Should Atheists Pray?

“Should atheists pray?” the paper asked
And commenters all had to share…
Seems nobody knows what an atheist is,
And nobody understands prayer

At the New York Times, the “Room for Debate” opinion page asks “Should Atheists Pray?”.

With atheist church services this month in Louisiana and New York, nonbelievers are borrowing some of the rituals of believers: gathering, singing, sermons.

Would it be fruitful for atheists to pray? For believers and others, what is the point of prayer?

They ask 5 people, only one of whom is an actual atheist (Hemant Mehta). The others include a professor of psychology and former pastor, a professor of preaching, a visiting professor of the new testament and co-pastor, and (naturally) Deepak Chopra. Of course, the real fun is in the comments to each essay.

We find, among essayists as well as commenters, that there are myriad understandings of just what atheism is–from simply not believing in a god, to specific denial of a god even if evidence for one was shown, to those who specifically hate the Christian god, to frankly incoherent quasi-descriptions. Oh, and it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe, but you already knew that.

There are also a wide spectrum of beliefs about prayer. Now, atheists are sometimes accused of being the only ones who really take the bible seriously (thus, our claims about what believers believe are simply straw men), but honestly, there is no perspective of religious belief that I can conceive of that doesn’t have its manic proponents–from Chopra’s new-age touchy-feely amorphous blobby bullshit to prosperity gospel “god wants you to be rich, so ask him for money” to “prayer is not asking for anything, it’s thanking for everything”, to “prayer is the same as meditation” to anything under the sun.

So, should atheists pray? Near as I can tell, That’s about a thousand different questions, with about ten thousand reasonable answers, and about a hundred thousand unreasonable ones. Me? I have had more than a handful of occasions when I would have prayed, back when I was religious. Some of you know. I have had occasion… but I have not prayed in over 25 years. Never had the slightest inkling. My parents have prayed, my sister has prayed, and I don’t think any less of them for it. Not in the slightest. There is every reason for them to believe in prayer. Every reason but the right one–that it works. I know the studies on intercessory prayer. I know the evidence. I’ve pissed off my whole family by correcting my sister, in her hospital bed, when she credited prayer for her recovery. My own opinion–should atheists pray? No; nor should anyone.

Do I think any less of anyone for praying? Absolutely not. Depending on your own views, and your own definitions of prayer, there are maybe a million reasons to pray. None of the good ones involve there being a god, though. All the good reasons to pray involve us being human, and frail, and scared, or hopeful, or happy, or angry, or… oh, yeah, there are probably a million or so bad reasons to pray, too. So like I said, on the whole, my own opinion is anti-prayer.

But any question that takes a spectrum and requires a black or white answer is a bad question. And that is what the NYTimes has done.

Maybe they should have asked more atheists.

Maybe they should have asked me.

Those Dead-Eyed, Soulless Atheist Types

The eyes are the windows to the soul
Or at least, that’s how they are credited;
And demons show up in a camera’s view
When the image is printed unedited—

The atheist hordes have no spirits inside,
You can tell from their cold, lifeless eyes;
Of course, they will claim it’s a trick of the light—
They are liars, so no great surprise.

Yes, I know that a flash will reflect in your eyes
It’s just physics, that’s all, I’m aware—
But I choose to believe that it’s more than just that…
They’re just atheists—I really don’t care.

Ok, this was weird. The good news first: The Secular Coalition for America just announced that they have met with the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships:

Edwina Rogers led a group of several representatives from the nontheistic community including several of the Coalition’s member organizations, which included Aisha Goss, Deputy Director of the Secular Coalition for America; Wendy Kaminer, Secular Coalition Advisory Board member; Amanda Knief, Managing Director of American Atheists; Maggie Ardiente, Director of Communications and Development at the American Humanist Association; Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University; Jason Torpy, President of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers; and Michael DeDora, Director of the Center for Inquiry’s Office of Public Policy and CFI representative to the United Nations.
Edwina Rogers said it was important that a variety of Coalition members were at the meeting in order to show that the movement is unified. The religiously unaffiliated or “nones” now account for more than 19 percent of the American population. Among people aged 18-29 that number is even higher, with a full 35 percent identifying as unaffiliated, and 42 percent of that segment identifying as atheist or agnostic. The religiously unaffiliated are a growing and politically important demographic-the nones now represent the largest “religious” bloc of registered Democratic voters, comprising 24 percent, according to statistics from the Public Religion Research Institute and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
“It’s impossible for the White House to work individually with every organization, but as a unified group the Administration can more efficiently work with us as a community,” Edwina Rogers said. “The role of the Secular Coalition is to be the unifying voice that speaks on behalf of the nontheistic and secular community–we feel this meeting was a prime example of our mission in action.”

