My life as a skeptic, a secular humanist and an atheist has been short. As a young child, I was raised a moderate Catholic, but I’ve never found that it had much of a direct impact of my life. I was swayed from it by one of my best friends a few years ago. But it’s only been over the course of the past year that I can really say that my beliefs have been defined. I was introduced to Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene by said friend in early 2008, and it is that which I have to thank for a great deal of where I’m at right now.

I fell in love with biology from that book, but more importantly, I learned about logic.

This year I realized that logic is a skill that takes practice just like any other. At least, I certainly wasn’t born with it. This has been an important thing for me to understand. Between the time when I stopped going to church for the better (I was eleven or so) and the point where I finally began to grasp what it meant to be an atheist (beginning of 2008), there was a void. Although I was glad to be free of the church, I didn’t understand anything any better. I was confused, and I tried searching for answers in alternative religions (Wicca, Buddhism, Scientology) but I couldn’t ever make up my mind. I wanted to make my own decisions about what I thought, but at eleven I was terribly helpless about how to do it.

Fast forward a bit to the time right before I first opened The Selfish Gene. I was still just as lost, but I had long given up attempting to fix it. Really, I think that looking back on my eleven-year old state, all I needed was more education. By the time I started reading the book, I already had a small interest in science and far more knowledge on the subject (and in general). So I was just able to get through it, and what I read amazed me. For those who haven’t read the book, it really has little to do with logic (directly). It’s about biology and natural selection. But the thing was, I’d never really understood evolution. My memories of science class lessons about the subject include picking up camouflaged colorful confetti on a multicolor piece of paper, which is an accurate demonstration but astonishingly uninformative.

And then there was Richard Dawkins, in a book obviously written for adults, explaining to me in perfect, clear language what I had always struggled to grasp in middle school. I understood him so astoundingly well… and in an unexplainable way, I saw what it was to be logical.  If there’s any time in my life where I’ve ever experienced a eureka moment, that would be it.

Basically, this experience ultimately threw me into atheism and skepticism. Attending the Center for Inquiry student leadership conference this past summer was the second event that changed me. I had just turned fifteen when I went. I met all kinds of people. Fascinating, incredibly marvelous people. It was worlds apart from my high school biology class, and the discussions that we had during that conference were far beyond anything that happened in the little debates in my freshman English class with twenty other kids. Everyone I talked to was someone new, and it was so refreshing. I don’t think I can ever forget that weekend with those people. I learned and grew so much. That was the weekend I really fell in love with inquiry, and skepticism and the universe. Biology had only been the beginning. I’m even more passionate about those things now, and it sincerely overwhelms me beyond anything else I can imagine.

The reactions I get from people about it are pretty predictable and they usually have to do with my age. But surprisingly, most of them are from the people I go to school with, who are about the same age I am. When I mention things like Edger and what it means to me, I’m met with confusion a lot of the time. It really forces me to consider how lucky I am. I’m incredibly grateful to have people I can go to who think like I do. They’re not only my friends, but something else, even though I’m not really sure what to call them. I owe so much to them either way.

Speaking of Edger, it’s really been a gift to me. Everyone who works on it is seriously talented and fantastic, and even though I have no idea how I ended up in the middle of it all, I’m so glad I did. And as the new year comes in, I think about where I’d be without it. Because despite the differences in age I have with everyone else, at the end of the day we are all thinking about the same thing in like-minded ways.

So after all, I guess this turned out to be a thank you letter to everything and everyone who helped me get where I am this year, especially the folks at the Center for Inquiry and especially especially everyone at Edger.

I feel like I belong here, with secularism and skepticism and science. I really wouldn’t trade it for anything else in the world, and it’s the most comfortable feeling.

Thanks for 2008,

Cheers

Atheists Should Be Treated Like Trolls – FOX NEWS

Wow. Just wow.

