Alligator Column on Campus Preachers

There was a column in the Alligator today about Joey Johnsen, Turlington-campus-preacher-extraordinaire.

Read it.

And see this cartoon.
________________
Technorati tags: AAFSA

Dawkins' New Book: The God Delusion

Dawkins' The God Delusion is currently selling at #1 in the UK and #4 in the US via Amazon.

Check out links to reviews and interviews concerning the book here at RD's site. Also check out the review from Ebon Musings.
________________
Technorati tags: AAFSA

PERA Legistlation Passed the House

The House passed the PERA bill yesterday, 244-173. See the AU press release, and DefCon. See the 244 people who voted for theocracy, and the 173 who voted against it (see all votes). Perhaps you recall the last election, which was won by getting the Religious Right stirred up? Well, this is a little shot in the arm for their RR base.

Hold your reps accountable for taking the first step towards dismantling our freedom to bring litigation to ensure the Establishment Clause is held up. I'm going to paste all of their names below the fold, including the names of the pathetic 19/25 Florida Reps who voted for the bill.

Please use this form to notify your Senators and Representatives (yes, even though the latter already voted), it will only take a few moments of your time. This bill must be stopped in the Senate.

244 Congressmen and Congresswomen who Want Theocracy in the US:

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

Just in case you didn't know, here are the Florida House Representatives. The people who voted FOR the act (Yeas) are in bold and those who voted against are regular-weight font.

Miller, Jeff; Florida, 1st
Boyd, Allen; Florida, 2nd
Brown, Corrine; Florida, 3rd
Crenshaw, Ander; Florida, 4th
Brown-Waite, Ginny; Florida, 5th
Stearns, Cliff; Florida, 6th
Mica, John L.; Florida, 7th
Keller, Ric; Florida, 8th
Bilirakis, Michael; Florida, 9th
Young, C.W. Bill; Florida, 10th
Davis, Jim; Florida, 11th -- did not vote
Putnam, Adam H.; Florida, 12th
Harris, Katherine; Florida, 13th
Mack, Connie; Florida, 14th
Weldon, Dave; Florida, 15th
Foley, Mark; Florida, 16th
Meek, Kendrick B.; Florida, 17th
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana; Florida, 18th
Wexler, Robert; Florida, 19th
Wasserman Schultz, Debbie; Florida, 20th
Diaz-Balart, Lincoln; Florida, 21st
Shaw, E. Clay; Florida, 22nd
Hastings, Alcee L.; Florida, 23rd
Feeney, Tom; Florida, 24th
Diaz-Balart, Mario; Florida, 25th

That's right, folks. Only 5 out of 25 voted to uphold the Constitutional right to sue the government for breach of the 1st Amendment, and 1 abstained from voting. The rest of these scum-suckers (19/25) handed the Religious Right yet another election year gift. Sorry, but I'm nauseated. Let your Congressmen and Congresswomen know what you think on this issue. Please.
________________
Technorati tags: AAFSA

Meeting 9 - Abstract

Prof. Witmer just sent me the title and abstract of his talk this coming Tuesday at meeting 9:

________________
"Atheism, Reason, and Morality: Responding to Some Popular Christian Apologetics"

Apparently a certain Christian position known as "presuppositionalism," a variety of Calvinist thinking, is quite popular in the online world as a way of defending Christianity and attacking atheism. According to this position, any position other than Christian belief is not just false but somehow incoherent or self-undermining. My focus in the talk will be to do three things. First, I want to get a fair picture of this position out on the table. Second, I want to consider what sort of atheist response is appropriate. Third, I will offer some suggestions about how, in practice, one is well-advised to respond in encounters with such advocates.
________________

See you there!

Meeting 9: Tue Sept 26, 7 PM, CLB 414

Next meeting, our faculty advisor, Prof. Witmer, will be doing an extremely relevant presentation at our next meeting, looking at questions surrounding the apologetic position referred to as "Presuppositionalism" (P) -- which is basically a critical apologetic position from which Christians argue that only Christianity can provide a foundation for morals, the uniformity of nature, or a foundation for reason/logic itself. P is different from Evidentialism-based apologetics in that its major emphasis is upon reductio ad absurdum critiques of alternative worldviews (any non-Christian ones). Specifically, "presups" (those who subscribe to P) declare morality, scientific conclusions, and logic/rationality itself as "unjustified" outside of the Christian worldview -- that those things rely upon the Christian God and God's attributes for their foundation.

I suggest you read up a little on the topic to be prepared for hearty discussion. For more information, see HERE and HERE for arguments against P, and HERE for a discussion in favor of P.

I will pass along Prof. Witmer's title and any synopsis he may (or may not) offer later on, when I receive them.

As always, check the Meetings page for updates and information. Contact us using info from our Facebook profiles if you have questions about meeting times/places/etc. See you there!

Name Change

Our official student organization registration is now (finally) updated. When the SAC became the CSI, apparently they lost our registration last March and reverted to the old AASA group's info.

All of the officers will receive an email informing them that...they're an officer. Other than that, it's all red tape. But now, we can get 'da money, honey. It's time for a debate, and some well-funded godlessness. ;)

New Baylor University Religion Study

A new Baylor study on religious beliefs is a bit more detailed than most. You can download the full report, American Piety in the 21st Century: New Insights to the Depths and Complexity of Religion in the U.S.