But, see, I didn’t find out about this from the press release. I found out about it from The Blaze, where they think it strange that atheists would be interested in meeting with a government Faith office. Where, strangely enough, the commenters focused on… the photograph. If you take a look at the first (SCA) link, you’ll see a normal photograph, like those you have seen in stories on any number of topics. If you click on just the photo itself, though, and open it, you’ll see the unretouched version, before the very minor edits to get rid of flash artifacts in most of the eyes. Anyone using the photo for any story would do what they did, and simply get rid of those nasty white dots.

Anyone but The Blaze, it seems. Their story uses the unretouched (and unflattering) pic, and commenters were quick to point out that

they certainly have strange eyes. The camera doesn’t lie.

and

No indeed something does NOT look right in their eyes. Soulless…sort of like our Dear Leader and his “You can never spend too much of the citizens’ money” wife… If God does not inhabit; evil WILL enter. Indeed….

and

Look at their eyes. Reminiscent of Poltergeist!

and

I know people will just say it is because of the lighting, but take a look at each one of their eyes in the picture…..something doesn’t seem right. They all look evil.

This last commenter was responded to, and doubled down:

@Lucretius…I understand what you are trying to do and the point you are attempting to make. Yes I realize that there could be several factors that cause their eyes to look like that…such as the light from the flash reflecting off of the lenses in their eyes, although they do have this relatively new invention on cameras that stop that…maybe they just didn’t have it turned on. Or maybe it was dust particles reflecting back…..I get that….however, it does not take away from the fact that these people still look dead inside and evil…..and I”m not the only one that has pointed that out, just read through some of the other posts.

What I find so entertaining is that atheists claim to be these “freethinkers” and that they use “science” to explain everything. However, in science you have rules that you must abide by which in all honesty limit your ability to think freely.

And the funny thing? As ludicrous as these comments are, when compared to the other comments at The Blaze, these are the people who are at least commenting on something with some relationship to the real world. There really actually is a photo, and it really does have white spots in some people’s eyes. Sure, there is a simple explanation for it, but it is part of an observable reality. I can’t say the same for many of the other comments there.

Conscientious Objection The Godless Way

Your conscience is that little voice
Contributing to every choice
For those who let their conscience be their guide
The conscientious types report
If you’re the conscientious sort
You know that voice is coming from inside

For those who know their morals’ source
No Christian God, nor Jedi Force
Is necessary target for our search
But those who lack a moral spine
Whose morals need some source divine
Find conscience in the teachings of the church

For those whose morals are their own
Their stance is theirs, and theirs alone;
For others, moral views are heaven-sent.
I must admit, I was surprised
The moment that I realized
The latter group includes our government!

I guess the laws intend to seek
A very special kind of meek:
Without a god, one cannot show contrition!
Without religion, one can’t choose
From pacifist religious views!
So praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition!

See, now, this is where writing in verse is problematic. I finish the above comment, only to find that the problem has been solved. Margaret Doughty’s application for citizenship has been approved, after some very strange requests that her refusal to bear arms in defense of the nation (a 64 year old woman, she would not have been asked to) must be supported by a church’s endorsement. Apparently, conscience (on which conscientious objection depends) is officially seen not as something arising from within, but as something imposed by and supported by a particular religious tradition.

When I started this verse, Doughty represented a clear first amendment violation–that an atheist could object to taking up arms was unheard of. Quakers? Sure. Mennonites? Yup. Brethren? Have your pastor sign on the dotted line. Atheist? Wait just a moment.

I had a nice long rant ready… but Doughty’s application has been approved, so I’ll just go to bed now. You can read all about it here.

Cuttlecap tip to Joan!

William Lane Craig’s Wrong Number

The door to God is open, and the path is straight and true;
A child’s faith is more than faith enough.
But should you choose to leave God’s side (as many people do)
There are obstacles that make your leaving tough.

When the God that you believe in, ever since you were a kid,
Is consistent in His absence when you call
When you can’t believe He’s always there, the way that once you did,
Why, that’s not enough for disbelief at all!

Religion has its guardians, whose job is to protect it
Though a child or a fool may be devout
There is serious theology, which won’t let you reject it,
Which you have to know, before they’ll let you out!

