Shoes (Photo credit: benhobden)

Atheist shoe maker, Atheist Berlin (fantastic looking product, btw), sent 178 packages to  89 people in different parts of the U.S., each person receiving one package prominently  branded as ‘Atheist’ merchandise, and one not. As a result, the atheist branded packages were, on average, 3 days later in arrival than the non-atheist marked packages. But that’s not all. They were also 10 times more likely to disappear! 

For those who live in the U.S., particularly in the bible-belt, this probably comes as no surprise. But it’s still a fascinating study. The “atheist marking” was apparently a packing tape similar to the kind you might see with “fragile” marked on it. Instead, it had the Atheist Berlin logo, which is the word “atheist” followed by a solid black circle.

As an epilogue  the company says it will no longer use the atheist tape to seal or mark packages and, instead, send them plain brown wrapper.

Its a shame that they cannot use their logo, especially since they appear to be a solid, quality product. I only just discovered the shoe line and may one day end up with a pair myself. The soles have a reverse of “ich bin Atheist” embossed so that they leave that phrase wherever you walk. Another version has “Darwin Loves” on the bottom.

The study report page on their site allowed comments and the funniest of commenters said:

If you end up with a surplus of Atheist tape, you can send it to me in the states. I promise not to stick the end to the door handle of a post office, put the roll on a stick, hold it out the window of my car, and drive around the post office until the tape is gone.

Of course there were some Christian nutters calling atheists “fucking morons” and the like. Typical “Christian love.”

Related articles

• ‘Atheist’ shoe company claims U.S. Postal Service is discriminatory
• Packages sealed with “Atheist” tape go missing 10x more often than controls
• Study: Packages Sealed with ‘Atheist’ Tape 10 Times More Likely to Disappear
• Is the US Postal Service Biased Against Atheists? Check Out This Study
• US Postal System Is Innefficient and Biased
• USPS Discriminates Against Atheists?

Christian Atheist (Peter Lumsden, d. 2007) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

That’s the title of an article at the Christian Post by Brittney R. Villalva. There, she cites the American Religious Identification Surveys as well as a recent PEW poll, all of which indicate a rise in “nones” and non-religious, including atheists and agnostics.

Not surprisingly, she also speaks to the growing fear that religious bigots have about this:

The growing number is a concern for some Christians, who fear that atheism could turn into a belief system that surpasses the separation of church and state laws.

She accurately represents most atheists I know by pointing out that we don’t religious superstition entering public policy decisions with government. But, when she quotes David Fowler of the Family Action Council of Tennessee who says, “[b]but they do want their own beliefs about God’s nonexistence to influence public policy,” she (and Fowler, obviously) misrepresent the non-religious in general and atheists in particular. I know of no atheist that wants their own beliefs about the non-existence of a god to influence public policy that goes any further than keeping superstition out of public policy. Nor does the author of the article give any example of what this might mean.

Instead, she seems more interested in being the spokesperson for Christians who would like nothing more than atheism to be declared a religion so they can use that angle to keep our points of view and opinions out of public schools. There is a growing effort to continue to eliminate science and reason from public schools, making it easier for the religious to shroud their children in ignorance and superstition. They believe that if atheism can be declared a religion, then that means evolution cannot be taught.

Doesn’t make sense, I know. But I’ve been a part of more than one argument, mostly online, where this has come up. Somehow, Christians (probably Muslims and other religionists as well) equivocate “evolution” with “atheism.” One really has little to do with the other, except that both are positions based on reason and critical thought. Oh, and both are positions that refute Christian mythology. But they are distinctly independent beyond that. One need not understand biology and evolution in order to be an atheist. And one need not be an atheist to see that evolution explains life on the planet (examples include Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins).

The author makes an argument that atheism is a religion, but no where in the article does the author bother to define “religion.”

