The Atheist Mama

To keep the conversations as fresh and original as possible, my first decree as acting Mama is to disallow, disavow, and discourage any invocation of the following: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, and Pascal’s Wager.

Any other hackneyed references or tedious arguments you would add to the list?

–Allen

Just when I thought this particular ad campaign was fading into well-deserved obscurity, it has returned with a renewed vigor and vitality. Meet Bob. Bob is a pitch man for, well, pitching tents as we say in the States. Because he’s so very, very happy about his pharmaceutically-induced erections, he can’t stop grinning like a mental patient every waking hour of the day. Even worse than his insipid smile, however, is the diabolically monotonous whistling throughout the entire commercial which very nearly qualifies as a crime against humanity.
Are there commercials that bother you as much as this one bothers me? (Yes, I know I can change the channel. And I do. I just don’t understand why so many people find this entertaining. ) If so, tell us about them.

–Allen

I recently wrote a letter to the NC school board as well as our house representative and senators concerning a sign that is prominently displayed in my children’s public schools. The sign is a framed poster reading, “IN GOD WE TRUST.” The letter follows. I will be sure to post the replies I receive…

I am a resident of Lincoln County North Carolina. I have two school age children that attend public schools here. It has come to my attention that in both of my children’s schools there is a framed sign reading, “In God We Trust.� This slogan on display in a public institution of education highly offends me. Not only do such references foster oppression and discrimination they are unconstitutional.

I realize that this motto was adopted by congress in 1956, however this does not make it right or just. Please note this is also the congress that launched communism witch-hunts and trampled the civil rights of numerous people. This antiquated slogan symbolizes one of many injustices forced upon a religious and culturally diverse nation.

This nation is comprised of people from all walks of life. It is their right to live the life they seek free of religious subjugation. Our constitution grants us freedom of religion. Thomas Jefferson speaks eloquently of this freedom in respects to a wall between church and state. This separation of church and state is vital to the livelihood of our great nation.

Ask yourself how could this slogan on display in a public school affect a child of a non-Christian or Jewish upbringing? A Wiccan child prays to a Goddess, Buddhist honor Buddha, Muslims pray to Allah, we may even have those that still believe in Zeus or Thor. How about the family that does not believe in a deity? We cannot assume that all honor the God of Abraham or any other supernatural being. To ask them to do so goes against the very fundamentals this nation was built upon.

Schools are a place to nurture the mind, an institution that embraces all equally. The subject of God and religion is a private matter to be discussed in the confines of one’s home or religious institution. Human history is deeply scarred and stained with blood shed in the name of God and religion. The issue of religion, forced worship and subjugation are among the deepest rifts in the fabric of this nation. To include such a volatile and potentially oppressive subject in our educational system is doing children and this nation a deep disservice. Our government and all government operated institutions are supposed to be secular so that Americans can be theist or not with out fear of oppression and discrimination.

It is time to step up correct the wrongs that have been visited upon this nation and its constitution. This is our home; it is enriched by diversity and opportunity. Please don’t take this for granted. We need to learn to respect one another and to keep our religious dogmas out of public schools and other government run institutions in order to maintain our rights and liberties and create an environment in which we all can flourish. These signs need to be removed from our schools for the sake of freedom. God does not belong in our schools any more than the government belongs in our churches.

SAO PAULO, Brazil - Just weeks after Pope Benedict XVI denounced government-backed contraception in a visit to Brazil, the president unveiled a program Monday to provide cheap birth control pills at 10,000 drug stores across the country.

(applauds) If this is the effect the Pope has on the countries he visits, I encourage him to tour widely and often.

“The church favors responsible parenthood, with parents using natural (birth control) methods,” said Tempesta, who oversees the church in the northeastern state of Para.