Many prior studies, like the CUNY ARIS I've discussed, had very generic categories of belief, and very simple questions regarding faith in God. These sorts of studies consistently found the amount of nonreligious persons in the mid-teens. This study aimed to differentiate faith in types of God, and its results are very interesting. For one thing, although 10.8% of persons are "religious nones", only 5.2% were willing to self-identify as atheists. The researchers think that the lower score here is due to the more pointed questions which differentiate between unaffiliated religious persons (unaffiliated with a particular church or denomination) and truly nonreligious persons.

In 2004, the General Social Survey reported that 14.3 percent of the population had no religion, but by using a more detailed measure in the Baylor survey, researchers determined that only 10.8 percent of the population or approximately 10 million Americans are unaffiliated.

"We believe, and are going to argue, that it [the statistics] has more to do with how you ask about the religious connection than what it says about the commitment of the average American to their faith," said Dr. Kevin Dougherty, assistant professor of sociology and one of the Baylor Survey researchers. (Baylor U source article)

The four "God types", referred to as Type A, B, C and D, and their % belief:

Authoritarian: 31.4%
Benevolent: 25.0%
Critical: 16.0%
Distant: 23.0%

Another breakdown (interesting!) by regional majority of each type view:

NE -- 21.2% Critical
South -- 43.5% Authoritarian
West -- 30.3% Distant
Midwest -- 28.8% Benevolent

Of course, the high amount of Jewish persons and liberal Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) in the NE made me predict that Distant would win there, not Critical.

USA Today

The four visions of God outlined in the Baylor research aren't mutually exclusive. And they don't include 5.2% of Americans who say they are atheists. (Although 91.8% said they believe in God, some didn't answer or weren't sure.)

The Waco Tribune-Herald

For example, there is a strong gender differential in belief in God. Women, he said, tend toward the more engaged versions (types A and B), while men tend toward the less engaged and are more likely to be atheist.

More than half the blacks in the study said they believe in the Authoritarian God. None surveyed said they were atheist.

Lower-income and less-educated folk were more likely to worship god types A or B, while those with college degrees or earning more than $100,000 were more likely to believe in the Distant God or be atheists, the Baylor study concluded.

Getting agnostic and even atheist participation on Baylor’s religion survey didn’t seem to be a problem, he added. Although 10.8 percent did not claim any affiliation with any faith family or house of worship, only 5.2 percent of those surveyed declared themselves to be atheists.

Something else I'm not surprised about?

Chron.com

It found that about 41 percent believe Atlantis existed; 37 percent believe places can be haunted; and 52 percent believe that dreams can foretell the future. About 12 percent believe in astrology and psychics, and about 25 percent believe in UFOs.

There is, and always has been, a sort of pervasive superstitous human mindset. When people accept magical, invisible beings, (angels, demons, gods) and miracles with little or no evidence, their credulity simply extends to other regions of naïveté as well -- Atlantis being a real place, UFOlogy, Bigfoot, Loch Ness...etc. Religious belief either causes this lower bar of skeptical thinking or is a symptom thereof, but it clearly correlates with it.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion

Update on PERA

I just received the following update on the church-state minimization bill I mentioned in an earlier post. Please follow the bottom link below to urge your representatives to protect the 1st Amendment.

The Public Expression of Religion Act, PERA: (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-2679) must be stopped!

Click on this URL to take action now:
http://capwiz.com/au/issues/alert/?alertid=9007716

The above link will allow you to compose an email to both senators from Florida and to Cliff Stearns (House Rep) containing an already-written strong suggestion for our Congressmen to protect the Constitution. Please do it!
________________
Technorati tags: Politics

Myths About Apostates -- Why We Abandon Faith

I wanted to pass along an item that Ed Babinski (also here) brought to my attention involving a talk given a few years ago highlighting some myths about apostates. The talk was given by Prof. Ruth A. Tucker, who is a Christian and a professor at Calvin College Theological Seminary. One of her specialities is missionology. She has written numerous books, including Walking Away from Faith, about why people leave Christianity. Another recent book of interest, published in Jan 2006, is titled God Talk, and cautions those who claim to hear from God and/or speak for God.

Below is a speech she gave at a freethought group meeting in 2001.

From the FTA Minutes:
(Freethought Association of West Michigan, Meeting Minutes for October 24, 2001, #102)

Professor Tucker disclosed that she had had no other doctrinal doubts or
peripheral problems with biblically revealed truths. Rather, her main
uncertainty zeroed in directly on the heart of the matter: the existence of
God Itself. Findings by science seemed to continually push back this Being
from a personal, proximal one-to a less and less involved entity far off
somewhere on the outskirts of the deep vastness of space. Its heavenly home
tucked away somewhere among the billions of galaxies. These "Night
Sky" ponderings made her wish to live in the old, pre-scientific times, with
the attendant beliefs of geocentrism and a small, personal system of an Earth
lit by the greater and lesser lights of Sun and Moon, all for the benefit of
Man. She had begun to teach religious tenets, but it wasn't until she stopped
and really critically investigated the subject matter that she discovered
sharp challenges to her religious beliefs and practices...