I challenge a religionist (or anyone for that matter) to provide a definition for “religion” that maintains it’s utility yet includes an atheist perspective. I’d be very interested to see what such a definition looked like. To date, the best definition I’ve yet to see for “religion” comes from Daniel Dennett (one of the so called Four Horsemen of New Atheism). He defined religion as a “social system whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought”^[1]. Simple and straightforward. And it has great utility. A few people dislike it because it exclude Theraveda Buddhists, but I actually like it because of that exclusion.

Other attempts to define a religion that can include atheism will invariably make the definition so cumbersome as to destroy its utility. Suddenly anything can be a religion, from baseball and crochet to stamp collecting and masturbation.

Atheism is not a religion. It’s a lack of it.

Related articles

• Misunderstanding Atheism, the Atheist Movement, and Secularism

  ---

• Can Atheists Become a Political Force in Tennessee?

  ---

• Dennett on atheism denial

  ---

• How to Understand Atheists: A Guide for Christians

  ---

• View from America: Secularism and atheism are not synonyms

  ---

1. Dennett, Daniel (2006). Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. New York: Penquin, p. 9.

A recent comparison of obesity and congressional support (both by state) for the Affordable Healthcare Act has revealed an interesting correlation. It seems the fattest states are the most likely to have opposed Obama’s healthcare initiative.

Most educated=darker shades

Most opposed states at bottom; most obese to the right

Interestingly enough, these are also the least educated states. Most people who are opposed to Affordable Healthcare simply don’t understand what it actually does. Contrary to the misguided leadership of their representatives (who aren’t really doing a good job of representing their constituents when you think of it), the ACA actually holds people accountable for their healthcare, both physically and fiscally.

The talking heads would have us all believe this is some form of socialism or “Stalinism” where the State automatically picks up the tab, but the reality is that this already happens. Hospitals cannot turn away someone in need of healthcare. Consequently, people who should be making routine or scheduled visits with their physicians instead go to the Emergency Room since they cannot be turned away. And the taxpayer picks up the tab.

With ACA, this is all but eliminated. Moreover, people will start visiting their physicians more often, probably to get told to lose weight and be involved in a more active and healthy lifestyle.

Is this what conservatives are conserving? Their energy? Or are they keeping their constituents fat, lazy, and fed, but under-educated so they don’t learn any better.

Related articles

• Health Care Dissent: Here’s What The Conservative Wing Wanted To Happen

  ---

• Obama takes the offensive on his healthcare law

  ---

The Religious Freedom Amendment, a proposed amendment 8, to the Florida constitution would change the wording of section 3 of the document to allow public funding of religious organizations. That is, tax dollars from all citizens of Florida would be available to fund religion^[1].

Currently, section 3 states, “[t]here shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace, or safety. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.”

Amendment 8 would replace the last sentence with, “[n]o individual or entity may be discriminated against or barred from receiving funding on the basis of religious identity or belief.”

As you can imagine, several secular organizations have rightly stood up and cried foul. Humanists of the Treasure Coast has joined with the Secular Coalition for America to fight the effort, which, according to many, is primarily an effort to find a way to get public funds to religious (i.e. Christian) schools.

Those are the facts of the situation. Now here’s my take on it:

Two things become readily apparent. 1) religious schools have largely failed at getting creationist pseudoscience and nonsense introduced to the masses through public schools and they cannot afford to let all the public school kids simply come to them for free. 2) the religionists haven’t really thought this through.

If public funds in Florida can get used on religious schools, then the religious are in a position to expand their classes and, of course, teach what they want. The religious are very good at appealing to the masses and, as a parent, I can tell you that I’m constantly on the look out for a school where my child will be safe. Public schools are rough and the religious can very easily make their classrooms look appealing. Next step, teach that evolution is wrong and creation is right; that contraception is bad and abstinence actually works; that homosexuality is an affliction and “teh gey” can be prayed away. And so on.

