People: our best hope

Let me share this comment in case it gets deleted:

Joplin is full of relgious groups, you know, all those people with false hope whom you say aren't looking, do everything they can to help.

I have seen no atheist organizations making a concerted effort to help.

Where are those atheist activists like who went down to Joplin last year organizing meetups?

Where are the American Atheists and FFRF?

On their blogs.

Taking swipes as Christians.

Atheist spells Eatshit as far as I am concerned anymore.

Where is Doctors Without Borders? Where is the American Civil Liberties Union? Where is the Heritage Foundation? Where is the United Nations? Midwest relief from natural disasters does not fall within the purview of any of these organizations. Likewise, American Atheists nor Freedom From Religion Foundation.

RichardDawkins.net, in partnership with many non-belief organizations, has set up a donation link for Joplin relief, just as they did for Haiti relief:
http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/

And of course Westboro Baptist Church is also doing their part.

There are a lot of good people doing good work in Joplin. Some of them might even tell you they are doing so because Jesus wants them to. But even if you could convince these people there is no divinity, they would not abandon their efforts. So too there are many non-religious christians and non-christians that are helping their neighbors. Tightly knit pre-organized church communities are going to make the most of their bonds. The rest of us sift into where we are needed. If anyone bothers to claim they are helping in order to glorify atheism, hopefully those tempted to claim they are glorifying their religious icons will recognize how silly that is.

"...all those people with false hope whom you say aren't looking, do everything they can to help."

While I was speaking more generally, this complaint exemplifies my point. They are doing. There will be those who do nothing more than pray. That's a great way to feel like you're doing something without really doing anything at all. And their prayers will be answered not by angels but by humans. For in other humans, there is real hope. The potential for help, progress and salvation are tangible in social groups, civilization or more specifically: people.

When the buildings once again stand, the foliage fills and the biggest concern is who will make the playoffs too many people will give a perceived deity all of the credit and none of the blame. Maybe we could run an experiment and see how much gets done without any human intervention. Is there any real hope that a supernatural being will replace or repair all those buildings and all that infrastructure? Or maybe we could bet on a sure thing: people. Real hope.

What do you call someone who doesn't believe

Language is not liquid. Language is LEGOs (tm). If you use too few blocks you create a very rough form. To add detail you must add scale. So too with language, complex ideas tend to be poorly represented in sparse wording. Once more efficiency is the enemy of quality.

I am a staunch and unashamed atheist. And when I describe myself as an atheist I know exactly what I mean. But I've exchanged ideas with enough people who call themselves atheists to know that though they use the same word they may not mean the same specific thing.

And I've seldom exchanged ideas with theists (on points of contention) when I didn't find it necessary to clarify definitions and implications of words and phrases to avoid equivocation and general miscommunication. Again the words atheism and atheist are likely to create misconceptions. When I use these words I know I am probably seeding a conversation.

I like the term naturalist. But that can be confused with bird-watchers or nudists. I like the term humanist but it seems new-age-y, evasive and doesn't really get the point across. I like secularist but that is more of a political position. "Bright" is immodest. If there is a better word than "atheist" it may not be coined yet. It was super-naturalists who coined and wielded the word atheist. Would it not be poetic justice if they were undone by it?

One way to have the atheist conversation while avoiding the stigma is to balance the Socratic method with dismissals of ungrounded ideas. For some reason it is more acceptable to hold and share a perspective of non-belief as long as you don't seem to have an actual position. By "playing dumb" you can avoid a lot of labels and prejudice. By asking for explanations and details you can also un-stuff or avoid many strawman arguments.

English language and Western culture seem particularly unfavorable to non-super-naturalist. For instance we still say the Sun comes up. And though we know it is the Earth's rotation moving into view, we still think of it as the Sun coming up. Try to describe a situation wherein someone experiences random but favorable circumstances without referring to luck or providence. So too "atheist" carries culturally and historically ingrained stigmas similar to "pagan," "witch" and "devil worshiper."

But by shying away from this word we give it power. We would be foolish to allow "atheist" to become "the A word." Let us instead change the meaning, not by committee or decree, but by action and example. And when archaic stigmas are made moot by an overwhelming inability to stereotype a subset of society who share nothing in common but a lack of belief, what we are called will be equally arbitrary. Let the "non-religious" and "unaffiliated" look on us with admiration so that they too may call themselves what they really are: people find no merit in religious claims, aka: atheists.

