Why I am an atheist – Holly

I am an atheist because, if I am to be an honest person, it is the only way I am able to be.

When I was struggling with trying to be Christian in my early 20’s, other Christians who knew I was struggling would tell me to “have faith” and “it will come with time” if I just believe. I was subtly told that I was over-thinking the whole question. (What does it mean to “over-think”?) I tried to be open to God, but I couldn’t stop “over-thinking”. I pleaded with God to reveal himself to me and wondered what was wrong with me that he never did. I wasn’t even asking for much of a sign–I didn’t want a burning bush or a miracle, I just wanted a feeling like so many Christians I knew claimed they had–a feeling of knowing the “truth” and knowing that God was there with me.

I never got such a feeling and I slowly came around to the idea that maybe there was nothing wrong with me. Maybe the reason I wasn’t picking up God’s signal was not because I was a poor receptor but because he wasn’t actually there. The moment I let myself think that, I was on a very quick path to atheism. My “eureka” moment was not “God does not exist” but rather, “I don’t have to believe in God.” It seems obvious to me now, but at the time it was a real revelation (so to speak). I started to see faith for what it is: not the noble, humble position as it is touted, but a lie to oneself–deliberate deceit self-imposed in order to believe in something that’s not true.

I’ve recently become not only an atheist, but an “out” atheist. I talk about it with the religious members of my family. I say it outright if someone asks me if I belong to a church. I updated my facebook “philosophy” to read “atheist” (this was surprisingly difficult for me for whatever reason). I’ve even told a handful of my students when they’ve asked. This newfound zeal came about this year when my husband and I started looking for resources on raising our 3-year-old daughter without religion. We want to raise her to not be afraid–of being different, of being creative, of being smart, of being rational. And so I had to stop and examine how I was living my life and I saw that I had been hiding. I didn’t believe, but I sometimes pretended I did to avoid conflict. I was noncommittal or weakly compromising at best and untruthful at worst, and I don’t want to raise my daughter to think that’s OK.

I became an atheist to be honest with myself and so I had to come out as an atheist to be honest with others.

We teach by example, so I’m working to be an example worth learning from.

Holly
United States

Michael Ellenburg is a quack!

Alaska is one of those states afflicted with licensed naturopaths, which basically means they’ve got a bunch of people with no qualifications and a skull full of stupid who get to call themselves doctors and make sick people worse. The premiere Alaskan quack is Michael Ellenburg, one of those guys who peddles everything from homeopathy to traditional Chinese medicine to ozone therapy to acupuncture — the usual cocktail of New Age sewage. Steeped as I currently am in cancer texts in preparation for the next term, I perked right up when I read about Bryomixol.

Bryomixol is an herbal therapy that targets the patient’s immune system function. In patients who have cancer they need to get their immune system to start working properly. Anyone who has cancer does not have a proper functioning immune system, otherwise they would not have cancer. Chemotherapy and Radiation are directed against the tumor(s), they do nothing to support the immune system. Bryomixol can be used in cancer to treat the patient’s immune system; it is not a targeted cancer treatment. Bryomixol specifically effects Natural Killer cell function. NK cells are involved in seeking out and destroying tumor cells, bacteria, and viruses.

Try listening to any of these quacks on the radio (sadly, turn to any of the more liberal networks in your area, and you’ll find them infested with magic medicine shows), and this is the refrain you hear most frequently: “enhance your immune system naturally”. I don’t even know what that means, and I’m a biologist…but it sounds good, doesn’t it?

Unfortunately for all those cancer patients who are going to hand over their money to Ellenburg, bryomixol is also homeopathic: it’s distilled water, nothing more. Ellenburg is a guy who skims profit off the pain and suffering of others, offering nothing in return but a glass of water.

21 April is a busy day

If you aren’t attending the Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism on that day, like I am, there’s another big skeptical conference going on on the other side of the country: SkeptiCal will be held in Berkeley. You’re in luck if you’re in New York or Northern California, but the rest of us will have to travel.