- Brazil to subsidize birth control pills

As the joke goes, the Catholic Church allows women to use mathematics to prevent pregnancy, but neither physics nor chemistry. “Natural Family Planning” has always struck me as a ridiculously contrived loophole. I once heard it explained that the method leaves open the opportunity for God to “give” you a child, if he so wishes. I suppose that if I were to believe in an omnipotent deity who reputably once managed to impregnate a virgin, I’d likely trust that neither a condom nor a pill full of hormones would be likely to thwart him. Perhaps I’m over-estimating omnipotence.

(cross posted at Irreverent Musings)

I have one of those “Born Again� Christian aunts who dutifully forwards me e-mail chain letters about Jesus and angels and prayer, sometimes four or five a day. While I admit they do have a certain entertainment value, it really is frightening that she not only believes this nonsense but feels urgently compelled to share it with everyone she knows.

The following is an excerpt from a particularly inane e-mail with the subject heading “This is what the problem in our nation and schools is about! Read below…� In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the author quotes from a speech (allegedly) given by the father of a student killed in the Columbine tragedy to illustrate the real cause of this terrible violence:

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You’ve stripped away our heritage,
You’ve outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms ,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question “Why?”
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet, you fail to understand,
That God is what we need! (emphasis mine)

and at the end:

“As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right!

I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA — I give to you a sincere challenge.

Dare to examine your
own heart before casting the first stone!

My daughter’s death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!”

Do what the media did not - - let the nation hear this man’s speech.. Please send this out to everyone you can. God Bless. (emphasis mine)

Speaking as a teacher who has worked in a public school for over ten years, these accusations are patently ridiculous. While there are restrictions on compulsory prayer or Bible reading, students are free to pray voluntarily, read the Bible or other religious texts, and organize religious groups and clubs on campus.

What’s even more galling, however, is the implication that these horrific events are a direct result of the mythical outlawing of prayer, specifically Christian prayer, in public school. What evidence is offered? None. Statistical correlation? Nope. Peer-reviewed research? Nah. Just ignorant, opportunistic propaganda.

Needless to say, I “broke the chain.” Sorry, Auntie.

–Allen

So, my wife and I take our son to one of the local McDonald’s with the attached playroom, and no sooner had we started eating when one family of kids starts to climb on stacked high chairs and the window ledges, no less. Then they start grabbing food trays to take with them on the play equipment when one older boy grabs a younger one’s foot and pulls him down from the ladder he was climbing. The younger child starts crying, of course, and the bully who pulled him down has this really amused smile on his face. When another child in the family asks the bully why he hurt the other one, the bully says he didn’t do anything, and a very loud argument that includes the “f” word breaks out. And where was good ol’ mom? In the main restaurant, of course, doing who knows what.

The point of this rather pointless episode is simply to ask you this: When, if ever, do you step in to discipline or scold children that are not your own?

–Allen

If you serve up maggots anywhere during a conversation, like during a meal, it’ll be all your guests remember later.

I recently started a temporary day job as an instructional designer. On my first day, I was granted a cubicle. As someone who has spent most of her life self-employed or, for a short while, in an office*, a cubicle is a novel experience indeed.

I’m still learning the rules of cubicle life. I’ve already learned that whenever anyone in an adjacent cubicle begins a conversation, it’s commonly understood that everyone in the vicinity must drop everything he or she is doing to eavesdrop. It’s also my understanding that it is proper to later pretend that these conversations were completely inaudible to all but the intended parties. Through our mutual pretending, we maintain the illusion that we all have “real� offices and “real� privacy.

Apparently, this tenet of cubicle etiquette doesn’t always apply.

A few days ago, I was sitting in my cubicle, merrily designing instruction**, when I heard the Ira Glass-esque voice of a coworker sitting in a neighboring cubicle drawl, “you know Kelly***, there is no afterlife.� At this, my ears perked up. While I personally might try to not introduce rationalism with death, I’m always interested identifying fellow rationalists. He sounded like a good candidate. “There is no heaven, no hell, no god,� Ira-sound-alike continued. A fellow atheist too! I continued to listen, not even pretending to type anymore. “When you die, your body will rot and be eaten by maggots. Life really has no point.� Oh, I thought. He’s a maggot guy.