More "F" word

(This is taken unedited from comments I made elsewhere. Where it lacks context or reiterates earlier postings... that's why.)

Faith is unworthy of reverence. Faith, on any consequential scale, is absolutely deserving of despite. It’s only a state of mind, but then again so are bigotry and hubris.

If the religious and non-religious could stop using the world faith to describe reasonable naturally-supported expectations then there would only be one reason to object to its usage. And the rest of the crap could stand or fall on its own merit. If the twenty or so church marquis I pass on a regular basis are any indication, equivocation is a siren song to christians. They eat that shit up. So if non-believers seem overly reticent about broad usage of the “F” word it is a well founded concern rather than unreasonable anxiety.

One stumbling block we are going to run into is semantics. Subtle (and not so subtle) differences in the definition and proper range of usage will (and seemingly have) lead to disagreements based on misunderstandings. As a proponent of secularism and as an anti-theist I’ve come to expect this from supporters of superstitious and religious orthodoxy. But we are not evaluating “faith” for its poetic value so there is no honest benefit to leaving the door open for further equivocation.

* Faith is a belief or convicted decision made in the absence of adequate objective evidence.

There are occasions when expedient decision making is required. This is usually a matter of urgent need and limited resources (time and information being considered resources). This is not faith, unless you’d like to consider faith to be synonymous with desperation. When inaction and indecision equate to increased risk of suffering even a gamble or poorly informed guess is reasonable. In the cost/benefit analysis of “Known bad” vs. “Unknown alternative” wherein the “known bad” is severe enough, most people will brave the unknown.

There is a degree of uncertainty is every aspect of life. But the natural world, especially the civilized world at peace, is fairly predictable. We develop expectations and they are generally met. Gaping sink holes under the street seldom collapse our driving surfaces under us. But it does happen. Is it reasonable to expect it is going to happen to you at any moment? Is it more reasonable to expect that while this could happen to you it probably never will? We can make a fairly well informed decision in such matters (local geology, history lacking sink holes and undermining, competent geologists and civil engineers) and develop reasonable expectations. We might even call it trust, informed trust. To call this faith belittles the faith of the religious. There is nothing preventing you or anyone from calling this faith, except (I hope) intellectual integrity.

In situations where objective evidence is missing and there is no impending peril it is better to admit ignorance. We may operate under assumptions but if we don’t recognize that that is what we are doing we are likely to reinforce our ignorance. Where the resources exist to make informed decisions, relying on faith is willful ignorance, absolutely. If someone is too lazy to seek and consider objective evidence regarding a matter they clearly consider important… it is mildly tragic. When they think their ideas are important enough to share with others but are still too lazy to seek and consider objective evidence… it is disgusting.

*Faith may also be a belief or convicted decision made contrary to objective evidence, sometimes overwhelming evidence.

This type of faith goes beyond willful ignorance. This is delusional fanaticism. It can even be self-inflicted. Outside of “spiritual” matters and Cubs fans this is recognized as psychological affliction. And here we return squarely to the realm of beliefs based on wishful thinking and fear. This is faith at its purest (as in undiluted) ugliest form. This is the faith that too often rationalizes incivility, inhumanity and atrocity. This is the faith wherein a preconceived belief negates any contrary evidence *a priori*. This faith is a weapon, loaded and looking for a target. Most people will stop short of violence to themselves or others. But few people have difficulty condemning non-conforming culture... evidence and facts be damned.

> “Faith in vows made to others, and by
> others”


Why do these deserve faith? If they are deserving of trust (trust that you give and/or trust that you feel), that is, if they have earned trust, it’s not faith. If they are not deserving of trust neither are they deserving of faith.

> “in talent, ability, skill”

If there were anything to this then no one would ever practice. Faith is meaningless. Reasonable expectation based on previous performance is meaningful.

Positive outlook does not have a statistical influence on recovery rates. It just makes us more sympathetic to the patient. Everyone seems to think it does but studies do not back it up.

Self confidence is more reliable as a manifestation of reasonable expectations than it is as a manifestation of faith. A lack of self confidence may also be described as faith in inability. A lack of self confidence is a self fulfilling prophecy in that it deters effort. Faith or over confidence is also detrimental in that early failures tend to deter further efforts. Reasonable expectations and the knowledge that real challenges generally require tenacity are much more reliable.

All of these examples fail for the same reasons. Placing trust in something or someone that doesn’t deserve it is a gift or a gamble. Placing trust in something or someone that has earned it is evidence-based reasonable expectation.

