religion is more important than offering an alternative way of looking at the world to people who have never considered it.
It’s ok to criticize other atheists’ methods. In fact, I think criticism supports our movement as a whole. It lets people know that there is not just one way of not believing in God.
I appreciate it when liberal Christians call out the conservative ones. Not that I’m inclined to become a Christian either way, but it’s good to know there are Christians who aren’t Creationist/Republican/anti-gay-rights. They offer a way to be Christian without the ugly side we always see the extremists showing. (I agree they’re still deluded about their fundamental beliefs, but that’s besides the point.)
Do you need both sides (as Greta Christina writes) to create the social change? Perhaps.
It doesn’t mean I like what the other side is doing and saying. And we don’t need to always support each other’s methods.
A “unified atheist front” isn’t going to make religious people lose their faith all of a sudden.
Knowing that there are many ways to “be” an atheist — and that some ways are preferable to others?
That could help.
Permalink ~
Posted in General at 6:00 am by Hemant Mehta
The Faith Advocacy Impacting the Homeless (FAITH) Foundation is a non-profit working to help homeless people in New Jersey.
The foundation has had trouble finding headquarters. It’s been kicked out of buildings before, but founder Robin Reilly thought she was in luck when the First Reformed Church of Hackensack took in her organization.
That is until Christmas dinner last week.
Some of the 100 homeless people being served hadn’t eaten for over 24 hours.
So Reilly and her volunteers began to feed them.
Without praying first.
Or listening to the sermon.
Or singing Christmas carols.
That pissed off church officials enough to kick the group out two days later.
The Rev. Timonty Ippolito, pastor at Faith Reformed Church in Lodi, which holds Sunday worship services at the church, said the “itinerary” called for “worship, word and prayer” first, telling the food servers in the chow line to “drop” the utensils.
…
Ippolito said he would call the police if Reilly tried to interrupt the service.
While Ippolito delivered his sermon tempers flared in the back of the room when Reilly said, “This is not what I would call a Christian service.”
That riled the Rev. Leonard Masquelier, the pastor at the Hackensack church, who roared, “Robin, you’re out of here!”
…
Two days after the event, the church council sent Reilly an e-mail, telling her “effective immediately, your organization is no longer welcome in our church facilities.”
That is *totally* what Jesus would’ve done.
Yes, Reilly broke the church’s rules… but in the spirit of the season, shouldn’t the needs of the homeless have been met before the needs of the pastors?
First Reformed Church of Hackensack: Acting “Christian” every day of the year… except Christmas.
(via The Daily Profaner)
Permalink ~
12.30.08
Posted in General at 5:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
Simple question:
What blogs have really influenced or challenged you this year?
If that blog is an “established” one, fantastic. If that blog only began this year, even better.
Who has grabbed your attention with every post (or many of them, anyway)? Who do you read for original thoughts and opinions?
Feel free to leave links in the comments!
(Thanks to Matt Stone for the idea and mention!)
Permalink ~
Posted in General at 1:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
I’ve never heard of most of these albums and I haven’t heard the songs on them, but it seemed like an interesting theme for a list 
Steve Owen: …Like An Atheist in Nashville
The title implies Owen is an “outsider.”
Hundreds of actual atheists in Nashville would like to disagree.
…
Believa: Aint No Atheist in Hell
I’m going to go out on a limb and say I agree with the Christian rapper on this one.
…
Disown: Angels and Atheists
Are these supposed to be opposites?! I’m offended. Everyone knows Christopher Hitchens is an angel in disguise.
…
Stanley Huang: Atheist Like Me
This is a single off the album of the same name. This one is actually about atheism. Check out some of the lyrics to the song:
i wanna believe in all the miracles too
i wanna believe in all the the fairy tales with you
i want the happy ever after really i do
but how can that be when i don’t know if heavens true
but theses no eternity for an atheist like me
Huang’s record company faced a backlash when the album came out a couple years ago. But Huang was able to release another album afterwards, so no long term harm. Atheists win this round.
…
Whip: Atheist Lovesongs To God
The title refers to a time when singer Jason Merritt couldn’t find God despite his “desiring the solace such belief would impart.” Maybe someone could have informed him that similar solace can be found with a tight knit group of friends…
…
Oneida & Liars: Atheists, Reconsider
An album with songs written by two different bands (Oneida and Liars) — including covers of each other’s songs.
According to the reviews, the album poses no threat to atheists whatsoever.
…
D.O.A.: Festival of Atheists
I don’t know what it has to do with atheism. But it wins the prize for coolest album cover ever.
…
Sachem Orenda: Ethical Atheism
The album title essentially reflects Orenda’s personal beliefs:
Ethical Atheism was a title I came up with after strongly evaluating the purpose of my music. All of my songs are heavily based on philosophy. As an atheist I have been frustrated with questions of morality outside of a religious basis.
Hmm… this one may be worth listening to.
Why wasn’t I made aware of this album when it came out?!
…
If you’ve heard any of these albums, let us know what you think!
Permalink ~
Posted in General at 8:00 am by Hemant Mehta
Reader Amanda manages a coffee shop in Alabama. Recently, a Christian proselytizer came to her workplace…
She writes this in an email:
… When I came in to work today, there was a gentleman at my counter who had already been served by another employee. He left shortly after my employee did, but came back about thirty minutes later. As he entered the store, I greeted him, as I do with all customers, and he said, “Oh, I forgot to leave you a tip!” dropping some quarters into the tip jar on the counter.
Then, he handed me a tract that said “Between You and GOD” on the front. I was so dumbfounded and, frankly, irritated that someone would do something like that to me having never spoken to me and not knowing anything about me — and that they would have the audacity to do something like this to an individual at her workplace. He lied to me and said he wasn’t trying to evangelize me, to which I replied, “Right…” and he quickly retracted the statement, saying, “No, I am trying to evangelize you. This [pointing to the pamphlet] changed my life, and I think it will help you.” And then he left while I glared at him, dumbfounded.
I really wanted to curtly inform him that I thought he was being incredibly rude (and I also had a few other choice words for him), but I wanted to ask you, how would you deal with someone proselytizing at your workplace?
Have you ever experienced this?
This is some of what I wrote back to Amanda. Feel free to share your own thoughts:
I wouldn’t take it too seriously, whether it was in AL or anywhere else. The guy wanted to preach. As long as he wasn’t causing a disturbance in the store (preaching to customers), then I’d kinda brush him off. Tell him you’re an atheist (if you want to have *that* conversation)… or tell him you’re already a Christian (just to get rid of him)… or tell him this is not the appropriate time/place for that type of conversation.
If he persists, then you have trouble, If he’s doing this to all the employees — and making them lose focus on their jobs — then you also have trouble.
I’ve never really dealt with this scenario as I work at a public high school. But if someone wanted to talk about religion, I would probably find a time to have that discussion — because I like having that debate. Or I’d say I’m just not interested.
It’s a different issue all together if a colleague is the one trying to preach to you, but that’s not Amanda’s scenario.
Permalink ~
12.29.08
Posted in General, Humor at 10:43 pm by Hemant Mehta
It won’t go over well.
(via Atheist Cartoons)
Permalink ~
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
