Help Ask an Atheist!

Remember earlier this month when I congratulated Seattle’s Ask an Atheist television show for sweeping its channel’s awards? Well, unfortunately that channel is going to be dead come December 31st thanks to a lack of public funding. Ask an Atheist doesn’t want to die with it, so they’re asking for some help. They’ll be moving to commercial radio (KLAY 1180 AM in Lakewood), but that takes some money. You can help them in two ways:

1. If you’re a fan of the show but not near Seattle, you can donate. Remember, you can watch all of the episodes online!

2. If you’re in the Seattle area, there will be a comedy benefit show in Tacoma on December 9th. What’s not to love about godless humor that helps a good cause?

Don’t you want to be able to say you helped fund the first commercial atheist show in the country? You know you do. Or at the very least, you know you want to keep me supplied with local godless inspiration. Everybody wins!

Why atheism is the most skeptical position

Some people claim that I don’t know what “skepticism” is really about because I haven’t read the “fundamental” skeptical books. Which was shocking to me, since I thought the concept of skepticism was fairly simple – it’s just the application the scientific method. Of course, other people just claim I haven’t studied the philosophy of science enough to understand how science really works.

Hell, if a grad student in the sciences can’t discuss skepticism because she doesn’t have enough background, I guess those skeptical organizations will be waving goodbye to members who don’t have the proper skeptical credentials. Let’s leave it to the “professional” skeptics.

But while we’re on the topic of appealing to authority, let’s look at how Michael Shermer, co-founder of the Skeptics Society, defines skepticism in his “Skeptic’s Manifesto“:

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.

Huh, that’s exactly how I’ve always defined skepticism! I wonder if Michael Shermer knows he needs to go read some more books and brush up on his philosophy of science?

I previously thought this discussion about skepticism and atheism needed to die already. The horse hadn’t just been beaten to death – it has already decomposed and had its molecules reassembled into the surrounding flora and fauna. But some people continue to miss the point, so people keep talking about it. Yesterday I showed up to my first official meeting of the Seattle Atheists (which was awesome, by the way), and what was the panel discussion on? Yep, skepticism versus atheism.

What was curious about that discussion was how different it was since an atheist group was hosting it, rather than skeptics. The atheists freely admitted that not all atheists are skeptics. Some, at least initially, reach their decisions thanks to emotional or value-based arguments, and don’t skeptically examine religious beliefs until later (if ever).

But to those of us who came to atheism through skeptical analysis of religion, it was literally inconceivable how skeptics couldn’t be atheists. The only explanation the panelists could think of for this current debate was that it was based on public relations, not intellectual merit – that yes, skepticism leads to atheism, but please hush about it so we don’t scare away the religious members. Yet there’s another explanation often given – that you can’t directly test the God hypothesis, therefore please hush about it.

And that’s where I must call bullshit.

To understand why I call bullshit (oh my, crass language! I must not know what I’m talking about!), let’s review Wikipedia’s decent summary on the null hypothesis:

The null hypothesis typically proposes a general or default position, such as that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena,[1] or that a potential treatment has no effect.[2] […] It is typically paired with a second hypothesis, the alternative hypothesis, which asserts a particular relationship between the phenomena.

[…]Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the data are, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data are very improbable (usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time), then the experimenter concludes that the null hypothesis is false. If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis, then no conclusion is made. In this case, the null hypothesis could be true or false; the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion.

I’ve always viewed atheism as the null hypothesis. It is the general, default position that makes no claims. Now, there are many, many alternative hypotheses. Zeus exists. The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. The particular Judeo-Christian God worshiped by the Second Baptist Church in Richmond, VA exits. Atheists have come to the conclusion that these hypotheses are wrong, not only because they lack evidence (needed to reject the null hypothesis of atheism), but because they’re not even internally consistent claims (contradictions in the Bible, the inability for an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving being to exist, yadda yadda).

“But what about a deist God?” you ask. “What about a definition of God that’s wishy-washy and nebulous? God is love. God is in all of us. You can’t even test those!” Exactly. And since you can’t test them, you can’t gather any evidence for them. And since you can’t gather any evidence for them, you fail to reject the null hypothesis of atheism.