The conversation continued, intermixed with a lesson in Adobe Illustrator. I was less interested in listening at this point. I’m a realist. I’m okay with the fact that, were I to be buried****, my body would indeed decay, possibly with the assistance of some friendly maggots. However, I’m not so into unnecessarily dwelling on the gruesome. “Hi! I’m an atheist! Want some maggots?� is possibly not the best pick-up line ever invented.

Later that afternoon, Kelly wandered over to my cubicle and grumbled, “Oh, I’m just having a great day—Ira told me I’m going to be eaten by maggots and that there isn’t any point to life. Did you hear?� Apparently, this was a case when I was supposed to ignore cubicle tenet number two and acknowledge that I had, indeed, been eavesdropping. I nodded. “My mother raised me as a Catholic,� Kelly continued, “she’d just be so upset to hear something like that.� I nodded again. “Why would he believe something like that?� she asked.

I took a deep breath as I prepared to out myself. “Well, actually, I’m also an atheist. However, I think Ira’s being a bit of a nihilist.� I explained how the lack of an afterlife just makes life sweeter—since we only get to try once, we should do as much with our lives as possible. I explained that, while I didn’t believe there was a prescribed “meaning� of life, we make our own meaning through social compacts and personal values. “Oh,� Kelly said, blinking a few times as she absorbed this. Then she smiled, “That’s really so much nicer. I’m so glad I met you, Amanda,� and wandered off singing***** a random show-tune I’d never heard before.

Really, I don’t know the background or circumstances of Ira and Kelly’s conversation and could be grossly misrepresenting them both. Such is the danger of blogging about those you’ve only known for three days. However, either way, I shall make a suggestion for introducing atheism to others: good conversations, like good recipes, call for absolutely no maggots.

Cross posted at Irreverent Musings.

* with REAL walls!

** after all, that is what we instructional designers design

*** not her real name

**** I don’t plan on it—I might as well donate it to science and let someone get some use out of it.

**** this is not an exaggeration for literary purposes—she really does sing while wandering around the office. It’s her thing.

My 10 yr old daughter has aspirations of becoming a scientist. She’s back and forth on the specific field of study but her heart has always led her to science. As a parent I feel its my job to provide her every opportunity possible to explore her thirst for knowledge.

We often have discussions pertaining to science and how the world and universe work. Lately, we have been discussing evolution. We have discussed the facts of biological evolution and are starting to get into some of the hypotheses as far as species evolutionary paths and relations. I recently suggested asking her teacher when and if they were going to cover evolution this year. As she came off the school bus yesterday the first thing out of her mouth was, “Mom! My teacher said it was against the law to teach evolution!� To say the least I was floored.

I realize that evolution is consistently under attack from the religious right based on their interpretation of biblical accounts regarding the creation of life. I can fully respect ones right to exercise their religious freedoms. However, I do not believe that the educational system needs to omit scientific reasoning, theory and hypotheses from curriculum in order to placate religious doctrine. The study of scientific evidence, fact, and theory are critical elements to understanding how science can be used to research and understand the world and universe around us. To leave out elements due to religious protest not only skews scientific data and understanding, it crosses the separation of church and state as outlined in our Constitution.

Although, I may not agree with some peoples choice to shelter their children from studying evolution, I support their right to practice their religion. If the studying of scientific data interferes with ones religious beliefs opting out of portions of science class that are thought to be contradictory or sac religious, as many do for sex education, is completely acceptable.

Honestly, I have been very happy with our school so I was shocked to hear that evolution would be a banned topic. I have started researching the issue. Web searches were varied and contradictory, as expected. However the names, numbers and addresses of our county board and state board are easily found on the web. This morning I placed several phone calls to members of both state and county school boards. No one was available at the time, so I left messages stating I was curious about some specific curriculum policies. I have received three varied responses. Oddly enough no one has been able to answer my question; Is there a law or policy prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public school?