I shouldn’t even look at anything from Fox News because this is so typical. But it’s been a while since I’ve seen a news story with logic this flawed. As the video explains, there was an atheist sign near a nativity scene that was stolen, and the owners of the sign now want to replace the old one with a “thou shall not steal sign”. Fox makes it sound like that by doing this, the atheists are hypocrites. It’s definitely ironic, that’s for sure, but apparently not for reasons anyone at Fox realizes.

Michelle Malkin goes on to complain about atheists a little bit. She suggests that atheists are just being attention whores with all these “christmas wars”, “outbursts”, and “tantrums” (apparently a sign qualifies waging war on Christmas.) 

She then says that atheists are so radical, soon they’ll be saying they’re indispensable.

I don’t know about you, but I find atheists pretty useful. A good majority of the world’s most influential and intelligent scientists are atheists. I’ve never thought about it before, but I realized that, yeah, if every atheist in the world were to just suddnely disappear, there would be problems, especially because so many intellectuals are atheists. Malkin suggests, however, that if every atheist alive just suddenly died… well, it would be no skin off her back.

But get ready, because she’s about to say the most horrible, meaningless, overdone remark you can imagine. Ugh. I hate this, hate this, HATE this line. I hear it in discussions, debates, you name it. People think it’s a valid thing to say. They think that it gives them extra points and automatic credibility. And I’m sure you guys know what I’m talking about.

Immediately following her last comment, Michelle Malkin says:

“Now, some of my best friends are atheists.”

What?! Does she hear the things she’s saying about “some of her best friends”? 

A minute later she says atheists “just can’t leave well enough alone and let people enjoy the season.”

So someone who had their property vandalized should just let it go because it’s Christmas? I mean really. She relates the sign to “making a nusence in the town square.” 

And THEN… oh boy, this is good… that blonde news anchor from the beginning of the video says that if this kind of thing doesn’t stop… Christianity will DISAPPEAR. 

And now for the biggest joke of all.

The solution? Treat atheists like trolls.  Mock them. They’re just attention seekers anyway.

Now I’m not personally one to promote lawsuits for every minute little thing, but how schools let this kind of thing happen is still beyond me. From experience, I know that Colorado is not a particularly religious state. My brief time in the Cherry Creek School District when I was younger was pleasant and looking back on it, I would say the experience was fairly secular. So when a friend told me about this case I was pretty surprised. I’m not sure that a lawsuit is the right solution to this problem, exactly, but that’s not really for me to decide. However I would say that this problem is kind of major, considering that the district is saying that religion is an asset to a child’s development. 

On that note, if you know a child or a parent of a child who attends a school in the Cherry Creek School district, the FFRF urges you to pass this official statement on:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has a very important challenge regarding the separation of church and state in the Cherry Creek School District in Denver. The lawsuit challenges the District adoption of the “40 Developmental Assets,” of which number 19 is a recommendation of a “religious community” for children. The school district is recommending that children spend at least an hour a week in a church or other religious setting.

In a document specifically written for children, the endorsement reads: “I spend time with my religion.” A poster of a praying child next to this wording is displayed in various ways. The asset appears on a master calendar at the District website and various District documents.

FFRF has uncovered a religious agenda of the “40 Developmental Assets” program (in which the Lutheran Brotherhood, which developed it, cites bible verses which inspire each “asset,” even the secular-sounding assets).

Due to a child of a plaintiff graduating, FFRF is down to a single plaintiff. We are requesting anyone having a child in the school system who supports the separation of church and state to join the suit.

If you have a child in the Cherry Creek School system (or sympathetic friends or relatives with children in the District) and you might be interested in joining our action against this establishment of religion by the school district, then please let me know. Plaintiffs must have children who use the Cherry Creek public schools.