Professor Tucker listed five myths about people who have abandoned their
faith. 1) "They are angry and rebellious." She found virtually no evidence
for this. Rather, people felt sorrow, initially. They experienced pain, not
anger. 2) "They can be argued back into faith." Because the person leaving
his/her faith has carefully and painstakingly dissected the reasons behind
this major worldview change, the Christian who proffers apologetics is more
likely to convert into non-belief in such an exchange. 3) "Doubters can find
help at Christian colleges and seminaries." This is not seen to be the case.
4) "They abandon their faith so that they can go out and sin freely." Our
presenter pointed out that too many people who profess faith sin more often
than non-believers and that this argument was not a motivational issue in
de-converting from faith. 5) "They were never sincere Christians to begin
with." She has come across example after example of the most earnest and
devout of evangelical, fundamentalist believers who became non-theists. Dan
Barker was mentioned as just one of these erstwhile believers.

She then listed some actual reasons given for "losing faith in faith."
Science & philosophy has eroded the faith of many former believers. The sense
of absence of any caring God was another. Another reason was the
myth-shattering experience of the critical examination of the scriptures.
Disappointment in God (Its apparent apathy or antipathy to Its creation) and
the hypocrisy of Christians were two other reasons listed. And finally, the
perception of a dogmatic anti-feminist and anti-homosexual stance of
fundamentalist Christianity was given for why some relinquish their faith.

I want to list those 5 myths concerning believers who leave the faith again concisely:

1) "They are angry and rebellious."
2) "They can be argued back into faith."
3) "Doubters can find help at Christian colleges and seminaries."
4) "They abandon their faith so that they can go out and sin freely."
5) "They were never sincere Christians to begin with."

I know I've certainly been accused of leaving Christianity due to numbers 1, 4 and 5. I've also heard all five of these myths about apostates. I do find it rather humorous when people think that atheism is necessary for #4 -- they tell me I'm an atheist so I can "do what I want", or something of the sort. The funniest thing about that is that one can believe in God and do what one wants.

There are Hedonist Christians, liberal Christians, and Evangelicals are nabbed all the time in sex scandals, child porn cases, as closeted homosexuals, etc. So is it necessary to abandon ones faith in order to pursue sin/pleasure? No.

Just ask Phillip Distasio, leader of Arcadian Fields Ministries, who was charged with sexually abusing 9 disabled boys. Just ask the Rev. Daniel Schulte, 53, of Chicago, IL, who was recently convicted for child porn. Just ask the Baptist minister Rev. Eugene Paul White, 71, recently sentenced to 180 years to life in prison for 12 counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14, convicted of molesting his 4 adopted foster daughters. Just ask Shawn Davies, 33, of Scott County, KY. Shawn is charged with 9 counts of 2nd-degree statutory sodomy, 7 counts of furnishing pornographic materials to minors, 5 counts of use of a child in a sexual performance, 2 counts of endangering the welfare of a minor, and 4 other charges...one of the sodomies took place with a boy under 14 at a church youth lock-in, where he was the youth minister, at First Baptist Church in Greenwood, KY...

Need I go on? Any of you who subscribe to Freethought Today know of their "Black Collar Crime Blotter" section, which every month is [sadly] filled with these exact same clergy-related crime stories.

In other words, if #4 were true, it would not be necessary to "abandon faith", I could still go to church every Sunday, pray (or not), read the Bible (or not), and repent of my sinful ways (or not). I'm sure that if you asked these fellows, they surely wouldn't tell you they were atheists. If I wanted to be like them, I could keep both my unbelief and my sins secret, couldn't I?

Obviously, if you are #1 -- angry and rebellious, it begs the question on the existence of God. If I say I do not believe in Santa Claus, I cannot be angry with Santa, nor rebel against jolly ol' Saint Nick. So if someone is #1, they are not an atheist. [obviously, I can still hate Christmas, or those who celebrate Saint Nick, or consider belief in Santa to be harmful, without violating the logic of unbelief]

I think #2 and #3 are intertwined. The question of interest here is -- have they abandoned faith because they are looking for answers, or have they found the correct answers, and realized that faith never gave them an answer to their questions? If we just have some doubts about the Bible's composition, the canonization process, etc., then going to seminary may be an option. But if the problem of evil, the problem of God's hiddeness, and other strong atheistic arguments plague our souls, we are quite unlikely to find reprieve from the cracks in the dam that holds back our unbelief. I also find it interesting that the professor's research shows that more Christians deconvert when arguing with apostates than vice versa. It reminds me of Saint Paul's words..."a little leaven leavens the whole lump."

The old canard of #5 -- that someone "was never really a believer" is just what helps believers sleep at night. As hurtful as it is to tell people this, believers have to ignore the reality of a genuine faith that was abandoned. It helps them to say that we couldn't be just like them, praying, loving God, worshipping, singing hymns, obeying...

...Otherwise, they could one day be just like us.
________________
Technorati tags: apostasy

PERA Legislation Set to Minimize Church-State Separation

Spread the word on this. From AA:

The House Judiciary Committee has passed the so-called “Public Expression of Religion Act.” The measure is ready for a vote by the U.S. House of Representatives. Congress needs to hear from you now!

The bill, H.R. 2679, introduced by Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) would amend a section of the United States Code and eliminate attorney fees in legal cases where government violated the constitutional separation of church and state. PERA is part of a battery of proposed legislative items dubbed “The American Values Agenda.” This includes measure to protect “unborn children,” ban cloning and penalize legal challenges to violations of the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

Following is the full-text of the action alert from AA:

September 9, 2006
American Atheists Action Alert – Update

BILL TO PUNISH FIRST AMENDMENT LITIGATION CLEARS COMMITTEE, READY FOR HOUSE VOTE!