One lady I spoke with admitted that she didn’t know much about evolution to begin with. She actually said, “its the idea that apes turned into humans or something like that.� I was a bit speechless over the comment. I mean this woman is one our county school board officials. In fact she is the chairman of the Curriculum advisory committee!

So I sit here this evening in a bit of shock and bewilderment. What started out as a quest to find out if evolution is a banned topic in North Carolina schools has turned up not only conflicting information but seems to have scratched the surface of what could be a grossly incompetent school board.

Cross posted on broadstripes.org

Lynn’s Daughter’s comment about her atheist bumper sticker in the previous post inspired me to ask: What kind of atheist or anti-religious stickers or emblems or what-not do you display on your vehicle(s)? Has anyone ever reacted to or commented about them? And if you don’t have anything like that, would you consider it? Ever?

The picture on the left is the emblem I’d like to put on my car, but I haven’t had the nerve…yet. I am an elementary school teacher in a conservative city in California, and I know many parents and most of the teachers I work with would not appreciate this display one little bit.

–Allen

All right, look around and remember where you were when you heard the news that Representative Pete Stark is openly atheist, the first one in American history!

I highly recommend you send him a positive message before the righteous backlash begins.

Whatever his politics may be, you have to admire his courage.

–Allen

I think one of the reasons that atheism is so maligned and misunderstood is because, by definition, atheism is a negative term. By that I mean it describes what we reject or don’t believe, but not what we accept or promote. Many religious people are instantly put on the defensive by the name alone.

Not only that, but most of the atheists they see are the ones they perceive taking away their rights in lawsuits or blaspheming The Holy Spirit on YouTube. Or ridiculing them on blogs like this one.

While defending atheism and criticizing religious beliefs are important and necessary, I think the time has come to include a different approach.

We atheists must begin to explain what we are for, what we value, and what we can offer instead of religion. We must go out into our communities openly and simply do good. No debates, no confrontations; just engage in something positive.

That’s my vision, anyway. I’d really enjoy getting a group of atheists together in my own town to do some volunteer work, and maybe it will inspire other people in other places to do the same. Then perhaps, some time in the future, we will begin to be treated with a little more respect and tolerance.

Is this a good idea? Am I naive? Or am I some kind of traitor to “the cause?�

–Allen

This is going to sound sensational and provocative to our religious audience in particular, but I don’t intend it to be. It is simply a sincere attempt to explain something that may be very difficult for believers to accept.

For much of human history, including our world today, many people have insisted one can’t be moral without a belief in one or more divine beings, usually the one or ones they themselves prefer. I have concluded, however, the opposite is true: one can’t truly be a moral person until one rejects any and all gods.

When I was a believing Catholic, I was often promised the wonders of heaven if I did what the Church taught was good, and the tortures of hell if I didn’t. Over time, however, this struck me as very cynical and insidious, and instead of inspiring me, it actually undermined my ability to make moral decisions. When I did good things, it was because they made me and others feel happy, not because I was hoping for a big payoff in the afterlife. In the same way, I rejected evil because it was wrong, not because I wanted to avoid eternal punishment.

In the end, I wanted to do the right thing for its own sake, not simply because some god or church or so-called sacred text commanded it. At that point, I began to see myself as a fully-realized moral being. Free from divine bribes and threats, I could determine what was good and evil through compassion, understanding, and reason. I could focus on making this, the only life we know of, as loving and fulfilling as possible.

Does this make me a deserving candidate for hell, as the Church and many others believe?

–Allen

I recently came across this image entitled “Forgiven.”

Maybe it’s just me, but…let’s just say there may be some interpretations the artist probably didn’t intend.

Am I wrong?

