Social Event

I recently modified the meetings schedule to reflect a "hold" on the social event. Originally I intended to have it this past weekend at my place.

Although I'm pretty set on having the social on a weekend, and I would like to do it on a Saturday or Sunday, I would really like to get some feedback on locales and timelines. If no one is interested, we'll just skip on it. Our next meeting will be a doosy (Thu, 11/9) -- Prof. Meert on the arguments (from geology and otherwise) to establish the absurdity and intellectual bankruptcy of YEC.

I am also awaiting a response/update on the status of the debate from Dr. Benner. In addition to this high-level debate, I wanted to organize a debate involving some AAFSA members to discuss some aspect of faith or religion with another campus group, possibly Campus Crusade for Christ. But, I also wrote the Christian Study Center of Gainesville to ask them if they had any ideas or interest in involving atheists with some discussion or debate. Please give me a response if you're interested in being a part of such an undertaking, via email or otherwise.

Jesus Camp Now Showing in Lakeland

I apologize for not posting more lately. Gary pointed out to me that "Jesus Camp" will now be having a showing in Lakeland, at Polk Theatre, on Dec. 2. Who wants to go watch it, take a road trip? It's about 120 mi, 2.5 hrs, according to Google Maps.

Also, I read a recent post that I wanted to pass along, as I thought it worthy of your time.

From Ebon Musings:

Clearly, the term "atheist" has acquired a substantial weight of negative connotation. How can real atheists fight back against this?

As the name of my weblog suggests, we atheists can only fight prejudice by stepping into the light. It is easy to demonize the unknown and the invisible. Only by keeping nonbelievers in the closet for so long have members of the believing majority been able to perpetuate such slurs; when we are not there to counter them, they can say whatever they like without fear of contradiction, and with no counterevidence in sight there is no reason for ordinary people to disbelieve them.

However, when actual atheists are visible to contradict these smears, they do not stick. We do not need to display superlative moral virtue to disprove the ugly stereotypes that equate atheism with wickedness (although it wouldn't hurt). We just need to show that we are ordinary, decent people, just like everyone else, who differ from other people in that we believe in one less god than they do. If more atheists came forward to express such sentiments as these, the use of the word "atheist" as a term of insult would dwindle and die on the vine.

In this respect, I disagree with efforts (like those of the Brights) to coin a new term. We already have a perfectly good one: atheist. We should say what we are plainly and not allow our enemies to usurp or pollute the word. If we avoid using it to describe ourselves because we fear the repercussions, we play into their game. We harm and hinder our own movement when we abandon these words to our enemies as a way to tar us, and what is to stop them from similarly smearing any new word we come up with?

I agree. The connotations of the word can only be transformed by the presence, integrity, and respect that atheists bring to themselves, it will only be transposed onto another pejorative label if we just want a name change.

It reminds me of the video I posted a while back, it looks at the question, "Atheists: Fools?" We have to highlight the best and brightest unbelievers, and show the world that atheism isn't equivalent to Hitler or Pol Pot [these men were deluded by faith (the former, faith in the imaginary superlative Aryan race, the latter, faith in an imaginary, isolated and totally self-sufficient Maoist agrarian state)], but to some of the greatest humanitarians, philosophers and scientists of all time.

It is only in pointing to this fact, over and over, that the stigma and negative perception of atheism will abade.
________________
Technorati tags: AAFSA --

Letter to the Editor Published by Member

GF member Stacey Kroto got a letter to the editor published in today's Alligator. The full-text follows. Thanks for speaking out, Stacey.

Evangelicals deserve some criticism

Wednesday's editorial, "Suckers," provoked a lot of angry responses. But what people should care about is all this whining about the Alligator's "attack" on Christians.

I don't see any other religious group in this country attempting to proselytize the nation - all while lobbying Congress and state governments to restrict the rights of Americans based on their personal religious beliefs. That's why Christians are such a keen target for, well, any political pundit.

Besides, the letters written in response to Wednesday's editorial don't do much to improve the image of evangelical Christians. One, by Phillip Reynolds, said Democrats "use welfare and handouts to keep black voters on the plantation." What a racist remark! Is Reynolds suggesting the Republican Party is for white Christians only? It sure reads like that.

Zing. :-) I added the links to "Suckers" and Phillip's letter. See here for more background on Wednesday's column (second paragraph of post).

Meeting 11: Thu Nov 9, 7 PM, CLB 414

I met Prof. Joe Meert a few years back (before I was even here at UF) via a Creation/Evolution forum -- CreationTalk. He apparently enjoys (as a little hobby, perhaps) showing young-earth creationists (YEC) the errors of their ways via geological science (a pursuit I've come to see as akin to "casting pearls before swine"). There's a hell of a lot more to establishing the age of the earth than radiometric dating. He will come regale us with the basic arguments that demolish the YEC position at our next speaker meeting. I can assure you it will be a very good talk.