The House Judiciary Committee has passed the so-called “Public Expression of Religion Act.” The measure is ready for a vote by the U.S. House of Representatives. Congress needs to hear from you now!

The bill, H.R. 2679, introduced by Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) would amend a section of the United States Code and eliminate attorney fees in legal cases where government violated the constitutional separation of church and state. PERA is part of a battery of proposed legislative items dubbed “The American Values Agenda.” This includes measure to protect “unborn children,” ban cloning and penalize legal challenges to violations of the First Amendment’s establishment clause

Hostettler and supporters of H.R. 2679 claim that attorneys working for organizations that defend the First Amendment and challenge unconstitutional governmental practices in respect to religion are enriching themselves and even violating the rights of believers. The American Legion has launched a national campaign to support PERA, and is calling for “a ground swell of public demand on lawmakers” to pass the bill immediately. A “guide” to PERA issued by this group states: “There simply is no reasonable basis to support the profiteering in attorney fee awards ordered by judges in these (Establishment Clause) cases. The very threat of such fees has made elected bodies, large and small, surrender to … demands to secularly cleanse the public square.”

The House Judiciary Committee recently held a little-publicized, one-day hearing on the “Public Expression of Religion Act.” Only one of the four experts invited to give testimony spoke out against the legislation. American Atheists expects the committee to vote shortly on PERA. The measure could then move to the full House for a floor vote within the next two to three weeks. Congressional representatives need to hear from us now regarding this dangerous, unconstitutional measure!

Pera is About Government Promotion of Religion, Not “EXPRESSION OF RELIGION”

American Atheists President Ellen Johnson says that the Hostettler measure “is not for the benefit of the taxpayer, but for government and religious leaders who insist on eroding the wall of separation between church and state.”

“They know, as do we, that most attorneys are simply unable to work on long-term, complex litigation if they don’t receive some compensatory fee,” Johnson noted. “We’re not talking about donating a few free hours ‘to the cause.’ These cases require an enormous amount of time and effort.”

Governments are often quite willing to squander taxpayer funds in order to defend their unconstitutional practices. The Hostettler bill conveniently ignores this fact.

“Whether it is school prayer or defending a religious monument in the public square, state and local governments are frequently very short-sighted and belligerent when caught doing something that violates the First Amendment,” said Johnson. “If the Legion and Rep. Hostettler really wish to save all of us some money, they should work to stop unconstitutional practices that promote religion.”

Congress Needs to Hear From Us Now to Stop the PERA

Once Again, Atheists, freethinkers, Humanists and other non-believers must speak out and tell our elected representatives in Washington, DC that we oppose legislation aimed at eroding the separation of church and state – bills like the “Public Expression of Religion Act”!

• PERA lowers the penalty bar when government is caught in flagrant violation of the Establishment Clause.
• The bill penalizes attorneys and organizations that defend the separation of church and state, but does nothing to prevent political leaders from draining the public treasury to defend unconstitutional practices in court.
• This legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate religious expression. It is all about government sponsorship and promotion of religion.
• Contact your congressional representative now!
• Check out our “Tips on Contacting Congress” Page
• Be sure to ask for a written response to your concerns. Make your letters, faxes and e-mail concise and to-the-point. Be polite. Be sure to sign your communique.
• Share you letter and any responses you receive and we will post them on this web site
• Spread this Action Alert! If you are in an Atheist/freethought group, consider posting this message to your newsletter, web site and e-mail lists. Urge others to circulate this Alert, too!

Contact Congress

Action Home

Contact Congress

What you can do
to help

Tips on effective contact

________________
Technorati tags: church-state separation

God Loves the Hell out of Little Children

From Zenoferox

Let's read a recent AiG fundraising letter for their "Creation Museum":

We see the Lord's hand of blessing every day at AiG, including how so many young people are being impacted. Here is a recent, wonderful testimony about a young girl and her mother that we received through our website:

“The AiG conference [near Knoxville] was wonderful. Ken [mentioned] one book in particular, A is for Adam, had more children come to know Jesus than any other [AiG book]. My ears perked up and I bought the book.

“My 4 1/2 year daughter and I read the book every day for a week. One day she looked up at me with tears in her eyes and said she didn't want to go to hell. She said she wanted to be where Jesus—and where her mommy and daddy—was going to be.

“My little girl bowed her head and prayed to ask Jesus into her heart that day. It was glorious. thank God for how you have touched our lives.”—G. D., Knoxville, TN

Compare this to:

...the atheistic/humanistic FIG organization that opposed us was out to get kids themselves—to train them in a philosophy of hopelessness and purposelessness … and end up separated from God for eternity...

PS: Can you believe that atheists are deliberately targeting young people with a message of hopelessness … with eternal consequences for the “good” of our children?

What Ken Ham is referring to here at the last is Camp Quest. He brags that his organization brings a 4.5 year old to tears with the fear of hell and eternal separation from mommy and daddy, then denigrates a camp where children are taught science and the value of critical thinking. What kind of people take a "testimony" that a book containing lies and obvious scare tactics can "convert" a 4.5-year-old child and promote it on their fundraising letter? What kind of people are these?

Your average, every day fundies.

And these same people will turn around and watch the news, when it shows the children in Jordan and Syria in school being taught to hate Israel, and call it "brainwashing" without batting an eye. That's irony so thick that it isn't even funny. This sort of thing would just be sad if it was just an isolated incident, rather than a culture of instilling ignorance and fear into young children. But because it is a culture and a tradition, it's more than sad -- it's physically sickening.