–Allen

It’s okay, folks, everything’s fine! The Reverend Jerry Falwell, champion of science and reason, assures us all that global warming is just part of a liberal conspiracy to distract Christians from their “heavenly purpose.” Thank you so much for setting us all straight on that burning issue, Jer.

Don’t know what I was worried about…

–Allen

Just so our Christian or other religious readers don’t feel excluded from this ongoing conversation about evidence: What experience or reason would you need to convince you that God doesn’t exist?

–Allen

Why doesn’t the Bible explicitly prohibit slavery?

Millions of men, women and children all over the world for thousands of years have suffered and continue to suffer today under slavery in one form or another.

Can it truly be called “The Good Book” when it fails to condemn something that is so obviously evil?

–Allen

Finally, let me explain what would evidence I would need to be convinced that God exists.

Let me be very specific here, because as Jim shrewdly observed in the original post, there have been thousands of different gods worshipped by millions of people over many, many centuries.

So, then, what would convince me that Jesus Christ in particular (and no other gods) exists?

For a start, I would like to examine the wounds in Christ’s hands and side just as one of His disciples, Thomas, did before he would believe (John 20:24-29). Failing that, I suppose being blinded by a heavenly light and being spoken to directly by Jesus as Saul (later Paul) experienced would be acceptable as well (Acts 9:1-19).

But this isn’t how it works, the believer may argue. One must have faith. Indeed, as the account of Doubting Thomas teaches, believing without seeing is a virtue. The Lord will not be tempted to prove His existence. So, we are left with a sort of stalemate.

Oddly enough, science may provide a way out of this quandary. But again, the believer may object. As I once heard a television preacher proclaim,“You can’t put God in a test tube!�

And he’s probably right—the supernatural is, by definition, (rather conveniently) beyond the reach of science.

However, if one believes that Jesus can affect the material world, those effects can be observed, examined, and measured empirically. If, for example, one claims that praying to Jesus can cure cancer, an experiment can be put together to test it. After careful planning and consideration of all other variables, one group of cancer patients can pray for healing in the name of Jesus, another in the name of Allah, another in the name of Zeus, and, of course, there would be a control group where no one prays at all. The results of the experiment could then be analyzed to see if the patients who prayed to Jesus had a significantly higher rate of recovery than the other groups.

If the results were positive, and consistently repeated in different and numerous studies, this would be something I would consider as evidence.

But if the latest prayer study with heart patients is any indication, I don’t think I’ll be “saved� any time soon.

–Allen

Well, I did promise to explain what evidence I would need to conclude that God exists, and that will be coming soon.

First, I’d like to respond to a few of the comments from the original post. Anatoliy Russ writes:

For a true believing atheist no evidence would be enough to dissuade him or her from abandoning their belief. The mind of an atheist has made its decision and even a dramatic sign from the heavens could be explained away. I’m sure that the only evidence that can convince a true atheist is dying and seeing what happens next.

This is patently false and can be proven so with a minimum of effort. The world is full of atheists who have found Jesus and preachers who have turned atheist and everything in between. I think Anatoily needs to get out of the compound a little more often.

And then there was sweet, sweet Shanilie:

Hi, I just came across your blog today. I have to admit that I haven’t really ever met an atheist before.

It that’s true, it’s her loss. But seriously, how does she know she hasn’t ever met an atheist? Does she interrogate everyone she meets about their beliefs? I think it’s much more likely she knows and has known more atheists than she thinks. We’re everywhere! (Cue maniacal laughter and sinister organ music.)

I have met many who don’t believe in God but are open to the possibility and not so self proclaimed as yourself.

Lord, how many times must atheists explain this to people like her? Let me put it this way: just how “open to the possibility” are most people that Zeus or Thor or Ra exist? Not very, right, if at all? I mean, even though they can’t prove they don’t exist, they don’t lose any sleep at night wondering if they’re wrong. That’s the level of certainty I have that your particular god, Shanilie, is nonsense, too. Got it?