Prof. Meert's work in paleogeomagnetism has been highly lauded. See this and this recent UF News Press release on his research.

I also want to pass along some interesting philosophy events in the near future, for the interested:

Monday, Oct 23rd -- Departmental Colloquium

Title: "Skepticism, Logical Independence, and Epistemic Priority"
Speaker: Prof. Kirk Ludwig (UF)
Place: Philosophy Library, 303 Griffin Floyd Hall
Time: 4:00 pm

Monday, Oct 30th -- Departmental Colloquium

Title: "Is Feeling Pain the Perception of Something?"
Speaker: Prof. Murat Aydede (UF)
Place: Philosophy Library, 303 Griffin Floyd Hall
Time: 4:00 pm

Thursday, Nov 9th -- *The Annual R.M. Hare Lecture

Title: "The Best Alternative"
Speaker: Prof. Earl Conee (Rochester University)
Place: Philosophy Library, 303 Griffin Floyd Hall
Time: 4:00 pm

Thursday, Nov 9th - Saturday, Nov 11th

2006 Florida Philosophical Association Conference
Place: (Tampa, FL)

Monday, Dec 4th -- Departmental Colloquium

Speaker: Prof. Harvey Siegel (Miami)
Place: Philosophy Library, 303 Griffin Floyd Hall
Time: 4:00 pm

Richard Dawkins Interviewed on The Colbert Report

Best opening line, ever:

My guest tonight is a scientist who argues there is no God...and you know what? He'll have an eternity in hell to prove it!

Get the QuickTime .mov video from the RichardDawkins.net site or see the interview at YouTube.
________________
Technorati tags: AAFSA

Growth of Atheism -- Local Groups

I wanted to notify readers of an interesting article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel on atheist groups. It includes interviews with leaders of freethought groups and organizations, like the FFRF, who all note the same trend: a large uptick in the numbers.

In politics-religion news, did anyone see the editorial column, "Suckers" in today's Alligator? Read it. It basically echoes something most of us already know -- that politics and religion make for strange bedfellows. See also this op-ed in the WaPo and this column at faithfuldemocrats.com.

Also, head on over to the Local Groups page at Dawkins' site, and you'll notice AAFSA's listing there. This group page just opened up, but I bet it'll be flooded with entries within weeks. Besides Dawkins' page, I know of only a few others that are popular and have large listings of atheist blogs and sites, like atheismonline.com. The only other pages I know of with extensive listings of freethough groups are all affiliates pages of large organizations like Florida Humanists, AA, SSA, CFI, etc. ( You can see our affiliation with each of those by clicking.) I am an individual member of these groups, as well as the ffrf (who doesn't do affiliations).
________________
Technorati tags: AAFSA

Prof. Witmer's Talk Available

At meeting 9, we enjoyed Prof. Witmer's presentation on Christian Presuppositionalism. He has now graciously made it available to me and you can read it for yourself HERE in .PDF format. I am also going to post it to the sidebar.

Please note that tomorrow night we'll be meeting to hear a short talk about transhumanism at meeting 10. Always see the meeting schedule for the most reliable information. This time, we moved it to Wed so that there was no conflict with the PhilSoc meeting tonight. We're meeting in the same room (CLB 414) at the same time 7:00 PM.

See you then!

**UPDATE: I have it on good authority that attending the PhilSoc meeting tonight would be worth your while if you are in any way interested in moral questions. The talk and author information follow:

Speaker: Prof. Jon Tresan
Title: "How Did Moral Feelings Evolve?"
When: Tuesday, 10/10
Time: 7:30 p.m. (please show up a few minutes ahead)
Where: Philosophy Library (3rd floor Griffin-Floyd) **
________________
Technorati tags: AAFSA

Meeting 10: Wed Oct 11, 7PM, CLB 414

First, note that the meeting schedule has been modified to reflect that the meeting will be on Wednesday the 11th, not on Tuesday.

Mr. James Horton, a UF alumnus and biological sciences researcher, will be presenting a talk concerning transhumanism:

"A Call to Freethinkers: Extreme Life Extension"

As Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers, we are often identified by what we do not believe. In this presentation, Mr. Horton will propose a worthy goal for us to work towards: Extreme Life Extension (ELE). In this 20-30 minute seminar, Mr. Horton will give a basic overview of ELE concepts, the state of current ELE research, possibilties for the future, as well as consider common ethical concerns surrounding ELE. The talk will be followed by a Q&A session.

I strongly advise you to do some basic reading into transhumanism and life extension technology articles, just to know what to expect. The issues range far and wide, from the use of one's own stem cells in regenerative technologies to mind-uploading via computer...It promises to be a very interesting talk.