Next time, they ought to split the difference and hold both in some exotic place halfway in between, like, say, Morris…it’s the only way we’ll get a heroic Eugenie Scott vs. Steven Novella face-off.

Why I am an atheist – Fester60613

I am an atheist because the gods presented to me in my youth are:

  • All loving – while providing the perfect vehicle of hatred and bigotry for their followers.

  • Omniscient – except when the intervention of a God is desperately needed.

  • Benevolent – while children suffer and die, while women are humiliated and tortured and slain in barbarous fashions simply because they are women.

  • Conflicted – “Heal the sick, clothe the naked, feed the hungry” but also “kill them all – men, women, children, animals and trees.”

  • Afflicted by Munchausen by proxy syndrome – “I’ll kill my son so you will love me more.”

  • Misogynistic

  • Used by the international criminal Pope Benedict XVI to assist in the cover up of an international conspiracy to sexually abuse children.

  • Unworthy of my praise, my devotion, and my worship.

And other reasons too numerous to mention.

Fester60613
United States

The ghouls’ new game

Hitch is barely cold and already the ghouls are coming for the corpse. It’s the strangest approach, too — they’re all sounding like Mormons, trying to retroactively baptize him in their faith.

Case #1: Ross Douthat. But then you knew that Christian hack would do his best to turn an atheist’s death into a moral fable for his faith. He compares his literary gifts to G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis and thereby, by some strange rambling logic, claims him as a kindred spirit, actually cites Hitchens denying that he was going to abandon his lifelong and strongly held principles and convert on his deathbed, only to then concludes that Hitchens wouldn’t have given in to atheistic despair. It’s appalling, sleazy, and contemptible, and exposes Douche-hat as someone completely incapable of comprehending any other perspective than his god-bothering own.

Do go read Charles Pierces’s takedown. If the NY Times had any sense, they’d fire Douthat on the spot (because he’s a fucking dimwitted ghoul), and put Pierce in his place (because he actually has talent and perspicacity).

Case #2: Scott Stephens. Stephens is the religion editor at ABC Online, and he actually makes Douthat look good. Douthat at least is constrained by the Times in his length; Stephens has a kind of spirit-infused theological diarrhea that he pours onto the page. I swear, I blacked out several times trying to read the whole thing — I think he was trying a novel argument for the soul by doing his best to make mine sick to the point of pining for mortality.

His obit is a weird one that simultaneously tries to be generous in its praise while sinking to new depths. One of the running themes seems to be ‘Hitchens got fat’, with comments like “his increasingly corpulent body”, “overindulged jowls”, “bloated, hirsute complexion” (that last one is strange) — aha, I thought, so that’s what Conservapædia looks like dressed up with a clerical collar and a thesaurus.

But then, he tries to “distill the essence” of Hitchens, and concludes that he was, at heart, a Christian. He quotes Hitchens saying that the Pope was one of his three most deeply hated people in the world (the others being bin Laden and Kissinger), and then declares that Hitchens’ anti-totalitarianism was exactly like the Pope’s.

Yet, on the other hand, it was precisely the form of rigorously Christocentric humanism advocated by Pope Benedict and his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, that constituted the most powerful and persuasive critique of the totalitarian regimes of Eastern Europe. Moreover, it was from Christianity itself that Hitchens derived his keen sense of the illegitimacy, the idolatry of totalitarian power.

And then he quotes Hitchens acknowledging the contribution of Christianity.

The greatest contribution of Christianity in my life is the reminder of the complete ephemerality of human power, and indeed human existence – the transience of all states, empires, heroes, grandiose claims, and so forth. That’s always with me, and I daresay I could have got that from Einstein … and from Darwin. But the way I got it and the way it is implanted in me is certainly by Christianity.

That’s from a public conversation he had with his brother. But Stephens doesn’t bother to mention what Hitchens said further down:

If anything could prove what I so much believe, which is that we are not made by God and never were and could not have been, but that many, many gods have been made by men and women and it is precisely the other way around, the basic claim of materialism — if nothing else could persuade me of that obvious truth, the behavior of religion itself would be enough.