These are our "cultural competitors": this is what we're up against in the public square to move our country in one direction or another, via politicians and public relations campaigns. This is the sort of thing they propagate -- fear and ignorance in little children. Keep this "testimony" in mind the next time they shamelessly call themselves "pro-family" and "pro-values". Don't forget that.
________________
Technorati tags: Fundamentalism, Camp Quest

Contributors -- Joining and Writing On Our Blog

For those of you who are a bit intimidated by posting to Blogger, don’t be! A detailed step-by-step guide is available here as an .htm file, in which I didn't have to modify the tags and spaces to prevent errors on Blogger.

We use the "show/hide" feature on our blog in order to truncate long posts and hide large objects, such as hi-res images and embedded video. This greatly speeds up pageload times and helps visitors with slower connections; it is also more aesthetically pleasing and clean.

1. Ensure that you have contributor status on our blog. If you do, you will be listed in the bottom right sidebar category “Contributors”, and you will have gotten an email invite from me. If you haven’t, and want to, please email us ASAP.
2. Sign in to blogger: www.blogger.com
3. You will be sent to the Dashboard, where the blog title appears, with a green cross icon “New Post” to the right. Click this icon.
4. When you click the icon, you will be sent to the post composer. You need to click the tab to be in “Edit HTML” mode, rather than in "Compose" mode [WYSIWYG].

(Now, before we go into detail about using this mode, you need to recognize whether or not you have a long post, or a short post (less than 300 words or so, or without large images/video))

For shorter posts

1. Click the "Edit HTML" tab
2. Erase everything you see
   
3. Click the “Compose” mode tab
4. Title your post in the “Title” field
5. Type in your post in the body, adding links using the “Insert link” icon and adding pictures using the “Add Image” icon, both of which appear in the menu bar of the Compose mode post editor. You can write your posts in Microsoft Word, then copy & paste into Blogger, but this often creates formatting problems when you publish your post, so I recommend using WordPad or NotePad instead.
6. Click “Publish Post” if you feel confident you’re done, then go to the main page URL (http://www.gatorfreethought.org) to check it.
7. If you don't see your post, click “Refresh” (F5) to view the blog’s page to ensure that it posted correctly; if you feel unconfident about the post, or want to save it as it is to proofread it later, or want me to look over it, click “Save as Draft” instead of publishing it. If you see that it did not post correctly, you should be able to see a little pencil icon at the bottom right of the footer of the post, which is the edit function. Click it to go back in to edit the post. Alternatively, email us and we'll fix it.

For longer posts

1. Directions 3-5 above can be followed for the longer post as well.
2. Now, if your post will be longer than 300 words, start in the “Edit HTML” mode instead of "Compose" mode.
3. The top of the page tells you, "This is where you put short posts" -- place your first one or two paragraphs of summary here. Don't put the large images or embedded video here.
   
4. Next, you will notice, "This is where you put the rest of long posts" with some tags above that phrase. Obviously, this is where the rest of your long posts go, and where you should put the code for large images and embedded video.
5. If you want to familiarize yourself with the tags, I've explained them below. This is optional. Otherwise, after you follow step (4) here, just follow steps (3-5) from the above "For shorter posts" entry. Then, you're done!
   

**Note that the tags that follow have been modified because I cannot publish the tags correctly in Blogger mode (or else the effects I'm trying to show you would show up in my post). These tags are all written correctly in the template of your posts, however, and you don't have to type them. Therefore, ignore the extra spaces and the missing elements "div" and "span" below.**

This is where you put short posts

< class = "fullpost">< id = "fullpost">
This is where you put the rest of long posts

________________
<>Technorati tags: Gator Freethought< / span >< / span >< / div >

• < class="fullpost"> -- this begins the hidden component of a show/hide post on the main page, type in everything you want hidden on the main page here
• < id="fullpost"> -- this tells the javascript function that there needs to be a "Read more" icon at the bottom of this post, elsewise either all posts would have this, or none would.
  

5. < /span>< /div> -- this closes the hidden section, as well as the entire post
6. If you type it in thusly:

Here is the start of your post
< class = "fullpost">< id = "fullpost"> And here is the end of it ________________
<>Technorati tags: Gator Freethought< / span >< / span >< / div >

You will see, upon publishing the post, on the main page:

Here is the start of your post

Read full post -->

When you click the “Read full post" button, you will be taken to the item page, where you will see the entire entry.

If you have any questions, or if anything isn’t clear, don’t hesitate to email us.

I hope this helps!.

Library

The idea has been floating around for a month or two that the members of GF ought to share a valuable resource with one another: their book collections. I have decided to start this post where I will list the books of anyone who decides to participate in this program. I think two points need to be made first -- 1) if you don't agree to share at least a book or two of your own, you can't borrow other people's, and 2) the primary responsibility and terms will be worked out between the borrower and lender. There is no generic 6 week loan-out, in other words. And there is no generic limit or minimum number of books to list or borrow.

Also, if you want your stuff on the list, please send me an email with your books, and please include a link to any book publisher for each title. This allows our members to peruse the list handily and look up each book to see what it's about and its reviews and such.