(PS: James has a compounded last name -- Farrell-Horton, in case you were confused.)

Charity Drive for Cancer Research

Dave asked a question that deserves remembering: community service, anyone?

Now, although AAFSA is not primarily a service organization, we have mentioned at past meetings the desire to do something for our community in the name of goodwill. In the interests of timeliness, and because I think we all agree that this cause merits serious attention, I want the group to consider supporting the ACS -- the American Cancer Society. Specifically, October is Breast Cancer Awareness month, and there is a local "Making Strides" walk to raise money for breast cancer research.

On Saturday, October 14th, my wife Amber will be walking 5K in remembrance of her childhood friend Amanda Hamilton who tragically lost her fight with breast cancer this July at the heartbreakingly-young age of 24. Amber will be walking in this team held at Gainesville's NE park (400 NE 16th Ave).

Now, here is what I would like to do:

1) I am asking everyone to bring something (at least $5) to the next meeting in an un-sealed envelope, preferably checks or money orders, but cash is okay too. Make checks and money orders payable to -- The American Cancer Society. Write the amount on the outside of your envelope if it is cash. At the end of the meeting, we will carefully pool the money and count it openly, then record the total amount that was given.

I will be discreet in attempting not to let anyone see the person's name on the check, and you need not write your name on your envelope. I will be as careful as possible in keeping the amounts given by all persons private, while at the same time conducting a transparent and public count of the monies to ensure accountability, and give you confidence towards your effort.

2) Pass on the word to others, and even collect donations from them yourself (again, preferably check or money order, but cash is okay). You can also pass along the link to this post: LINK. That way, the people you pass it on to can read through these options and choose to give using the information I have provided below.

3) If you choose to do so, join up with this walk. It begins at 9 AM on 10/14/2006. The information to do so is HERE.

I will take this amount and give it to the team leader of Amber's walking group, Carla Hill - Carla.Hill@cancer.org. It will be given in the name of AAFSA, and will show up on the website HERE. The amount we count at the meeting will, in this way, be checked by the amount that is received from the donor "AAFSA" and is visible via the website. And of course, you could contact her with any questions.

For those of you who wish to give via the internet, you may give with the credit going to Amber's group HERE, or you may give generally (Amber's team won't get credit for raising the amount) HERE or HERE if you prefer.

If you are part of AAFSA, I please ask you to denote our group name somewhere in the contributor field. The reason is simple: I want people to see that atheists (agnostics, &c.) care about other human beings, and that we are charitable -- the larger the amount we raise, the more powerful a statement we make. At the end of the walk, I will proudly tally and report our fundraising efforts on this site.

Please take action now, spread the word, don't procrastinate, and remember to bring your donation to the next meeting!

Thank you so much!

Alligator Letter Published

**UPDATE: Joey Johnsen responds in his own letter**

I sent in a column to the Alligator, but they redacted it to a letter, published today. I want to put the whole column below the fold so that you can read it, because they kind of mangled some of my sentences. For example, Joey wrote me and asked, "You think I talk to you more than anyone else?" I obviously meant (and said in the column) only that he probably talks to me more than any other skeptic out in the Turlington Plaza while he's holding a sign. Anyway, read on to see for yourself:

I want to respond to Todd Portnowitz's column, and some of the reactions it provoked. Ask Joey Johnsen, the centerpiece campus preacher in Todd's column, which individual in Turlington he dialogues the most with, and he will likely answer an atheist who heads up a campus freethought group. Ask him if this individual was always respectful and polite, then see if he’ll concede that this individual appealed solely to logic, evidence and reason, in an attempt to get Joey to defend the assertions that he carries on his signs.

Ask him who that person is, and he'll tell you it was me.

Joey's defense never came; the end result of the conversations, after numerous email exchanges and hours of dialogue, was an incessant reversion to Prov. 3:5-6, a verse that tells us to abandon the pursuit of understanding and "lean on God" through faith. Just believe. You see, Joey cannot, in the end, defend his beliefs -- he can only assert them. He isn't interested in debating the veracity of his claims, only of having people accept them, under threat of damnation.

Is that what we came here for? Christine Miller admits, "If Johnsen is preaching Christianity through fear, in other words, then so is the Bible itself." Exactly. Bravo for your honesty. I wish more Christians were so bold as to admit this. And that is why Joey, Christine, and the rest of our community need to do some serious contemplation over the following quotation by R.G. Ingersoll: "Intellectual liberty is the air of the soul, the sunshine of the mind and without it, the world is a prison, the Universe is a dungeon."