Hitchens was always blunt and plain-spoken about his opinion of religion. He would not ever deny that he was a product of a Western and English culture that had religion wrapped around its roots (like a parasitic fungus, I would say), he was also explicit in his denial of the validity of god-belief, and was frank in his accusations of the folly of faith. For a Christian to now try and put the mantle of Christianity on him is repulsive and disrespectful — it’s like witnessing the desecration of a corpse. The corpse may not mind anymore, but it’s still a distasteful spectacle and gives the lie to any pretense of appreciation of the person who once resided in that body.

But then, that’s what ghouls do.

It’s also such peculiar behavior. When popes die, you don’t find atheists lining up to write encomiums in which they claim that he was really an atheist, deep down, and that he lived as a humanist rather than a Catholic. When William Lane Craig dies, no one will speculate that he denied the gods on his deathbed; when Scott Stephens croaks, no one will winnow through his columns, straining occasional words and phrases out of context to suggest that maybe he really was sympathetic to atheism after all. They are who they are, deluded dunces who invoke no sense of envy in us at all.

And maybe that’s the explanation. Hitchens was a man of palpable talent and immense rhetorical skill, and maybe we should recognize it as flattery that these Christians desperately wish to appropriate him.

But there is one thing anyone who read his works could know: Hitchens was an atheist, without qualification.

Yet another apologist simpers feebly

Paul Wallace (who?) is declaring victory in the conflict between science and religion, with the most specious reasoning. His big general argument is that the New Atheists are old.

This year has marked, I believe, the beginning of the end of the war between science and religion. Creationism cannot last. The New Atheists are now old (or departed).

That little dig about “departed” atheists is, clearly enough, a rather nasty reference to Christopher Hitchens, and the link goes to a religious argument about whether he’s in hell or not. It is revealing that these Christians can’t even try to make a rational argument without playing ghoul. But it’s also wrong; as an activist in the atheist movement for about 15+ years, what has been most notable to me is how much younger the movement gets every year. As has been pointed out many times, the fastest growing segment of the religious question is the Nones, who reject the whole mess.

After that little falsehood, Wallace’s arguments disintegrate rapidly. His sole tactic is to list 10 people, marginal or tangential to the whole movement on either side, and point and say, “Look! They don’t hate religion! Therefore, we’re winning.” It’s a pathetic and irrational effort. Here is his list of the Big 10 reconciling science and religion.

10. Karl Giberson, science & religion writer and former physicist, for reminding evangelicals that science is not the enemy

Right. The Karl Giberson who was squeezed out of the website he cofounded, as Biologos cozies up to fundagelical literalists? It seems to me that the real lesson here is that the evangelicals are reminding Giberson that science is the enemy.

9. Jon Huntsman, U.S. Ambassador to China, former Governor of Utah, candidate for the 2012 Republican nomination for president, for decoupling conservative politics and creationism

Huntsman was the only Republican candidate for president to speak out for the scientific views on evolution and global warming. He also doesn’t stand a prayer of getting the nomination. His position is a confirmation that the Christian majority hates science. And mormons.

8. Jon Stewart, political satirist, for shining light on American Atheists’ frivolous lawsuit against the inclusion of the Ground Zero cross in the 9/11 memorial museum

I wasn’t that enthusiastic myself, but I don’t think it was frivolous. I think the “ground zero cross” highlights the stupidity of Christianity — to think, they found two metal bars that had been welded at right angles to one another in some wreckage!

7. Nidhal Guessoum, astrophysicist, for reminding us that, in the minds of nearly 1.6 billion people, “science and religion” does not mean “science and Christianity”

Somehow, the fact that they found a guy who favors good science, and is also a member of a religion that has discouraged science to the point that only 10-20% of its members accept evolution (which Wallace comes right out and admits), is regarded as a victory for religion? So to some people, “science and religion” means “science and Islam”, and the overwhelming majority of them detest science.