Without further ado, here are the GF members who have so far volunteered their collections. You should email them directly to negotiate terms (use Facebook if necessary):

In alphabetical order of last names, and books:


**POST IN PROGRESS, WILL BE UPDATED** (last update 2/12/07)

Daniel Morgan

1. A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins
2. The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins
3. Unweaving the Rainbow, Richard Dawkins
4. The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins
5. The Bible Unearthed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman
6. Who Wrote the Bible?, Richard Friedman
7. Beyond Belief, Elaine Pagels
8. The Gnostic Gospels, Elaine Pagels
9. 
   

Receive New Blog Posts via Email

You will note near the bottom of the right-hand sidebar (under the sub-category that says "More Group Info") that there is a function, provided by Feedburner, to have new items delivered to your inbox when they are published to this blog. You can subscribe to this service by clicking HERE.

This is a good idea even for those of us who subscribe to the blog via RSS.

This way, you have a hard copy of posts to forward to friends or family if you find them worth sharing. You can also refer back to them from your PC whether you are online or offline ...assuming you use an email client, like the rest of the civilized world ;).

Please take advantage of this resource to keep up with our goings-on. If the feature is having issues [not working] please notify me.
________________
Technorati tags: AAFSA

LISTSERV -- Mailing List

I set up an GF LISTSERV (hereafter LS). The purpose of an LS is to allow a group to have an voluntary "internal" email system, where anyone can join the LS and receive emails from anyone else in the LS. You will not receive emails from this LS until you subscribe to it.

The instructions to join it are very simple:

1. Send an email to LISTSERV@LISTS.UFL.EDU
2. In the BODY of the email, NOT the subject line, type, "subscribe aafsa-l" (without quote marks)
3. Alternatively, you can manage your subscription here.

The instructions to send an email to the LS are also very simple:

1. Write an email and send it to the address AAFSA-L@LISTS.UFL.EDU

Please be aware these are going to be very public, so write with the awareness that many people will be reading the email. I am the moderator of the LS, so all messages are approved before being distributed, therefore there will be a delay in seeing a message you send out to the group. Also note that there are archives stored on the server for public viewing for every email.

Many people would rather just come and check on the website at their leisure, rather than being sent information they may not particularly care about at that time. Also, emails clutter up our inboxes. Therefore, the major means of communication in the group is via the blogsite. Now, instead of sending unsolicited emails, I will only send emails to the LS occasionally, and its major purpose will be to facilitate communication between members.

To save yourself some heartache, I recommend setting up a folder and message filter within your email client (e.g. Thunderbird, Outlook) to have all emails from the LS automagically filed away to.

An alternative option to joining the LISTSERV is subscribing to our blog via email:

If you ever want to leave the LISTSERV, follow the instructions here.

I invite you all to use the LS to pass along godless-relevant news and anecdotes, and please feel free to email us anytime with any suggestions or information that you think I may want to post or email. Also please become a contributor to our blogsite, and post articles of interest to our group.

(originally this post was a part of another post, put up in April)
________________
Technorati tags: AAFSA

IDEAL Student Organization Fair

In an earlier post, I mentioned that the CSI is holding its fall semester IDEAL Student Organization Fair on Wed Sept 13 and Thur Sept 14 (the Student Activities Center is now The Center for Student Involvement). I signed our organization up to participate in the event on Wednesday. The location is the Reitz Union Colonnade, and the hours are slightly different than the 9 AM - 3 PM I had previously reported. The following email came from an IDEAL SOF organizer, and includes details of when we have to be there by to check in:

Your organization, has been reserved a table at the Fall 2006 Student Organization Fair, on Wednesday, September 13, from 10 am to 3 pm.

Please plan to check in at the Ideal tent next to the Colonnade steps between 9:30 and 10 am. If your organization has not checked in by 10:30 am, your table will be given away on a first-come, first-serve basis to student organizations that did not register.

Our group will be able to attend to a table and present our information, and we will get a lot of attention and interest, I'm sure. Please help out by just showing up there to stand at the table and support our group, even if you can only be there for 30 minutes during that timeframe.

I've heard from a lot of you already that you will be there on Wednesday. Please email me, even if you've already told me you'll be there, so that I have a written record that I can use to schedule our day there. My own schedule will allow me to be out there much of the day. I look forward to it.

Meeting 8: 9/7

We will be meeting tomorrow night at 7 PM in CLB 414. See you there.

Theological Arguments, Comedy Central-style

These powerful arguments almost made me a believer again. Almost.

Newsweek on Atheism & COTG #48

Newsweek is featuring an article worth checking out: The New Naysayers -- In the midst of religious revival, three scholars argue that atheism is smarter. PZ Myers has commentary, as do Afarensis and dangerous intersection (and if you're bored, see this Fark thread for its comments).

Also, check out the 48th edition of the Carnival of the Godless at Mojoey's place.
________________
Technorati tags: Atheism

Want to Sign the Wal-Mart Bible Letter?

Wal-Mart has high standards of decency. They refused to carry Jon Stewart's book, America, because it was "obscene". They carry CDs with obscenity-stripped-clean lyrics.

Therefore, someone got the idea to ask Wal-Mart not to carry the Bible because it violated their own standards of decency. And thus, the Wal-Mart Bible Letter got started:

http://thebibleletter.com/

Realistically, I think this is a political statement, partly satire. As of right now, it has 2100 signatories. I read elsewhere that the major hope was that a national Jewish, Islamic or Christian group would respond to it, and that the news media would pick up the story. Anyway, I thought it merited attention. (HT: UTI)
________________
Technorati tags: AAFSA

AA Sues Jacksonville

American Atheists is making news in the typical way that freethought and skeptical groups do: negative press surrounding a state-church separation lawsuit. They are suing Jacksonville for holding a "Day of Faith" in which the city spent around $100K and held multiple religious programs centered around how to solve the city's homicide rate woes.