Sometimes the only reason I believe in God is because beauty can give me Goosebumps. Stupid, yes?

Well…yes. I suppose we agree on something after all.

I smile when I hear about people calling themselves an atheist because in saying it, they are in fact referring to God, you are finding reasons not to believe and in doing so you have to be told otherwise….Another reason I smile is because there must be some shred of hope of existence of God left in you because you are desperately seeking to hear what you want to hear…

Really, is that a smile, or a smug, patronizing smirk? And just how would she know so much about atheists’ motivations when she obviously doesn’t understand the first thing about us?

Before this post gets any longer, I’ll stop it here. Very soon, I will have a few more things to say about some other comments, and I’ll be sure to tell you about God and the evidence I’d need to be convinced She exists.

–Allen

During Richard Dawkins’ reading of The God Delusion at Randolph-Macon Woman’s College, a member of the audience posed a very interesting question: in effect, he asked Dawkins what evidence he would need to conclude that God exists.

Regretfully, Dawkins went on to address another part of the audience member’s question, and never got around to answering it.

So I put it to you, all you atheists and agnostics, heathens and humanists, unbelievers, nonbelievers, and disbelievers:

What evidence would you need to conclude that God exists?

I’ll give you my answer in a future post.

–Allen

Did you know that every day 150,000 people die? People just like you and me. Every 24 hours 150,000 people pass from time into eternity. Do you ever think about that? Isn’t there something within you that says, ‘I don’t want to die?’ That’s your god given will to live.

So says one of the floating, talking men of The Way of the Master.

I tried their 10-commandments quiz and am thrilled announce that I’m actually not doing as badly as one might imagine! First, the negatives:

• I certainly take the name of god in vain, though generally only in bed.
• I sometimes work seven-day weeks, thus violating whichever Sabbath you might chose to declare holy.
• I may have dishonored my parents on several occasions as a teenager.
• I have committed adultery. Well, only if you count the sex-before-marriage sort. However, this seems to be a popular sort to count.
• I have lied on occasion (“Yes Suzie, I loooooove your new haircutâ€?).
• I have coveted, among other things, a bagel one of my students was eating in front of me at work last Sunday. What can I say- I was hungry.

So, I’m not entirely biblically pure. However, it’s really not all bad news.

• I can honestly state that I haven’t put any other gods before “god.â€? I don’t believe in any of ‘em, so there is no need for deity prioritizing.
• I haven’t committed idolatry. This is another benefit of atheism.
• I haven’t stolen.
• I haven’t murdered…. though if thoughts could kill, I might be answering this one a bit differently.

In summary, I have only violated 6 of the 10 commandments, leaving me 40% biblically pure. That’s probably the most chaste I’ve scored on an Internet purity test yet.

Also on this site is a video describing how to convert an atheist. The cool floaty men (though in this video they are sitting rather than floating) oh-so-pretentiously describe their method as “bait and hook.� The bait draws the atheist into the conversation by framing the debate in rational terms. Apparently, logic is to atheists as worms are to fish. Then, once the atheist is happily munching on his or her juicy worm, BOOM, comes the hook, the emotional draw of GUILT in the form of the Ten Commandments. It’s something like this: logic, designer, cars, Ten Commandments, stealing, lying, YOU’RE BAD, guilt, fear, DEATH.

Unfortunately, even the possibly pretend atheists in the video didn’t really seem to reel in perfectly nicely, though they were significantly less eloquent than most real atheists I know (note: a lapsed Christian is not the same as an atheist). Apparently, atheists (even pretend ones) are adept at picking the worms off the hook before swallowing ‘em. Or perhaps they’re just getting their worms from other sources. (shrugs) Something like that. Either way, definitely go check out the videos at The Way of the Master. Just watch for those pesky hooks!

(cross posted at Irreverent Musings)