But it’s clear that they haven’t thought this through. What happens when a madrasah is created for Muslims (LA governor Jindal learned this the hard wya -see below)? What happens when a Jewish, Muslim, or Wiccan school doesn’t get an equal share of funding? Then it becomes apparent that the State is favoring a particular cult of religion and not actually protecting religious freedom. And, even if these things do not come to pass, the amendment is unconstitutional and will doubtless end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Maybe what we need to hope for, as secular people, is that this *does* go that route. Because such a battle will shine a lot of light on the tax breaks that religion already gets. That elephant in the room, where churches get to exist in neighborhoods where they take advantage of street repair, public services like fire and ambulance, and other services will be exposed. Not to mention the public scrutiny on the lifestyles of the leaders of mega-churches that rake in millions (if not billions) of dollars annually, none of it to be shared with the public.

The religious have never been very good at understanding “religious liberty.” They should leave it in the hands of experts. Secularists.

Related articles

• Legislator in Louisiana Is Shocked, Shocked

  ---

• A ‘Conservative’ vision for America – ‘Louisiana Republican: When I Voted for State Funds to go to Religious Schools, I Didn’t Mean Muslim Ones’

  ---

• Louisiana Legislator Upset That Education Vouchers Can Go to Muslim Schools

  ---

• Louisiana Republican: When I Voted for State Funds to go to Religious Schools, I Didn’t Mean Muslim Ones

  ---

1. Non-believers say proposed Florida amendment is backdoor to religion in government

Cover via Amazon

I’ve yet to read Christopher Hitchens’ biography of Mother Theresa, The Missionary Position, but I think it’ll be high on my list now that I’ve viewed “Hell’s Angel,” a documentary narrated by Hitchens and, I assume, based on that work.

Hitchens, in three 8-minute clips of the original BBC 4 documentary, paints a very different picture of this “saint” of Calcutta than is held by most people in the West. “Mother Theresa” is a name synonymous with “charity” and “good deeds” as well one who is “virtuous.” How many times have we heard someone referred to as “a regular ‘Mother Theresa’” or, my favorite, “she’s no ‘Mother Theresa,’ you know.” After watching this documentary, I’d take the latter as a compliment!

Hitchens reveals Theresa as someone who, intentionally or not, favored the rich and powerful while actually doing very little for the poor. Her Calcutta hospice is shown for the death-trap it probably was -I’m still getting over the interview of Mary Loudon, a writer and former volunteer, who was shocked at the mistreatment and negligence of the patients, including a 15 year old boy who required a trip to the hospital for treatment of a relatively simple kidney infection. Instead, he was according to her anecdote, consigned to death: “if you help one, you then have to help them all.”

Uh… yes. That’s what a real saint would do. Help them all.

The Missionary Position is next up on my reading list. In the mean time, I recommend the documentary, “Hell’s Angel” as well as documentary-log.com, where you can find over 50 documentaries on Religion, and scores more in dozens of other topics.

You can find the 3 part series here at documentary-log.com.

Related articles

• NPR Honors Hitchens the Scabrous Nun-Basher As ‘International Sensation’ of Atheism (newsbusters.org)
• Carlson: Peak v. Hitchens (ridenbaugh.com)
• Atheist Promoter Christopher Hitchens Dead At 62 (inquisitr.com)
• Christopher Hitchens: the top 10 quotes from the author, journalist and atheist (mirror.co.uk)

“[Atheists fear Muhammed] And run scurrying like cowards…

University atheist society president forced to resign after cartoon of Muhammad having a drink with Jesus is posted on Facebook…”

Blazing Cat Fur links, of course, to another article at Answering Muslims, which has a somewhat different take on the matter:

The president of the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist society at the prestigious University College London (UCL), Robbie Yellon, has stepped down over the controversy.

But the Society still refuses to take down the image – claiming its right to defend ‘freedom of expression’.

Secretary for the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies, Michael Paynter,said: ‘Robbie stepped aside because he signed up as president to organise events and run a student society.

‘He did not appreciate the stress he would be under when dealing with a controversy like this, so he wanted to make way for someone else.’