That is why I came to UF -- not to be told I should fear using my mind, and shut it down in the service of invisible magic Beings (or at least how such priests tell me to serve Them), but to be helped in freeing it from fear and ignorance. Thomas Aquinas may be onto something, “If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections--if he has any--against faith.” He admits this directly after quoting Gregory the Great, “faith has no merit in those things of which human reason brings its own experience.” The problem for Joey (and other religionists) is that human reason reaches far deeper than they would like to know, and gives us courage, rather than fear.

If Joey and those like him only have dogma to offer, let them continue to do so, because we now know that such empty motions are to be expected from a framework of fear based on ancient superstitions, myth and lore. If they (or anyone else) has more to offer, then “come, let us reason together.” (Isa 1:18)

(475 words)

See more on Joey Johnsen here.

WaPo Op-Ed on PERA, Jesus Camp

The Washington Post features an op-ed by Erwin Chemerinsky on the recently-passed PERA legislation, entitled "Legislating Violations of the Constitution". I've placed the full text below the fold.

Have you heard of "Jesus Camp" yet? If not, check it out. As of right now, Jesus Camp will only be featured in one location in Florida -- Gulf Breeze, near Pensecola. I wish they'd bring the movie closer, and AAFSA could have a movie night. I've placed more resources on the documentary below:

"Jesus Camp: Documentary" (Wikipedia)
"Film Shows Youths Training to Fight for Jesus New Documentary Features Controversial Bible Camp, Evangelical Movement" (ABC News Short Article)
ABC News Story -- Video
Trailer of "Jesus Camp"
Article in Colorado Newspaper: (Ted Haggert is in the film, and his church is in Colorado Springs)
Christianity Today Article

Here's the WaPo article:

Legislating Violations of the Constitution

By Erwin Chemerinsky
Special to washingtonpost.com
Saturday, September 30, 2006; 12:00 AM

With little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679 - provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.

A federal statute, 42 United States Code section 1988, provides that attorneys are entitled to recover compensation for their fees if they successfully represent a plaintiff asserting a violation of his or her constitutional or civil rights. For example, a lawyer who successfully sues on behalf of a victim of racial discrimination or police abuse is entitled to recover attorney's fees from the defendant who acted wrongfully. Any plaintiff who successfully sues to remedy a violation of the Constitution or a federal civil rights statute is entitled to have his or her attorney's fees paid.

Congress adopted this statute for a simple reason: to encourage attorneys to bring cases on behalf of those whose rights have been violated. Congress was concerned that such individuals often cannot afford an attorney and vindicating constitutional rights rarely generates enough in damages to pay a lawyer on a contingency fee basis.

Without this statute, there is no way to compensate attorneys who successfully sue for injunctions to stop unconstitutional government behavior. Congress rightly recognized that attorneys who bring such actions are serving society's interests by stopping the government from violating the Constitution. Indeed, the potential for such suits deters government wrong-doing and increases the likelihood that the Constitution will be followed.

The attorneys' fees statute has worked well for almost 30 years. Lawyers receive attorneys' fees under the law only if their claim is meritorious and they win in court. Unsuccessful lawyers get nothing under the law. This creates a strong disincentive to frivolous suits and encourages lawyers to bring only clearly meritorious ones.

Despite the effectiveness of this statute, conservatives in the House of Representatives have now passed an insidious bill to try and limit enforcement of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, by denying attorneys fees to lawyers who successfully challenge government actions as violating this key constitutional provision. For instance, a lawyer who successfully challenged unconstitutional prayers in schools or unconstitutional symbols on religious property or impermissible aid to religious groups would -- under the bill -- not be entitled to recover attorneys' fees. The bill, if enacted, would treat suits to enforce the Establishment Clause different from litigation to enforce all of the other provisions of the Constitution and federal civil rights statutes.

Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion. The religious right, which has been trying for years to use government to advance their religious views, wants to reduce the likelihood that their efforts will be declared unconstitutional. Since they cannot change the law of the Establishment Clause by statute, they have turned their attention to trying to prevent its enforcement by eliminating the possibility for recovery of attorneys' fees.

Those who successfully prove the government has violated their constitutional rights would, under the bill, be required to pay their own legal fees. Few people can afford to do so. Without the possibility of attorneys' fees, individuals who suffer unconstitutional religious persecution often will be unable to sue. The bill applies even to cases involving illegal religious coercion of public school children or blatant discrimination against particular religions.

The passage of this bill by the House is a disturbing achievement by those who seek to undermine our nation's commitment to fundamental freedoms laid out in the Constitution. Should it come up for a vote, it is imperative that the Senate reject this nefarious proposal. The religious right is looking for a way to get away with violating the Establishment Clause and is now one step closer to this goal. The Establishment Clause is no less important than any other part of the Bill of Rights and suits to enforce it should be treated no differently than any other litigation to enforce civil liberties and civil rights

Erwin Chemerinsky is the Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science, at Duke University.
________________
Technorati tags: AAFSA