6. Jack Templeton, surgeon, president and chairman of the John Templeton Foundation, for bringing science into the church

Hmmm. Reactionary fundamentalist Christian who donates substantial sums of money to defeat gay marriage initiatives and also strains to coopt science to support his religious beliefs is supposed to be an example of religion and science finding a middle ground? It looks more like moral and scientific bankruptcy to me. He’s a guy trying to bring the church into science, not vice versa.

5. Chris Stedman, interfaith activist and super-swell atheist guy, for decoupling atheism from science, and for being the face of a kinder, gentler atheism

Fuck “kinder, gentler atheism”. Finding one smiley apologist for faith who is too craven to confront the real lies of religion does not convince me that the New Atheism is in decline at all. These pandering compromisers will always be popular with the subset of the population that dreads rocking the boat…and they’ll always be the ones fighting against change and for the status quo.

4. Rachel Held Evans, author, speaker, blogger, for making science & religion her thing, but not her main thing

Who? Wallace seems impressed that Evans is not a biblical literalist. So? That’s been common for quite some time.

3. All Those People Who Are Not Backing the Ark Park, for keeping the sure-to-be-divisive Ark Encounter from its scheduled August groundbreaking

What? The majority of Christians in Kentucky are in favor of the nonsensical giant ark, and somehow this tells Wallace that religion and science are reconciled?

2. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, for reminding us that being ethical does not depend on belief in a personal God—nor, particularly, on science

I have never been sympathetic to the Dalai Lama. Sure, he smiles a lot — that seems to be the sole criterion for thinking he’s a hero of religion — but he represents a misogynistic, theocratic tyranny that wants to get back in power in the homeland of Tibet. Charismatic tyrants may be one kind of religious ideal, but not mine.

1. Terrence Malick, filmmaker, for reminding us that art may be the most compelling way to reconcile science & religion

Haven’t seen his movie. Not really interested in seeing it, either. I don’t think an art-house movie represents the state of religion in this country, and especially since Wallace mainly seems to like it for its biblical roots, it’s not exactly a slice of scientific thought, either.

That’s it. That’s Wallace’s great groundswell of pro-religious, pro-science belief that is sweeping the country — 10 marginal characters who meet Wallace’s criterion of being nice and non-confrontational. I’m sorry, but cherry-picking the population for the wimpiest set of useless apologists (or twisting their positions to hide their actual agendas) is not very impressive.

Although I did think it entirely appropriate to see Stedman and Templeton on the same list. Both are playing exactly the same game from different sides of the playing field.

(I am not alone in finding Wallace risible. Greg Laden has commented, and Ian Cromwell tears him a new one. Expect more of the freethought to rise to point and laugh at Wallace in the near future.)

And now…Ophelia makes the interesting point that the apologists are actually divisive and increase the combativeness.

von Däniken poisons everything

Gah, the stupid, it burns. Ridley Scott is making a kind of prequel to Alien called Prometheus, which sounds fun; I liked the first two movies in the Alien franchise. But his rationale dismays me, and makes me regard Scott as a bit dim.

"The (space) journey, metaphorically, is about a challenge to the gods," Scott said. But Scott’s ambitions with Prometheus go far beyond simply restarting a hit franchise. The British director said the film’s storyline, and script by David Lindelof, was partially inspired by the writings of legendary Swiss sci-fi writer Eric van Daniken.

Van Daniken, author of 1968 bestseller Chariot of the Gods, is best known as the first proponent of the so-called ancient astronaut theory, which holds that aliens kick-started civilization on earth. "NASA and the Vatican agree that is almost mathematically impossible that we can be where we are today without there being a little help along the way," Scott said. "That’s what we’re looking at (in the film), at some of Eric van Daniken’s ideas of how did we humans come about."