Am I 100% certain that no deity at all exists? No, but you’d be hard pressed to find an atheist who is – even Richard Dawkins wouldn’t claim to be. Technically we’re agnostic to some extent, and that’s a whole other debate that’s wriggling through an earth worm by now. But atheist vs. agnostic semantics aside, the point stands that the scientific method, when applied to belief in God, does not lead to deism or theism.

I guess this is an elaborate way of saying that the burden of proof lies on those making the claims. That seems to be fine when skeptics are dealing with psychics and Bigfoot, but not with God. If you want to avoid it for PR reasons, fine – I disagree with you, but you can run your organization however you like. But if you claim to avoid religious beliefs for skeptical reasons, then, I reiterate, you’re not being fucking skeptical.

Two more cents on skepticism and atheism

Honestly, I’m getting sick of the whole skepticism vs. atheism debate. But I’m an opinionated blogger, so I have to give my thoughts on the latest issue between the two movements.

Skepticon 3 is currently underway in Missouri. While I’m very jealous that I’m not there, Jeff Wagg is very butt-hurt because it looks too much like an “atheist conference.” What makes it so godless? The fact that 3 out of 15 talks explicitly discuss religion.

I know. Such godlessness.

Wagg continues the typical whining that such “emphasis” on atheism will only hurt the skeptical movement, even though skeptical events continue to grow. JT Eberhard, organizer of Skepticon and all-around badass, artfully replies to Wagg’s critiques of the conference:

“What I do think is that Jeff is not playing fair (see earlier bit about speakers giving non-religion talks that would take any equitable onlooker a whole ten seconds to look up) by not presenting the full picture of our event either intentionally or from a lack of sufficiently digging into it to see what we’re about. Either way, bad form. I also think he’s relying too much on his personal anecdote and not on the evidence around him (see the rising numbers of both Skepticon and TAM). I don’t have an issue with Jeff because he’s being pedantic or critical. I have an issue because he’s wrong.”

And PZ replies to the nonsensical idea that religion is somehow off-limits to skepticism:

“Skepticon does have a strong anti-religion emphasis. So? This is a subject open to criticism, and it’s perfectly fair to apply skepticism to religion as much as we would to dowsing or Bigfoot. If someone had organized a skeptics’ conference with an emphasis on, for instance, quack medicine, I doubt that anyone would have squawked that “it’s harming the cause!”, “it’ll make skeptics who believe in homeopathy uncomfortable”, or “it’s diluting medicine and destroying skepticism”.”

But I’m going to take it one step further. Religion shouldn’t just be included in skepticism. Religion is one of, if not the most important issue people should be skeptical about.

Seriously, what affects people the most? Believing in dowsing? Giggling at a horoscope? Perpetuating ghost stories? Searching for Big Foot? Or superstitious religious beliefs that are held by the majority of the population, and not only irrationally alter your behavior in almost all aspects of your life and affect the lives of those around you, but result in the suffering and death of millions of people?

Sticking to talking about psychics and UFOs because we want to artificially inflate our numbers is ridiculous.

Look, there are certainly religious beliefs that are benign enough and don’t end in the Crusades. And there are certainly instances of beliefs in psychics, astrology, and ghosts that do harm people. But to suggest that religious belief isn’t at least as harmful as important topics like homeopathy, chiropracty, or alternative medicine is frankly delusional.

I got interested in the skeptical movement because I liked having a term that implied I didn’t limit my skepticism to religion. You don’t get to ban that type of skepticism because you’re worried about the PR problem. And if you don’t think you should be skeptical about religion, then you’re not being fucking skeptical.

Now, can we stop with the hand holding and move on?

Racial diversity in the atheist community IS our problem

The Guardian has an interesting article up by Alom Shaha on “The accidental exclusion of non-white atheists.” I’m not sure if this was intentional, but it’s a timely follow up for the recent kerfuffle about the apparent lack of women in the atheist movement. One of his main points is that the atheist movement needs to actively try to fix its diversity problem. I think he’s spot on, and the same applies to women:

While black and Asian people may not be actively excluded from atheist and sceptic gatherings, the lack of black and Asian people as speakers or audience members might be one reason why many black or Asian people feel such events are not “for them”. So, even if there’s no deliberate exclusion, there is accidental exclusion. Perhaps some people are genuinely unaware of this, but perhaps others are just hoping the problem does not really exist.