Faith, religious or otherwise, should be despised. Using the word “faith” to describe what should be reasonably expected is an indirect, possibly unintentional, endorsement of uninformed epistemology. Willful ignorance should be mocked, not praised. The quality of a belief cannot and should not be measured by conviction of believer. To suggest otherwise is dishonest and irresponsible.

I like fiction too but I don’t see the point in celebrating the excuse a girl used to explain how her full-term baby was born 7 months (I’m guessing) after her marriage… two thousand years ago. Not even if she had a note from Epstein's Mother's deity.

Some thoughts on the "F" word

"We are most superstitious when we are least in control." I believe it was Andy Thomson who said that.

Faith should be despised as a venom inflicting insidious credulity.

The definitions of "god" change as needed by the believer. It is essentially impossible to disprove god because any attempt nearing success prompts the believer to "move the goal." That which defies observation is at a neutral buoyancy between "indisputable" and "incredible." Every person has an array of motives driving their epistemology. Just as we may find some people's behavior confusing, we tend to interpret their thoughts and motives through subjective filters. What we want and what we fear seem to be most influential. Likewise, the existence of a superghost is supported through selection bias, wishful thinking and, of course, fear.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for." ~inane christian babbling

If you encounter this platitude issue the following correction:

"Wishful thinking is the substance of things hoped for." ~me And then you can debate the subtle differences between the two statements or the complete lack of difference.

"Faith" is an insidious social tool that preys on our desire to belong... our desire to be civil. In all non-religious matters we are told: caveat emptor... "Let the buyer beware." But how often are we made to feel guilty with phrases like, "Don't you trust me?" "What are you afraid of?" For some reason it is uncouth to suggest to someone they haven't earned your trust.

Side note, old joke: How does someone from Los Angeles say "Screw you?" Answer: "Trust me."

We are told to be wary of salesmen, to convict only in the absence of reasonable doubt and "Don't believe everything you read." But with religion the rules are reversed. For "spiritual" matters belief is touted as superior in the absence of evidence. It's not hard to understand why. "Evidence" that supports supernatural claims is at best subjective and suspiciously incomplete.

"What Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence" ~Christopher Hitchens

And yet, the believer puts stock in the lack of evidence DISPROVING the existence of whatever supernatural phenomenon they cling to. It doesn't seem to matter that every alternate supernatural claim shares equal footing through the same stale argument. It seems quite possible for anyone to believe anything. The main steering point seems to be self-preservation. In order to believe in flying pizzas or to disbelieve in gravity it is useful to have an alternate explanation and essential to have a reason to do so. If you can overcome those two hurdles you could probably convince people of ancient space warlords, magic underwear or an intangible eternal essence of self.

This is why skepticism is so important. It is not just in legal matters, financial matters, physics and used-car purchases. If there is an omnipotent deity that wants to interact with us it would be a fairly important issue. Why would we go with the least reliable, most abuse-able epistemology? Who is making these claims? Why should we believe them? Why should we believe their claims? Is it trust? Faith? Tradition? Fear? Desire? These are all horrible reasons to accept something as true. These are the weaknesses that grifters and charlatans rely on. You do get the "benefit" of being able to believe in something that is otherwise unbelievable.

It is only by faith that we may be fooled.

Sometimes the word "faith" is misapplied when what is meant is "trust." For instance, "I have faith in my friends." If that faith is based on a track record of reliable behavior then that's not really "faith." If that faith is based on a history of unreliable or consistently detrimental behavior then it should be called "faith." It should also be called "sick."

Most people who try to justify their faith in something supernatural do so by crediting (confirmation bias) welcome events to that supernatural entity. As mentioned before: subjective, incomplete evidence. Unwelcome events? For some reason the entity gets no blame. The distribution of welcome and unwelcome events across cultures and belief systems is suspiciously uniform. If there is a supernatural influence casting benevolence upon the world it doesn't seem to matter if you believe in it.

There is a certain comfort to be gained in a single tidy supernatural explanation for everything you don't understand. And it is a lot less embarrassing than admitting you don't understand the myriad details of how the world works. In light of reality, empiricism, demonstrable facts and technological progress faith has become an embarrassment and a burden. People can, may and shall believe whatever Determinism or their freewill dictates. But as long as people continue to value faith over evidence, regardless of quality, regardless of quantity, people will continue to thank god for the airbag or medical treatment that saved their life. As much as I enjoy irony, the injustice makes me cringe.