When you got to the Facebook group page for The University College, London (UCL) Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society, you see that there’s been a bit of intra-group politics going on. Something that isn’t unique to atheists. From what little I’ve read, the out-going president has a differing opinion that many of the more hardline members. And his position is understandable: he’d like to foster debate, interaction, and eliminate some myths about atheists. But I also empathize and agree with the positions of those that take umbrage to limitations on free speech. It should not be okay for one group to silence another simply because they don’t want their beliefs and delusions discussed, debated, or even made fun of.

So, Blazing Cat Fur: where do you get “scurrying like cowards” and how do you arrive at “forced to resign?”

A small sample size (n=1) makes the author of that blog look very stupid. Particularly since that person was neither scurrying nor representative of the atheist population. From just the article BCF linked to, it was pretty clear he didn’t want to deal with controversy -no one “forced” him to do anything. Indeed, the point of the resignation was to not allow himself to be “forced” into something he wasn’t keen on!

BCF also linked to an atheist in Jakarta who was beaten, apparently in an effort to support the argument that atheists are cowards. It wasn’t clear how an assualted atheist in Jakarta, Indonesia relates to a university freethought club in London, England, but the implication is that since atheists aren’t speaking out about this obscure story, we’re “scared” of muslims and, therefore, aren’t “rushing out to defend this guy.”

Here are some criticisms of Islam and Muslims by atheists:

Atheism in Indonesia: Two Articles
About.com Describes Islam
Honesty: The Muslim World’s Scarcest Resource
When Debating Muslims
Are Atheists Afraid of Criticizing Islam?

Oh, and the UCL is apparently so afraid of Islam and Muslims they’re hosting a debate titled, “Do we need God?” on March 1, 2012.

Atheists aren’t afraid of Muslims. Christians are. And they project that fear on us.

Related articles

• Atheists face Muslim-led censorship from UCL Union – Alex Gabriel – AlexGabriel.co.uk (richarddawkins.net)
• London University demands Jesus & Mo’s removal from atheist Facebook page (freethinker.co.uk)
• Cartoon row prompts UCL atheist society president to resign (tithebarn.wordpress.com)
• London Atheist Group Accused of Bullying After Posting a Harmless Image of Muhammad (patheos.com)

I just ordered my copy. Godless

Related articles

• Secular coalition to flood Capitol Hill with ‘godless voters’ (thehill.com)
• Have a Godless New Year: Atheist New Year Resolutions (alwaysquestionauthority.wordpress.com)

It’s an interesting hypothetical. The first thing that comes to mind is that we really don’t know if this person existed. The character created by the various authors of biblical mythology almost certainly didn’t exist. Water to wine; virgin birth; walking on water; healing the blind; etc. are all things of the imagination and are no different than any of the other supernatural and magical attributes that man has been applying to mythical characters since before writing. Gilgamesh, Beowulf, the Maya hero twins Hunahpu and Xbalanque, and so on.

But Wildmon’s article isn’t about a thought-experiment, it’s about delusion. In his delusion, the United States is a direct result of a mythical person named Jesus Christ. He begins, “[i]f Jesus Christ had never been born, you would not be reading this column [and] there would be no United States of America.”

Wildmon is, of course, flawed and falacious in his reasoning. His premise assumes the conclusion, which is that Jesus Christ did exist as described in biblical mythology. This is the same circular logic that causes religious nuts to believe in most biblical mythology as fact rather than the myth it actually is. To support his circular claims, Wildmon cites Pres. Truman’s address to the Attorney General’s Conference on Law Enforcement Problems in 1950. Truman said, The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days”^[1].

This couldn’t be further from the truth and, if one were to look at the documents involved (Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution), one would see that they in no way compare to the religious mythology either Wildmon or Truman refer to. In fact, biblical doctrines that Christians like to attribute to being the “foundation” of our great nation’s laws and government are down-right un-American. Leviticus alone is full of un-American dogma and doctrine: Rancher’s have a long, American tradition of raising a variety of cattle, the diversly planted victory garden is about as American as it gets, and the cotton-polyester blend is an American classic, but each of these is forbidden by Leviticus 19:19. The cruel and inhumane author of Leviticus was also unconcerned with national diversity and freedoms of speech and religion for death was the penalty for gays, adulterers (and their spouses!), and anyone who blasphemed his own particular notion of god.