We’re not saying we need to go knocking on doors of religious minorities and target them for atheist evangelizing. We’re saying we want minorities who are already atheists to feel comfortable within our movement. One way to promote inclusivity is to invite minority speakers to conferences or local events, or to encourage current minority members to consider more active leadership positions.

Shaha repeatedly states that he does not think the atheist movement is inherently racist or purposefully excluding minorities. I thought he was being overly polite until I started reading the comments at The Guardian. They’re almost unanimously oblivious, stating there’s no such thing as an atheist movement or community. Look, just because you’re an atheist who doesn’t feel the need to be outspoken or talk to like-minded people doesn’t mean we don’t exist. Is this a British thing, since atheism is so much more common and accepted there?

But my main beef is with the comments that deal with race, which have no excuse. For example:

“This article is a disgrace. Why is it that anything that happens to be white must become more diverse to become a “community”? What a crock of poo. Very expensive deficit causing poo, I might add. You fools would be better off worrying about the genocide of Iraq’s Christians, and the general bad feeling towards minorities in the mulsim world, than worrying about atheists being too white.”

“If people really are so simple-minded as to prefer the company of people of their own colour, then that’s their problem, and neither atheists (nor Christans nor Hindus nor Muslims nor Jews nor anyone else) are under any obligation to go out of their way to accommodate them.”

“oh god … AGAIN! what is wrong with these awful “white men”?? Why are we so bad? just out of pure contrarianism, i am going to campaign for the atheist movement to be a ‘white males only’ movement. i want it to have clubs, and bars and so on, where we are allowed to keep females and other races out. just so so bored of “minority” bleating on the subject of “white men” – gone far too far.”

“What, practically, do you think white atheists should do to encourage black and asian involvement? It’s hardly their fault that asian people (for example) feel a cultural pressure not to get involved, and it is not their fault that asian people feel more comfortable with their own kind (as you suggest). You seem to be blaming whate atheists for a problems which are not of their making. The onus is on minorities, not the audience to which your article is addressed.”

Those are facepalm worthy to say the least. But maybe that sort of stupidity and insensitivity is only from people who think the atheist movement doesn’t exist?

Then I read this comment at the Richard Dawkins Foundation website, presumably from someone within the community:

“We (like there is a ‘we’ in the atheist community) should have second best speakers at events, choose them solely on the colour of their skin, otherwise we might appear racist.

We should have second best speakers at events, choose them solely on the colour of their gender, otherwise we might appear sexist.”

Whoooooooosh.

The assumption that minority speakers are inherently second best? Now that is racist and sexist.

This is identical to atheism’s so called “women problem.” It’s not that we lack worthy non-white atheists: It’s that we have plenty of wonderful non-white atheists who we forget about. If you think people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Maryam Namazie, Hemant Mehta, Ariane Sherine, Salman Rushdie, and Debbie Goddard are “second rate,” you are part of the problem.

Where it really needs to be improved is at conferences. Events like TAM seem to be improving its representation of women, and it’s not just tokenism – I thought all of the female speakers were brilliant. But you know who some of the most disappointing speakers were? People who keep getting re-invited because of their fame, but just re-hashed old talks, gave crappy Q&A sessions, or bored everyone to tears. When all of those people happen to be old white men, it certainly doesn’t look good. Even if it’s the unintentional effect of attempting to sell tickets, it makes it seem like someone is choosing second-rate old white male speakers over first-rate minority speakers.

I’m sure it’s not deliberate, but if we don’t fix our diversity problem now, we’re going to have oodles of problems down the road (check out Greta Christina’s talks about the parallels between our movement and the GLBT movement, and you’ll know why). We need to start being more inclusive if we want the atheist movement to be successful. This is already starting to happen, with groups like the African Americans for Humanism and L.A. Black Skeptics becoming more and more active.

But denying we have the problem and that it’s our job to fix it? Not helping, people.

Canada, here I come!