Now the godless have a hotline for the doubtful or confused
Those with questions about life without a God
But the faithful think it’s dangerous, and hope it won’t be used,
Though the arguments they make are rather odd:

Why, the godless are ignoring all the new theistic thought—
Metaphysical philosophy and such—
They’re not offering religion all the deference they ought;
So the hotline can’t be helping people much

If they’re calling in a quandary, for a sympathetic ear,
When their relatives or neighbors give them grief
The advice they might be getting is inadequate, they fear,
If it lacks the modern logic of belief

Or some local church encroaches on the actions of the schools
And they’re looking for the proper place to turn—
Why distract them with minutia over first amendment rules?
There’s theology aplenty we must learn!

When a person leaves religion, who can better ease the friction
Than an expert from the flock you want to quit?
Cos, you know, the perfect person who can help you with addiction
Is the dealer who’s been selling you the shit.
[Read more…]

GOP Congressmen Debate Atheist Chaplaincy, Display Incredible Ignorance

Shockingly, Mockingly,
Ignorant congressmen
Pandered to Christians, and
Put on a show;

“Atheist chaplains? That’s
Incomprehensible!”
Members then voted
Resoundingly, “NO!”

Via the huffpo, video of the House Armed Services Committee, debating an amendment to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment was quite simple:

Sec. 502. Inclusion in the Chaplain Corps of Persons Available to provide guidance and counsel to members of the armed forces who are atheist, agnostic, or belong to no organized faith group.
The Secretary of Defense shall provide for the appointment, as officers in the Chaplain Corps of the Armed Forces, of persons who are certified or ordained by non-theistic organizations and institutions, such as humanist, ethical culturalist, or atheist.

But not quite as simple as the Republican members of the committee. The video is brief, but you’ll want to watch to the end, for the loud and self-satisfied chorus of “no!”

Predictable Reaction To “Atheist Monument”

A Decalogue carved out of granite began it;
Jehovah’s commandments on six tons of stone
An atheist group then complained; they maintained
The establishment clause says it can’t sit alone
The lawyers advised “don’t take chances; your stance is
‘If one is allowed, well then, so are the rest’.”
So, while maybe it wasn’t their druthers, now others
Can join them, with multiple viewpoints expressed.

The atheists’ bench is the first one, the cursed one,
Reminding the county that godless exist—
That Florida’s not monolithically mythic;
That Christians don’t make up the whole of the list.
I’m hoping the Hindus will bring ‘em a lingam,
A huge granite phallus to add to the mix
So when councilmen pass, they will find a reminder
That some think the council are acting like dicks.

I read about the monument a couple of days ago, but of course the monument itself isn’t anything exciting to write about. It’s the reaction to the monument that gets fun. Mano predicted this yesterday, as reactions started to trickle in. Today, my aggregator is full of various Christian reactions to the bench.

“Good for them. I think it’s a perfect monument for atheists. It says it all. Atheism – it’s where asses go.“

(don’t skip the comments there. You will know they are Christians by their love. Oh! One of the comments makes the point that “Every public square without a Christmas Crib at Christmas is a monument to atheism.” which reminded me of this one from a while ago.)

“It’s absolutely ridiculous to have opposing viewpoints like this,” [Mat Staver of Liberty Council] says. “Certainly, Thomas Jefferson and Madelyn Murray O’Hair need not be opposing the 10 Commandments. In fact, Thomas Jefferson would be appalled that his writings would be used to oppose the 10 Commandments, which are the very basis of the rule of law.”

Which is why the first 4 commandments are explicitly overruled by the first amendment.

And while Fox News’s Tucker Carlson predicts (or urges) vandalism:

“I have a feeling that bench will be a magnet for graffiti,” Carlson said on this past weekend’s “Fox & Friends,” when discussing the planned atheist memorial.
“Just a guess,” Carlson added.

…at the same site, at least some see what “public free-speech forum” actually means:

Ken Weaver, a member of the Starke, Fla.-based group Community Men’s Fellowship, which originally erected the Ten Commandments monument at Bradford County Courthouse, previously told CP that he believes the American Atheists “has the same freedoms of expression as those of any other citizen or group.”

Of course, as of this writing, the only comment at that particular site is a simple “I concur Tucker”.

At the risk of repeating myself, you will know they are Christians by their love.

Battle Of The Prayers In Arizona Legislature

“I will not ask you bow your head
But look around the room instead”
The state rep, Johnny Mendez said,
In giving invocation.
“This is a time for us to share
With people here, and everywhere,
The fact that we’re alive, aware—
This is our dedication.”

His words, of course, were not a prayer;
He doesn’t think a god is there,
To answer, hear, or even care,
But people do exist.
It was his choice; it was his right,
But one man didn’t see it, quite—
He took it as a sinful slight
Steve Smith was truly pissed.

And this is where it should have ended;
Sometimes, Smith, one gets offended.
Church and state must not be blended
You’ve bowed your head too long.
But Christian privilege has its way
So Smith took time the very next day
To say the things he had to say—
That Mendez had it wrong.