Check out the details surrounding the story from the AA blog here:

The city estimated that 6,000 attended the two-hour rally at the Jacksonville Veterans Memorial Arena. It featured a lineup of elected, civic and religious leaders who urged residents to pray and volunteer for mentoring and other programs they say could address the social factors behind murder and other forms of violence.

But some people and organizations complained about the rally, saying it was overtly religious in nature and represented an example of government promotion of faith.

American Atheists Inc. filed a motion in federal court in Jacksonville to stop the event. The judge rejected it, saying it was filed too late. Since then the organization said in court it will sue on behalf of taxpayers to recover the funds spent and to prevent the city from holding such an event again, said Edwin Kagin, national legal counsel for the New Jersey-based group.

According to documents provided Friday by Cindy Laquidara, the city's chief deputy general counsel, City Hall spent $9,180 on advertising, $6,856 for DVD and flier production and mailing, and $80,268 for expenses such as T-shirts for volunteers, an event logo, printing, bus service, events staff and video production. The latter amount includes $20,854 for venue charges.

Another $5,097 was spent on staff time dedicated to the event.
Kagin said American Atheists is taking action against the city because the Day of Faith was a prayer service financed by taxpayers.

"The city has no business being in the religion business," he said.

A Day of Faith: Arming Our Prayer Warriors featured short sermons by several Christian ministers, prayers and religious music. One Muslim and one Jewish leader also participated.

________________
Technorati tags: AAFSA

Jonathan Miller's "Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief"

I downloaded Jonathan Miller's Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief (ARHD) and found it quite interesting. BBC aired this three-part series documentary, as well as an entirely separate series of programs containing the extended interviews and conversations between Miller and the featured speakers in ARHD, called The Atheism Tapes, in 2005.

In two of the six half-hour installments, Miller interviews philosophers -- Daniel Dennett and Colin McGinn. The following is the first transcript from The Atheism Tapes, the extended conversations found in ARHD which were aired separately, in which Miller interviews English philosopher (living stateside in New York) Colin McGinn. I thought it one of the best sections as it covered the territory of values, meaning, and ethics:

JM: Umm... how about the other ones?

CM: I... here's one I like. People think... I think that psychologically this is quite important to people. That's why this argument is more important psychologically... people think, "Without God, life is meaningless. Where is meaning? It's just an empty charade of... you know... pointless and purposeless, valueless going from one thing to the next.". Well, the first reply to make to that is, you don't necessarily need to seek the meaning of life outside of life.

Here's the premise, the assumption of that argument - without there being a being outside of human life, human life would have no meaning. So the meaning of human life must be conferred by another being. Here's my question - what gives the meaning to that being's life? How does his life, God's life derive meaning? Well here's a dilemma, right? Either God's life has meaning intrinsically just by his existence, or not, right? Well if it does, then it's possible to have a meaningful life intrinsically, so why can't our lives have intrinsic meaning? Their meaning doesn't have to be conferred by another being.

JM: But the religious might want to argue, without even reverting to the ontological argument for the existence of God, the fact... the observable fact that we do have values...

CM: Yeah.

JM: ...and meanings is in fact evidence of the fact that something has

CM: Yes.

JM: ...given the meanings in the same way that the argument says something has given the thing design.

CM: Yeah. Well there's... I think there are two points there. One point is that the existence of values itself is an argument for the existence of God. Like an evidence argument. Another point though all together is the idea that morality can only have a foundation if it's based on God's commands or God's desires, God's wishes. The first one of course, the thing to say about that is there's just no reason to think that the existence of values in human society depends on the existence of God. I mean, why should it? There's just no clear logical argument for that, any more than the existence of ears is a reason. There are various aspects of human life - there's art, value, family, there's all sorts of things that we take to be valuable. Why do any of these require us to postulate God to explain their existence?

A more worrying question for many people is, they don't see that morality can have any foundation, can have any absoluteness, unless there's a god to certify it... legitimate it. That's a... you can see that point. It's a point that was discussed by Plato long ago in the Euthyphro argument. And he makes - well I think - Socrates makes a completely compelling refutation of that argument and it simply goes as follows.

The argument, you see, goes like this: Suppose you take as a moral principle, it's wrong to steal. People say, "Why is it wrong to steal?". Answer - because God says it's wrong to steal. God commanded that you should not steal. OK? The point that Socrates makes in that dialogue is to say, "How can God give this moral rule a foundation? Either the moral rule is intrinsically a sound moral rule, or it can't be given soundness and legitimacy from an external command.". Suppose we had the rule "It's right to murder.". Somebody said, "That's not right! Murder is wrong!". And somebody said in reply, "But God says it's right to murder.". That doesn't convince you that it's right to murder. If God says that something is right which isn't right, God's wrong. He can't make something right just by saying it's right. God can only... what God has to do is reflect what's right in his commandments so that's what he really does. It is wrong to steal. It's wrong to steal and wrong to murder. So God says that it's wrong and he's right to say that. Why? Because it IS wrong in the two cases! He doesn't make it wrong by saying it. He can't do that. It that were so, we'd have no reason to respect God's morality...

JM: So God as it were... appropriates our spontaneous and indigenous values...

CM: Yeah...