I’ll be speaking at four different skeptical groups in Vancouver next week*. Here’s my crazy schedule (links go to facebook events):

Simon Fraser University Skeptics
Thurs. Nov. 25 3:30-5:30 pm in AQ 5037
Atheism and Feminism
Hour talk followed by Q&A
Free & open to the public
Likely impromptu pub night to follow

University of British Columbia Freethinkers
Fri. Nov. 26 7-9 pm in Buchanan A203
My Trip to the Creation Museum
Hour talk followed by Q&A
Free for members, $2 for general public
Post talk drinks and fun at the Frog and Firkin

CFI Vancouver
Cafe Inquiry with Jennifer McCreight
Sat. Nov. 27 11 am-1 pm at SFU Harbour Centre
Tentative topic: Closing the gender gap in skepticism
20 min talk followed by discussion
Free & open to public (donations welcome)

British Columbia Humanists
Sun. Nov. 28 9:30-11:30 am at Oakridge Seniors Centre
Boobquake & Its Aftershocks
Hour talk followed by Q&A
Open to public & donations welcome ($2 suggested)
I’ve never been to Canada before, and I can think of no better way to pop my Canada-cherry than hanging out with a bunch of skeptics and heathens. Especially since my other option for Thanksgiving break was sitting in my apartment dreaming about all the delicious food I’m missing out on since I wasn’t going home this year. A mini-vacation to Vancouver is a wonderful alternative, even though I’ll probably spend my time between talks working on homework. At least I’ll be working on homework in Canada.

…Though to show how much of an ignorant American I am sometimes, it didn’t originally dawn on me that Canadians don’t have the same Thanksgiving holiday as us. I promise to keep the stereotypical questions about bacon, hockey, and Celine Dion to a minimum.

*And by next week, I mean in two weeks. I have no concept of time, apparently.

Who doesn't like a 2X multiplier?

The Secular Student Alliance is having a fundraising drive, thanks to a generous donor. Ron Verstappen has pledged to match all donations to the SSA up to $15,000 until New Years Eve. That means if you make a tax exempt donation before January 1st, your donation is effectively doubled! As a board member of the SSA, I can’t stress enough how wonderful this organization is. Young people are the future of secularism and skepticism, and we want to be able to provide resources to our skyrocketing number of groups.

If you need a little more motivation to donate, Ashley Paramore (aka, healthyaddict) will be having a live video fundraiser tonight starting at 9pm EST. I heard there will be games and geeky prizes!

"Ask an Atheist" dominates Seattle public access TV awards

A big congratulations to my fellow Seattle heathens. Ask an Atheist, a public access television show that answers live questions about atheism, won four awards at 2010 SCAN Awards: Favorite Religious, Spiritual, or Faith Program, Favorite Locally Produced Program, Favorite New Program of 2010, and Favorite Studio/Live Program. Apparently their wins made the award ceremony amusing:

The event featured musical acts by local talent including: a gospel choir who did not appear to enjoy our success, a solo acoustic folk act, and some traditional Indian music from the host of another show on SCAN, ‘Bandish‘. Our success at the event turned us into a bit of a joke about half-way through the show, with Warren Etheredge of ‘The High Bar’ asking if our success was part of “God’s plan”.

Congratulations, Ask an Atheist! Their shows are also available online, so check them out here!

My guest post on atheist women at Ms. Magazine

A couple of days ago Ms. Magazine’s blog ran a piece claiming there were no female atheist leaders or forces, and that the atheist movement was unwilling to address the problem. After I posted my response and it spread around the atheist community, Ms. Blog asked me to do a guest post to “rectify” the previous article.

It’s up now. Here’s the beginning to give you a taste:

Where Are All The Atheist Women? Right Here

Is it accurate when the media portrays the atheist movement as a club for old white men? It’s undeniable that most of the time men outnumber women, whether you’re looking at conference attendees or conference speakers, blog readers or best-selling authors. But when Monica Shores wrote that “no women are currently recognized as leaders or even mentioned as a force within the movement,” the atheist community cried out.

Why? Because it’s blatantly untrue.

You can read the rest of the article here.

It’s hard squeezing everything I wanted to say when working with limited space, but I tried to give a more accurate representation of all the wonderful atheist women we have in the movement. Hopefully the nonreligious women who read this piece will realize that, yes, there is a community that’s welcoming to them.

Why I care when the media represents atheists as sexist

This comment by Amber Surface from my earlier post was so spot on, I wanted to highlight it here:

What I find most disconcerting about pieces like this is that I know some young woman is sitting at her computer, wondering if she should even bother coming out of the religious closet.

