Archive for June, 2011

Nothing extraordinary here, no comedy, no ridicule. This is just a typical sort of message that we receive on a regular basis, and today I decided to give it a thorough reply. I thought I’d blog my answer today because it is a long form version of a conversation that lots of you probably have often, if you’re an out atheist who knows some theists. The original message is in block quotes; my replies follow each section. I’ve been watching clips of your show on Youtube, and I have to say you’ve done a pretty good job in debating with theists thus far. It’s a shame many of the ones I’ve heard on there don’t slow down enough to think for a moment. Many of the points you guys have made appear to make sense to me as well. Glad to hear it. We’d always rather be reaching out to a receptive audience with some disagreement than exclusively “preaching to the choir.” To start off, I’m going to say that I consider myself an agnostic theist; I believe in God or the possibility thereof, but in no position to make the assumption that there is one with no doubt. So I’m relying on the whole faith thing, which can only do so much for you. Personally, I’d go farther than that. Not only can faith “only do so much for you,” but deciding to maintain faith in something that can’t be demonstrated is very likely to mislead you. I think there should, at a minimum, be a basic standard to decide whether something is likely to be really true or not. This isn’t the same as “absolute proof,” just some sort of reasonable evidence. You might’ve answered this question in one of your episodes, I don’t know, but you’ve repeatedly asked for evidence in proving the existence of God, which I perfectly understand and agree with. My question to you is what evidence would you need that would convince you to believe in...
Read more

There seems to have been some confusion (some on my part, some on the part of people who read or skimmed my last post). The first error was mine. The post from David Silverman was a blog post and not an American Atheists press release, as I had represented. That said, it was a public statement on the subject from the President of the organization and I think it carries similar weight…but perhaps not. Some people have mistakenly assumed that AA was planning legal action over this. They’re not. I never thought they were and I thought I was clear about that when I wrote: American Atheists does a great job of making sure that they only take legal battles that they’re likely to win and they’ve been critical of Michael Newdow, and others, who risk setting bad legal precedent by challenging things we aren’t likely to win. I’m not in complete agreement on every decision about which cases we take and which we don’t, but I recognize that we have to be careful. I really wish, though, that the same sort of careful thinking went into decisions about which issues to challenge in the court of public opinion. Evidently, that wasn’t clear enough and I apologize. There is no legal action being taken here, it was simply an editorial piece. Additionally, some people, rather ironically, took this opportunity to over-react and beat up on David or American Atheists or whatever… That’s a mistake. David is a friend and while there may be one or two fine points on which we disagree, that’s true for all of my friends including ACA members, co-hosts on the shows and even Beth. I’m encouraged by the changes he’s made to American Atheists. I’m also supportive, optimistic and eager to work with him and AA on almost any project that my schedule allows for. This was about one very fine point of disagreement. What I should have done was also link to comments and statements by other people that I...
Read more

Atheists aren’t always going to agree. That’s just an undeniable truth. I am, perhaps, a bit abnormal because I actually like the fact that we often disagree. Among my atheist friends, it’s often the ones I disagree with that I most value and the disagreements often help us all more than we realize. For example, I like and value David Silverman and American Atheists. In general, I support what they’re doing…but there are going to be times when we don’t completely see eye-to-eye and today is one of those days. Here’s the AA press release…go ahead and read it, I’ll wait. American Atheists does a great job of making sure that they only take legal battles that they’re likely to win and they’ve been critical of Michael Newdow, and others, who risk setting bad legal precedent by challenging things we aren’t likely to win. I’m not in complete agreement on every decision about which cases we take and which we don’t, but I recognize that we have to be careful. I really wish, though, that the same sort of careful thinking went into decisions about which issues to challenge in the court of public opinion. Today’s press release is just a monumentally bad idea. First of all, heaven isn’t a strictly Christian concept. Many people who don’t adhere to any religion hold to this concept in a cultural fashion that is probably more strongly tied to our fear of death and our desire to think and say nice things about the dead than to any specific religious doctrine. Plenty of other religions have heavens and heavenly concepts and plenty of non-religious people will use heaven in a metaphoric or poetic sense. Second, many Christians would point out that admission into heaven, according to their doctrine, isn’t tied in any way to the heroic actions of those firefighters or the quality of their character. There are many Christians who would point out that, according to...
Read more

Here is godless geekette Gia Grillo, known to Atheist Experience and Non-Prophets fans for co-hosting guerrilla NPR episodes 9.6 and 9.9 with me last summer, and for terrorizing Christian sidewalk evangelists on the streets of Hoboken, all decked out in cephalo-chic finery for the Coney Island Mermaid Parade (that link may not be worksafe, btw, heads up). Who says atheists don’t have fun, especially when honoring the majesty of the Old Ones just to be on the safe side? Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn and all that. So while PZ would I’m sure wholeheartedly approve, the whole affair does look kind of gay, so I imagine Charlie would totally stay home. (Or…not?)

Oh, looks like people are piling onto the #712 thread because they have no outlet to discuss Jeff and Matt on episode #713. Here you go! Matt and Jeff discussed cosmology, a lot, and decided to give EvolvedAtheist / self-styled homophobic rapper hero Charlie Check’m, another round. For people writing to request that Charlie never get on the air again: We heard you, and agree.