“When given time to pray to God,
Don’t stain this room with mere façade—
A godless prayer? That’s more than odd;
This chamber must repent!
I’ll say one prayer, then one prayer more
And all must join me, I implore!
Give God his due! We must restore
Each godless minute spent!

Some thirty people—half the house—
Then prayed with Smith, the lordly louse,
Though many there do not espouse
The Christian point of view.
But Smith believes the right is his
And though he’d fail a civics quiz
I must admit, it seems it is
The Christian thing to do.

Ed reported on the initial atheist invocation delivered by Juan “Johnny” Mendez, calling it “pitch perfect”. But it seems there’s no accounting for taste; Mendez’s fellow legislator Steve Smith didn’t like Mendez’s tune, and what’s more, took offense on behalf of God, who declined to give His own opinion.

Smith then offered not one but two prayers–an invocation, and then a prayer of “repentance of yesterday” [the day of the godless invocation], and urged representatives to pray with him. About half did. Some of the others, though, were not shy to denounce the second prayer (why not the first?) as inappropriate. Representative Jamescita Peshlakai, a traditional Navajo, reminded Smith that she herself is “not Christianized”, and that his god is no more powerful than hers. She has been respectfully participating in house prayers, despite the fact that they did not represent her beliefs. I wonder if that will continue. (I suspect that it will, though I hope it will not.)

I wonder if rep. Peshlakai took any offense at Mendez’s invocation. I would have thought it was something pretty much everyone could agree with.

Guess I was wrong.

Beck: Blitzer Was Set Up

The forces of spiritual darkness are strong,
As they plot, and they plan, and they scheme,
In support of the atheists’ ultimate plan
To destroy the American Dream

The atheists’ plan is: Pretend to be nice,
While the world goes to Hell (or to heck)
And they probably would have been able this time
If it weren’t for the work of Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck is a master of finding the truth
He’s the best at connecting the dots
Where others see nothing at all out of place
Glenn Beck and his minions see lots

When Wolf asked an atheist woman, on air,
If she’s properly thanking the Lord
Observers were mostly amused by a gaffe
But that’s not how Glenn Beck had it scored

Glenn Beck saw the bias as clear as could be—
Some producer had rigged it, of course—
Propaganda and lies to make Christians look bad,
And to show off the atheists’ force

If the Christians and heathens are equally good
Then you can’t claim religion as why
And Beck himself knows, you can’t credit at all
Some invisible guy in the sky

So it must be conspiracy! Atheists aren’t
Just as good, in the Glenn Beck world view!
This claim, that the godless are people like us…
What a horrible thing, were it true!

Via Rawstory (video at link), Beck’s take on the Wolf Blitzer gaffe:

“I think he was fed some information about the guest he had on beforehand — that’s what producers do — given some questions that he should ask, etc., etc.,” Beck explained. “Some producer, who is sympathetic to the atheist plight or just doesn’t like Christians or whatever it is, thought it was important to point out that, in the middle of the heartland in American where most people are God fearing, there are atheists there too.”

“It’s important because it informs others what they are being taught about atheists from atheism and the bully pulpit and other sources of bias that is not a correct reflection of reality in plain view,” he continued. “We are not fighting against flesh and bone, we are fighting the forces of spiritual darkness. And it doesn’t matter what people’s intent are, but I will tell you that, that was there for a reason.”

Darkness and evil! It’s a bad, bad thing to think atheists are as good as believers:

“Have I done anything this week, have you done anything that would make anyone say, ‘Wow, what is it about them? I want to be like that. I want to be able to provide hope to others in dark times,’” the radio host said. “If you haven’t done anything different than what an atheist can do this week then your light is not shining very bright at all.”

“Because, quite honestly, if there is no difference, I mean, wouldn’t you rather stay at home on Sunday? Wouldn’t you rather just go ahead and just do what you wanted to do and not listen to some invisible guy in the sky?”

Wolf: “Do You Thank The Lord?”

It’s so annoying when tornado victims don’t follow the script, isn’t it?

Wolf: “…we’re happy you’re here; you guys did a great job. And I guess you gotta thank the Lord, right? Do you thank the Lord? For that split-second decision?”

Survivor: “I… I… I’m actually an atheist.”

Wolf: “Oh, you are! … But you made the right call.”

Survivor: “Yep; we are here. And I don’t, I don’t blame anyone for thanking the Lord”

Wow, and she doesn’t seem at all angry at God, either. Darned atheists, don’t they know the script?

Cuttlecap tip to Anonymous, via twitter.