She notes the similarities between her religion and new atheism. Her religion minimizes her contributions as a human being, but this article portrays the “new atheist movement” as doing the same. She can’t find a strong, female leader in her religion because of the patriarchal roots, but this article shows that she likely couldn’t find a female leader to whom she could relate, either. Her religion reduces her to chattel and objectifies her, but so do the new atheists with their “sexiest female atheist” lists.

She notes the differences. Her religion offers her community, but new atheism doesn’t seem to want to welcome her or provide a social network. Her religion is generally accepted by society and her friends and family, but new atheism obviously generates distrust and dislike.

The article in Ms., a largely respected and once incredibly progressively feminist magazine, illuminates these issues to help her decide. It doesn’t seem that difficult a choice once some journalist presents the arguments in this manner.

We have the potential to reach so many women when something like Ms. Magazine talks about atheism. I’m not even asking for editorials that try to convince people to become atheists. Right now I’d settle for honest representation of the atheist movement and acknowledgment that female leaders do exist. Making just one more person feel less alone in their disbelief is worth it.

But no, instead they’ve probably scared off the female atheists, not to mention ones who “aren’t religious” or who are generally skeptical of organized religion. And those new female allies are going to have a hard time finding blogs like mine when Ms. Magazine continues to delete (or moderate?) every comment that links to my rebuttal post.

Journalism at its finest.

EDIT: Some readers say comments are finally getting through moderation. I still can’t see any, but it may be an issue on my computer.

I was just contacted by Ms. Magazine about doing a guest post on the same blog about women in the atheist movement to “rectify” the lack of female atheists in the original article. Obviously I’m taking them up on their offer – now I just have to try not to screw it up.

Atheist Christmas Carol contest winners!

Today is the release of the American edition of The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas! It features a bunch of new authors, including yours truly. A week ago I started a contest to give away a couple free copies of the book:

Write new lyrics for an old Christmas carol that have a godless or scientific theme.

All of your entries were so brilliant that I had an extremely hard time picking the winners! Please forgive me if yours wasn’t chosen – it was tough. Here are the three winners who will be receiving copies of the book:

Winner #1: Chabneruk

To the tune of “The 12 Days of Christmas”:

“On the first day a big mess exploded loud and free – remember the Big Bang Theory.

On the second day the suns and the planets came to be. No lifeforms yet,
but remember the Big Bang Theory.

On the third day volcanoes erupted ceaselessly. ‘Twas pretty hot, no lifeforms yet, but remember the Big Bang Theory.

On the fourth day the landmasses grew above the sea. No God involved, still pretty hot, no lifeforms yet, but remember the Big Bang Theory.

On the fifth day the first cells swam around with glee. Naaaature is hot! No God involved, weather now fine, lifeforms are there, but remember the Big Bang Theory.

On the sixth day there’s backbones and eyes for all to see. Pretty cool stuff, Naaature is hot! No God involved, weather now fine, lifeforms are glad, but remember the Big Bang Theory.

On the seventh day some lifeforms came ashore to pee. They had legs a-running, pretty cool stuff, Naaature is hot! No God involved, weather now fine, lifeforms are glad, but remember the Big Bang Theory.

On the eight day the lizards ruled the land and sea. Introduce extinction, legs a-running no help, pretty cool stuff, Naaature is hot! No God involved, weather rather cold, lifeforms are few, but remember the Big Bang Theory.

On the ninth day some pre-apes decided to stand free. Soon they were dancing, around camp fires, with legs a-running, pretty cool stuff, Naaature is hot! No God involved, weather still cold, lifeforms have fun, but remember the Big Bang Theory.

On the tenth day the first priest invented idiocy. Gods everywhere now, they want us dancing, with legs a-hurting, oh, what a shame – aaall without proof! Gods getting pop’lar, weather now warm, lifeforms do pray, no one knows the Big Bang Theory.

On the eleventh day the churches controlled the minds unfree. Just one God, which one is right, they want crusaders, with swords a-slinging, oh, what a shame – aaall without proof! Monotheism, weather quite dark, lifeforms do pray, no one knows the Big Bang Theory.

*pitch upwards*

On the twelfth day the clever ones finally broke free! No more Gods, but atheism, science is right, tell the believers: “No swords a-slinging, no holy war, Naaature is hot!” Jen writes her blog, weather is sunny, lifeforms shall think and we all love the Big Bang Theoryyyyyy!”