JM: ...which then get reflected back on this hypothetical entity...

CM: Right...

JM: ...which then seems to validate our beliefs.

CM: Exactly. So we don't need God to validate our moral beliefs - he couldn't validate them. He only... His validations only work insomuch as they correspond to what IS right and in wrong. He can't make something be morally right when it's not.

Another way to put it is, it can't be a matter of God's free decision or whim what's right and wrong. People can see that morality is what it is. They know what they ought to do. But human beings are weak. We have weakness of the will. We don't always do what we know very well we ought to do. And that is... in most people produces the phenomenon of guilt. Guilt is a powerful negative force in people's minds. People hate guilt, right, guilt is a bad feeling. So you need something to prevent guilt. To prevent guilt, you need something to make you do what you know is right, but since human beings are weak, they don't always do what they know is right, but God gives you an extra motive to do what's right, beyond morality itself. Morality gives you a motive, but it's a motive which is rather fragile. Rather... you know... momentary, intermittent and easily broken. But if you've got the idea of God there, it can sort of give it some more oomph, gives it more power, and then you can do what you know is right more easily, more regularly, and that's, you know, perfectly sensible. It's reasonable... it's not unreasonable anyway for an atheist to think that maybe we need God, or people need God, because without God they can't do what they know is right.

I don't believe that myself. I think people are not as morally depraved as religious tradition says. I think most people will do what's right in normal conditions. They won't always of course, but normally they will. They don't need God. And I think people who sometimes have lived with God as their moral support, their moral whatever it is they're getting from it, when they cease to believe in God, they feel that it was not as difficult to be moral afterwards as they suspected it might be. And in fact it was better, because there's a corrupting part to that conception of God, which is the idea that you're doing something good because God will reward you and think well of you. And that's a corrupting idea. It's much better to do something good because it's good, and only because it's good, and that's your only reason for doing it. But the idea you're going to get the warm fuzzy feeling, "Oh, God's really pleased with me today. I did this.", that's not what morality ought to be about.

I have burned ARHD to DVD, and am considering showing clips of it (not the whole damn 3 hours). You can watch all three 60-minute parts at exchristian.net: Part I, Part II , Part III. You can also download the three parts of ARHD via a BitTorrent client at these three locations: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
________________
Technorati tags: Atheism

Book Review

Check this out: The Sinner's Guide to the Evangelical Right
________________
Technorati tags: AAFSA

Godlessness Rare Behind Bars

I saw two articles on the relative proportion of atheists in prisons versus religious groups, and I thought it worth sharing.

First, a compilation of present-day statistics:

atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%).

Next, a more thorough review from multiple studies. Quote:

It's suprising how many people say to me, "You're an Atheist? You must have no conscience about commiting crime then." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if we examine the population of our prisons, we see a very different picture:

In "The New Criminology", Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about 1/10 of 1%. W. T. Root, professor of psychology at the Univ. of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers are absent from penitentiariers or nearly so.

During 10 years in Sing-Sing, those executed for murder were 65% Catholics, 26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious. Steiner and Swancara surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics, 435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and 1 Unitarian.

Dr. Christian, Superintendant of the NY State Reformatories, checked 22,000 prison inmates and found only 4 college graduates. In "Who's Who" 91% were college graduates, and he commented that "intelligence and knowledge produce right living" and that "crime is the offspring of superstition and ignorance."

Surveyed Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate religious, carefully herded by chaplins.

In Joliet, there were 2,888 Catholics, 1,020 Baptists, 617 Methodists and 0 non-religious.

Michigan had 82,000 Baptists and 83,000 Jews in their state population. But in the prisons, there were 22 times as many Baptists as Jews, and 18 times as many Methodists as Jews. In Sing-Sing, there were 1,553 total inmates with 855 of them Catholics (over half), 518 Protestants, 177 Jews and 8 non-religious. There's a very interesting qualified statistic.

Steiner first surveyed 27 states, and found 19,400 Christians, 5,000 with no preference, and only 3 Agnostics (one each in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Illinois). A later, more complete survey found 60,605 Christians, 5,000 Jews, 131 Pagans, 4,000 no preference, and only 3 Agnostics.

In one 29-state survey, Steiner found 15 unbelievers, Spirtualists, Theosophists, Deists, Pantheists and 1 Agnostic among nearly 83,000 inmates. Calling all 15 "anti-christians" made it one half person to each state. Elmira reformatory overshadowed all, with nearly 31,000 inmates, including 15,694 Catholics (half), and 10,968 Protestants, 4,000 Jews, 325 refusing to answer, and 0 unbelievers.

In the East, over 64% of inmates are Catholics. In the national prison population they average 50%. A national census found Catholics 15%. They count from the diaper up. Hardly 12% are old enough to commit a crime. Half of these are women. That leaves an adult Catholic population of 6% supplying 50% of the prison population.

Liverpool, England produces three percent as many young criminals as Birmingham, a larger city, 28% coming from Catholic schools. What does this tell you about parochial school systems or claims that religion is the guardian of morals?

Fifty-two percent of people belong to no church, yet live clean lives and supply less than 1% of the total criminal population. So much for religious indoctrination.

Interesting stuff. I would note a careful disparity must be made between correlation and causation. Also, the religious upbringing must be differentiated between the religious preference of the prisoner during the incarceration, as many get "jailhouse religion" at the expense of taxpayer dollar-funded programs in prisons and jails.
________________
Technorati tags: AAFSA