I had to laugh at the claim that von Däniken was a “sci-fi writer”. He wasn’t. He was a pseudo-science writer who believed that his nonsense about aliens helping the Egyptians construct the pyramids (and other belittlings of human abilities) was actual history. I’ve read a couple of his books, many years ago, and they were so hopelessly inane and incompetently supported that I rejected them as a high school student. It doesn’t say much about Scott’s scientific discrimination that he can be inspired by that drivel, and it is just about as damning to his competence at recognizing a good story that he mistook it for a sci-fi novel.

I also don’t consider the opinion of a bunch of engineers or a gang of theological thugs to be of much value in assessing the likelihood of evolutionary events — the authorities he cites are not authorities in the subject he’s discussing. I have a strong suspicion that Scott is making crap up, doesn’t know much about what either NASA or the Vatican has said, and probably hasn’t even read any of von Däniken’s books, but is only vaguely echoing the ‘common knowledge’ of blithering Hollywood celebrities.

My expectations for this movie have plummeted, though. Those Hollywood celebrities should never ever speak, because they always seem to confirm that they’re vacuous and credulous.

Bad Atheist Tropes

The Cuttlefish is asking what Atheist Tropes We Can Do Without. He’s got a bunch of good ones listed, but misses the obvious one despite noting their existence: the media, when confronted with the need to write something about those awful atheists, always turn to a simpering godbotherers like Barbara Bradly Hagerty or certifiable morons like Dinesh D’Souza for commentary. Hey, how about next time a pope dies or someone organizes a prayer rally, call me for an opinion? I’ll give you pith and sound bite.

Another one that infuriates me is the smug theist who wants to prove that I actually have faith in something, and the one thing they always choose is “love”. It’s invisible, isn’t it, just like god, so if you can believe in love, you must believe in god. Nope, sorry: I see evidence of love every day, and I can show it to you — and I don’t accept the existence of love that doesn’t demonstrate itself.

Why I am an atheist – Marty Heath

I was raised Roman Catholic, sent to 12 years of Catholic school. I was an altar boy for 4 years, and the reader of scripture at Sunday mass for 4 more. Usually at this point in the story, people ask if I was molested by a priest, and that’s why I’m an atheist. I was not, but the question stands as a good barometer of the reputation of the Roman Catholic Church.

Religious education is a standing part of the curriculum in Catholic school, and always, I was a child who asked questions. Why can’t we eat meat on Friday? How do we know the Bible is true? Why do we think the Pope is infallible? Do unbaptised children go to hell? Where does the Bible mention limbo?

The answers were always the same. “It’s a matter of faith”, the priest would say. “Either you believe it or you don’t”. As I grew up, the questions continued, and became more pointed. What evidence is there of transubstantiation? The Bible doesn’t mention birth control, why is its use a sin? If people who have not been exposed to the Christian faith don’t go to hell, but people who have been exposed, but don’t believe, do go to Hell, should we evangelize to them? What can a professed lifelong virgin teach us about sexual relationships and marriage? “A matter of faith. Believe it or not”.

At some point around age 17, I realized that if that was all they had, if that was their best argument, then the truth was, I don’t believe it. I don’t believe a word of it. When I accepted that as the truth, it was like a weight lifted from my shoulders. There’s really no reason to worry about eternal damnation–the whole story is bullshit.

Over time, it has become increasingly clear to me that the whole notion of substitutionary atonement is not only unbelievable, but intrinsically immoral. No amount of suffering by an innocent can ever assuage the responsibility of the guilty. The “get out of hell free” card is just too easy, the application too random, and the evidence too lacking to merit respect. A diety that would create such a system is a monster, and not worthy of our worship.

Morality is a code of behaviour that gives you the best chance of living a happy, satisfying life. Science is the tool for understanding the world as it really is. We’re all going to die some day, so make the most of this opportunity and help others who are in the same boat as you. The ways we are all alike are far more important than the trivialities that make us different.

Being an atheist in America today is not a popular position, but it does carry the substantial comfort of being true.

Marty Heath
United States