Winner #2: Ray

To the tune of “Angels We Have Heard on High”:

We four horsemen honestly are
Unimpressed by Yaweh so far.
Explanation for creation?
Really, he’s quite subpar.

Chorus:
O-oh
You can wonder at the night
You can call yourself a “Bright”;
Not a smidgen of religion
Do you need for living right!

Harris:
If you think some cultural swill
Makes it right to torture and kill,
That’s perverse, not just diverse:
Maybe you’re mentally ill.

[Chorus]

Dennett:
Made by evolution are we,
Built to act beneficently.
Since we’re soulless, we control us:
We can be truly free

[Chorus]

Dawkins:
Nature’s strange selection machine
Need not make you nasty or mean
Or a creep. The nicest people
Came from a selfish gene

[Chorus]

Hitchens:
Humans shouldn’t cower or crawl;
Faith just makes us hateful and small,
We’ll start growing strong by knowing
God isn’t great at all!

Grand Prize Winner: Quester

Really, there’s no difference in the prizes, but every one of Quester’s songs cracked me up, so I thought they deserved special distinction:

To tune of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”:

There’s Mercury, Saturn,
Neptune and Venus,
Jupiter, Earth,
Mars and Uranus,
but someone has morphed
our ninth planet into a dwarf.

Pluto’s a minor planet
according to the IAU.
Better not criticize them,
or they will redefine you, too.
Eris may be more massive
and Ceres trying to compete
but now that we’ve demoted Pluto
our solar system’s incomplete.

From 1930 to 2006
Pluto was planet nine
but a recalculation of it’s mass
put it’s status in decline.

Still, Pluto is special
Maybe soon IAU’ll agree
To re-redefine the moon Charon
and Pluto as a binary!

To the tune of “Silver Bells”:

Get yourself some ferrous metals-
nickel, iron, cobalt, steel,-
each of these
are attracted
to magnets.

They have north poles
and have south poles.
Opposite poles attract.
But can anyone tell me how magnets work?

Miracles. Miracles?
That might satisfy a clown posse.
Hypothesize. Experiment.
Maybe we’ll find out the truth!

Running current
through a wire
creates a magnetic field
so this may involve
moving electrons.

The Ampere model
of the magnet
presumes circular bound currents,
but who even knows what
that means?

Miracles. Miracles.
These mark the place we have stopped thinking.
Magnetic force? Magnetic fields?
Reality can blow us away!

To the tune of “Santa Claus is Coming to Town”:

“You better watch out
You better beware,”
Sedighi warns us
all to take care,
“women are immodestly dressed.”

“They corrupt chasity,
lead young men astray,
the power of their cleavage causes moral decay.
Women are immodestly dressed.”

Can miniskirts cause earthquakes
as Sedighi insists?
Let’s put this thory to the test!
What scientist could resist?

So, pull on short shorts,
or something tight-fit,
choose your best weapons
and laugh for a bit.
Maybe we can cause a boobquake!

Congratulations to Chabneruk, Ray, and Quester! Like I said, it was really difficult picking three, since you guys did an excellent job. Here are some honorable mentions that I also enjoyed:

Even though UncountablyFinite couldn’t get his camera to sync, I was impressed by his singing ability!

Elizabeth Anne also impressed me with her singing ability, and got bonus points for raunchy lyrics:

EdenBunny‘s songs make the Grinch in me giggle:

To the tune of “Oh Christmas Tree”

Oh solstice tree, oh solstice tree,
Leftover ancient ritual,
It seems to be
The masses re-
-spect it ‘cos it’s habitual.

Oh what a joy to kill a tree,
Expend much electricity,
Eventually, the waste will be,
Disposed of quite expediently.

Oh solstice tree, what fun to see
Your pointless luminosity.
Oh solstice tree, oh solstice tree,
Environmental atrocity.

To the tune of “Deck the Halls”

Fa la la la la, la la la la.
In our public education,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Answer reason with defiance,
Fa la la, la la la, la la la.
Totally ignoring science,
Fa la la la la, la la, la la.
Kids believe what they are to-old,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
Earth is six thousand years o-old,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
God used melanin to da-amn,
Fa la la, la la la, la la la,
All the descendants of Ha-am,
Fa la la la la, la la, la la.