But maybe Truman and Wildmon weren’t thinking of Leviticus. Surely they consider the Ten Commandments to be this “foundational” source for their own twisted idea of American origins. And yet when you compare, the American traditions and the 10 Commandments only share two out of ten things in common: don’t kill and don’t steal. Truman and Wildmon might as well attribute the Code of Hammurabi to “fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights.” In fact, the Code of Hammurabi is a much closer match to a potential origin of our Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution). The CoH provides for due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to present evidence, and some references to religious freedom (biblical mythology is very bigoted in this regard).

So Wildmon (and, by extension, Truman) are both flat out wrong about America being founded by Christian mythology. I challenge any one who thinks they are well-versed in this mythology to show where American Founding documents (Constitution/Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, etc.) are directly produced from Christian doctrine.

Wildmon continues with his failed article: “[i]f Jesus Christ had never been born, obviously, there would be no Christmas celebration or even a “holiday season.”

I think he’s wrong again. The Christian celebration of the alleged birth of Jesus (again, his premise assumes the conclusion) was intended by early cult leaders to replace pagan celebrations of the winter solstice. We can still see the remnants of this celebration in our modern representations of Christmas: holy, the tree, yule logs, etc. Had early cult leaders not claimed Jesus was born (he may or may not have been), we would still have a holiday season. It would simply be a celebration more obviously based on the Solstice.

Wildmon’s attempt here is to claim that Christmas is about Jesus… for some that may be true. But for most, it’s about family, children, world peace, love, giving, getting, eating, and so on. It’s a moment of social embrace where a family or even a community can come together and remind each that even though they have separate lives, they still have a common purpose. The season was always a celebration that we’ve reached the shortest day of the year and we’re about to embark on longer days ahead -we made it! Christians can do whatever the hell they want on Christmas: pray, go to mass, worship little barns with infants, whatever. They even have the right to bitch and moan that the rest of us just like the holly, mistletoe, snowmen, snowflakes, holiday trees (not a single religious ornament), reindeer, santas, and so on.

The axial tilt: it’s the real reason for the season.

1. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13707#ixzz1hPtCYv7d

Image via Wikipedia

I was thinking of whether or not to write a Christmas post and what I might write… then I  thought, “hmm… what have I written in the past?”

Here are some of my past Christmas related posts:

The So-Called War on Xmas. Uh… I Mean Christmas (12/7/07)

The Christian Who Stole the Grinch (12/13/10)

So-Called War on Xmas: AFA & Costco on the Frontline (12/14/08)

The Christian Candy Cane Lie (12/25/08)

Related articles

• Why Do Christians Have A War On Our Christmas? (truelogic.wordpress.com)
• The Christmas War on Atheism: What’s the Religious Right Whining About When It’s Really Non-Believers Who Are Under Attack? (alwaysquestionauthority.wordpress.com)
• Churches Admit They’ve Lost ‘War on Christmas’ by Canceling Christmas Day Services [Christmas] (jezebel.com)

Referred to as one of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism, Christopher Hitchens died yesterday at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston of pneumonia, a complication of his esophageal cancer.

He was a political pundit, an author, an essayist, and an outspoken atheist. And his voice will surely be missed.

Related articles

• Writer Christopher Hitchens dies (bbc.co.uk)
• Christopher Hitchens And ‘Facile Maxims’ About Life And Death (mgpcpastor.com)
• “Christopher Hitchens Has Not Found God” (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
• New Statesman Interview Preview: Richard Dawkins Interviews Christopher Hitchens (alwaysquestionauthority.wordpress.com)
• Preview: Richard Dawkins interviews Christopher Hitchens – George Eaton – New Statesman (richarddawkins.net)
• Dawkins to Hitchens: If we Win and Destroy Christianity, won’t Islam Replace it? (frstephensmuts.wordpress.com)
• Hitchens 1.0 (jeremystyron.com)