When someone says, "You gotta have faith," ask them not to use the "F" word around you because it is perverse.

Deity asks: you feelin' me?

How might one respond to the claim...

"I believe in God because I feel his presence."

Always keep in mind that you will almost never win an argument WHILE it's happening. You may influence onlookers. And your partner (a term which some may find preferable to "opponent") may give honest and earnest consideration to your points upon review. That being said, how might we respond?

Seek clarity. Theists tend to dodge by changing the subject or definition when their suppositions are deflating. Here too, any direct assault will be like squeezing a wet watermelon seed. In seeking clarity regarding the "I feel" pseudo-evidence try to establish why the claimant believes that statement is meaningful.

A possible question to ask: "Should I (or anyone else) believe because of what you feel?" If the answer is "yes" then we might ask why this single perception of presence countermands the presence perceived by adherents of non-abrahamic faiths both today and historically. If the answer is "no" then we might ask how they can recognize that their perception of presence is insufficient second-hand evidence but as the object of the unreliable subjective experience they feel justified in accepting it as irrefutably divine.

The senses can be fooled and the psyche may be led astray.

The same experience of "divine presence" is available through every faith system, electromagnetic bombardment of the brain, neural chemical imbalances, physical brain damage, intoxicants, mental illness and the good ole natural high (usually brought on by awe, wonder or enthusiasm). That such a feeling is so commonly a result of religious fervor should not be considered "inspirational" as much as it is should be considered "embarrassing."

In every other realm of the human experience, loss of bodily function or mental faculty is either tragic or comical. But we've bound this psychological handicap to culturally accepted intangible forces that defy all objective observation. Somehow this disguises our pitiful and primitive misunderstanding of the world (and of ourselves) with a euphoric facade of exalted cosmic self-importance.

What is "felt" does not indicate substance. What is "felt" can only influence valuation. If you don't believe me just ask every girl I thought I was in love with as a teenager.

No new mosque near ground zero! (part 2)

After writing “No new mosque near ground zero!” I had a subtle but nagging sense of anxiety. I realized that I was thinking viscerally. Thinking viscerally is a course of action I generally discourage. What bothered me is the question of "What is right? What is just?" I allowed (or maybe forced) myself to focus more on what would be the right, fair and constitutionally consistent course of action. While I FEEL the mosque is a bad idea, while I can identify why it's a bad idea, I can't deny that preventing its construction would be government infringement on religion.

As a militant atheist I would love to see the mosque blocked by a "community standards" decision the way we might restrict porn shops and strip clubs from opening near a school. As a militant atheist I would love to see the mosque blocked by public safety standards the way we might restrict toxic dumps from opening near populated areas. As a militant atheist I would love to see this applied equally to all buildings and organizations dedicated to the promotion of unqualified belief, for example a church, or a temple, or a Discovery Institute…

But as an American I have agreed to the EULA, the terms and conditions that apply to being American. Due to the underlying jihadist motives of the 9/11 attackers I don't want to see a mosque built near ground zero any more than I would like to see a Japanese embassy built within site of the USS Arizona memorial. (and I love Nihon) I don't want it there. But (back to the terms and conditions) if a mosque can be built at any other US location and there are no restrictions for other religious or secular misinformation centers then obstruction there would be serious Infringement issue.

While the attackers were fringe followers of a more common ideology their heinous act was accepted, and even praised, by many muslims of the "moderate" or "religion of peace" variety. Even some among those who regard the attack as unjust may still regard the attackers as martyrs for the cause. In a community where it is universally considered good to be a follower of the faith, stronger convictions are (intentionally or otherwise) encouraged. Throw in political discord, a lack of opportunities and a feeling of unused potential (or self-importance) and the resulting militant extremists should not come as a surprise. The wider islamic community is a crucible for extremists and fanatics. Not that we don't have a similar (typically less violent) problem with christians here in the U.S.