Schools can make religious pitches,
Fa la la la la, la la la la,
Kill the homos and the witches,
Fa la la la la, la la la la.
We are normal and they’re o-odd
Fa la la, la la la, la la la,
Because that’s the word of Go-od,
Fa la la la la, la la, la la.

Good thing Ray won with his other song, because I think she momentarily forgot who was judging this contest:

To the tune of “Must Be Santa Claus”

Who’s got a beak and a bunch of arms?
Squid’s got a beak and a bunch of arms.

Who wins our love with its squiddly charms?
Squid wins our love with its squiddly charms.

Beak and arms, squidly charms:

Must be cephalo-
Must be cephalo-
Must be cephalo- cephalopods!

Who lies around in Jurassic shales?
Squid lies around in Jurassic shales.

Who’s inspiration for Lovecraft’s tales?
Squid’s inspiration for Lovecraft’s tales.

Beak and arms, squiddly charms,
Long time gone, Cthulhu ftagn:

Must be cephalo-
Must be cephalo-
Must be cephalo- cephalopods!

Who washes up on the ocean shores?
Squid washes up on the ocean shores.

Who likes to shoot spermatophores?
Squid likes to shoot spermatophores.

Beak and arms, squiddly charms,
Long time gone, Cthulhu ftagn,
Ocean wrecks, freaky sex:

Must be cephalo-
Must be cephalo-
Must be cephalo- cephalopods!

Who’s in the order called Teuthida?
Squid’s in the order called Teuthida.

Who’s also found in Spirulida?
Squid’s also found in Spirulida.

Who’s got a cell of enormous size?
Squid’s got a cell of enormous size.

Whose cell has won the Nobel prize?
Squid’s cell has won the Nobel prize.

Beak and arms, squiddly charms,
Long time gone, Cthulhu ftagn,
Ocean wrecks, freaky sex,
Teuthid taxon, giant axon:

Must be cephalo-
Must be cephalo-
Must be cephalo- cephalopods!

And finally, Fredjs73 wins the award for “Putting Your Fantasies About a Blogger To Verse And Making Her Laugh Instead of Run Away.” A dangerous award to attempt, but exciting to win, I’m sure (his bashful pre-apologizing and my twisted sense of humor helped).

T’was the night before Christmas and all through the flat
Not a Guinness was pouring, from neither bottle nor vat.
The stockings were hung by the bedpost with care
While the fresh scent of Astroglide hung through the air.

The heathens were nestled all snug on the floor
While visions of Jager Bombs tormented them more.
Sweet Blag Hag in her blanky and I in the buff
Had just finished up from some lovin’ ‘n’ stuff.

When out on the street there arose such a clatter
I tripped o’er my cockring to see what was the matter.
Away to the door with my hands on my junk
For to not shock my old neighbor, Miss Gwendoline Funk!

I tore open the door and felt chills in me nuts
Without care, without worry for appearing a klutz.
When, what to my unsober eyes should appear,
But an ol’ rusted nineteen-ninety-nine blue Cavalier!

With a little old driver, so lively and wired,
I knew it a moment – it’s ol’ PZ Myers!
More rapid than vertebrates, his coursers they came
Through his full and grey beard he did call them by name.

“Now, Sepia, Architeuthis, Cuttlebone and Radula!
On Nautilus, Onykia, and smug Argonauta!
Go up to the porch to that uncircumsised guy!”
And once they had done so, what did I espy?

A bottomless case of both beer and vermuth
What treasure, what wonder and what generous couth!
Said PZ “Now, sir, you must tend back to Jen
For methinks she is waiting for some lovin’ again!

I reached in the case but more than beverage I saw
T’was a coupon for pizza, poutine and cole slaw!
I thanked him and smiled, both some horny and famished
When PZ he pointed, “To thy bed ye be banished!”

Away he then flew with his wet, squishy crew
Into the cold night back to blog and review.
But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight:
“Happy Christmas, now back to pleasure Ms. Jen McCreight!

Man, you guys were great! I’m looking forward to seeing YouTube videos of these pop up closer to Christmas. Well, maybe the last one doesn’t need animation…

Thanks to everyone who participated!