It is illogical to infer causation from correlation. (begin facetiousness) As long as we can count on eastern muslims (liberal, moderate and fundamentalists) to be logical we shouldn’t need to worry that a new mosque will be perceived as the result of the 9/11 attack. (end facetiousness) But to the wider islamic community, the building of a new mosque near ground zero will be interpreted as being a direct result of the 9/11 attack. It will be interpreted as the mayor of New York posthumously presenting the attackers with the Ahmadiyya and the key to the city. It will legitimize (in their eyes) future attacks. Generally, information proliferation is driven less by factuality and relevance than it is by how interesting it might be. And this story has been sensationalized. It is likely this story will be shared around the world. Maybe not. I have yet to find it at english.aljazeera.net. There's room for hope. How it is presented and how it will be received is more likely to be tied to ideology than to reason. It could catch some positive spin overseas. The idea that America is a land where spite, paranoia and persecution do not reign could come through. I would expect that to come from a quiet minority but it is an idea that could spread and perhaps outlast initial propaganda. Maybe.

While the perception of jihadist victory may be a good reason to block construction I must acknowledge it is not an adequate reason. And I don’t see how we can justify blocking it based on the palpable sensitivity of an historical event. It's as though New York has to choose between unjust or stupid. Maybe someone will present a legitimate, legal and just reason for the cancellation of construction. As much as I want to, I haven't found it. I doubt there such a reason can be found.

I was staunchly against this project. And I still don’t like it. But I’m more interested in seeking the right answer than clinging to what I find most comfortable. For my aversion to feeding the hand that bit me and for my revulsion toward organized disinformation, I oppose this mosque at the location. But if the burden were placed on me to decide whether the mosque should be blocked or permitted I would have to permit it. Foreign perception and the harm of unqualified belief do not supersede the values of law.

If we are at all concerned about doing what is right, what is fair, then this project will not be obstructed.

The Hardest Part

What is the hardest part of being atheist?

Maybe it's finding that balance between being candid and being considerate. Is it OK to tell children there's no Santa Claus? Is it OK to tell someone in AA there is no "higher power?" Is it OK to tell someone who is basically a wounded bird that the perceived source from which they think they draw strength, which allows them make it through their perpetual hard times... is all in their head? Is it OK to tell fellow atheists that the spirituality or Harmony or Enlightenment they covet is a delusion? Is it OK to interrupt a wedding to point out that while "we ARE joined here" we are not "before God?" Even the most militant atheist is likely to consider the consequences of unwavering candor.

Maybe the hardest part is the difficulty of learning, understanding and explaining the natural mechanisms of nature and people (and how people are part of nature.) Conversely, if you want to learn, understand and explain how a supernatural being did something you just need three words: god did it. You don’t need to know where he came from or how he did it.

Maybe the hardest part is answering the same questions over and over ad nauseam. Maybe the hardest part is unlearning superstitious indoctrination. I envy atheists who never gave supernatural concepts serious consideration.

Maybe the hardest part is knowing that even in a secular state, my children's curriculum will be undermined by scripturalists. The people that accuse fellow citizens of hating America (or of being un-American) continue to call the US a Christian nation. They don’t know, understand or appreciate the first amendment. They accuse the founding fathers of being christian. They perpetuate misquotes. They push for less secular government and education. But they don’t recognize that islam is spreading in the US. Christian prayers in school this year makes muslim prayers in school inevitable.

Maybe the hardest part is seeing "faith" cherished when it should be reviled and recognized as a favored tool of charlatans. If that linchpin (faith) could be extracted there might be real hope for common ground. Theist arguments almost always fall back to faith. To be clear, I define ‘faith’ as a belief that doesn’t rely on objective evidence or even defies objective evidence. Faith is how you place trust where it has not been earned. Faith is the anchor. Just don’t try flying, swimming, running or any other kind of progress.

Maybe the hardest part is the misconception that the religious are the underdogs. They have the numbers. They have the money. They have the lobbies. They have the ideologies, doctrines and dogmas. They are rather short on facts and evidence but that doesn’t make them underdogs.

Maybe the hardest part is seeing science and scientists dismissed by people benefiting from computers, cell phones, satellite TV receivers, pharmaceuticals & inoculations, satnav, transportation, climate control… Today’s technology is yesterday’s science. Yet despite science’s track record and tangible benefits faith in the supernatural and the erroneous ancient texts still supplant empirical evidence among the faithful. There’s that word again.

Maybe the hardest part is knowing which way to turn to make progress but feeling obliged to answer the doubters and the deluded in hope that a few under-motivated fence sitters will turn to the light and help pull humanity out of the dark ages.

Maybe the hardest part is knowing when to stop whining about it and try doing something... anything. I don't even live in a time or place where I would be killed for my lack of belief. Derided, chastised, berated, reviled, discriminated against? Sure, but not killed. If there is an objective "hardest part" I probably haven't seen it yet.