If we are to add additional plaintiffs, they need to be added before 2009. There is no cost involved and very little time required, and you would be helping to ensure we can challenge a violation that is occurring nationwide. The Court has a protective order which keeps parent (and child) names out of the court documents and newspapers. If interested contact me ASAP

Tim Bailey 303.921.0641
Tcsgrv@mindspring.com
Humanists of Colorado

Cheers

I think there is a bizarre parallel between religions and music genres. Let me explain. There are quite a lot of people (you may be one of them) who enjoy music but aren’t passionate about it and have no extreme preference in what they listen to. One of these people would probably claim they listen to everything, even though it’s not like they sincerely enjoy every piece of music that goes through their ears. There are similar types of people when it comes to religion. The equivalent would be those who may know vaguely what they think but consider many matters unimportant, and then give themselves a  label like agnostic (or not at all) and then attatch, “but I respect all beliefs”. But can they honestly say that they respect all beliefs? If they thought about it, probably not. On the extreme end there are also music fanatics who will just be plain OCD about their music generes. Have you ever been listening to a friend’s song on their iPod, and you ask what it is, and they’ll reply, “oh, that’s post-industrial tranceacid rapcore,” or, “that would be popharmonics jazz fusion.” Unfortunately, I think the same thing is happening to religion, and so many labels are popping up these days that I can understand how it would be hard to distinguish them without some good research. Lately I’ve heard people describe themselves as “christian wicca”, “naturalized deist”, and “environment-oriented theist” (I think they might have been trying to say pantheist) among some others. 

All of this is to prove a point about people these days. An overwhelming amount of them just lose track of what they think. This is often either because they just don’t know what to call themselves, or because they get confused by the myriad of (now becoming) interchangable beliefs that eventually become meaningless if they’re mixed up too much. 

To a point, I have a solution for these people.

The Belief-O-Matic.

I’m actually not kidding about this. It’s an astonishingly accurate quiz made up of about 20 really precise questions. I really think that many people are intimidated by, or just don’t feel like doing, the research it takes to be knowledgable about their faith. I think that this simple online quiz is surprisingly effective and non-hoaxy, as opposed to basically every other “what are you” quiz on the internet these days. 

Even if you are quite clear on what you are, you should go on over to beliefnet and take a look, because you’re probably skeptical (and I know you want to). The quiz takes about 5-10 minutes and is so right it will surprise you.

Cheers

5. Erv

Erv is a blog that isn’t afraid to show its opinion. The blog has some edge to it, and though it seems to primarily be an atheist blog, it often branches out into political and scientific topics. Add this one to your bookmarks.

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/

4. The Bad Idea Blog

The Bad Idea Blog is a hilarious source of science, news, politics and skepticism. If there’s a blog you should add to your RSS feed, it’s this one.

http://badidea.wordpress.com

3. MarinaLee

MarinaLee’s blog is a political opinion blog with fresh ideas. Her editorials are always sharp, logical, and definitely worth reading. They bring a new kind of outlook on various political issues, with a touch of humor.

http://marinalee.wordpress.com/

2. Daylight Atheism

Daylight Atheism is hardly a 2008 blog- but I just had to put it on this list because since its creation in 2006, the blog has brought to the table crisp ideas that make heaps of sense and will have you feeling happier and just a bit more logical at the end of the day.

http://daylightatheism.org

1. Skepchick

At #1, Skepchick is a fresh girl-blog that is both insightful and tons of fun to read. Even guys will enjoy the witty posts and interesting topics on this popular site.

http://skepchick.org/blog

Have a suggestion for a top blog? E-mail it to: cbasinet@gmail.com

The Associated Press reported that today a journalism student at Balkh University in Afghansitan had his death sentence overturned. The crime? Blasphemy.

The student was convicted earlier this year for distributing “offensive” material he had found on the internet, pertaining to individual freedoms. His original fate was bleak, but the 20 years behind bars he received today cannot be much brighter.

The student was not allowed a lawyer during his trial, and his first one lasted just five minutes. While his family is relieved to hear that their son’s original sentence has been overturned, they are still campaigning for his release.

On the same evening, the Vatican formally denied the attempt. The next day, footage of the occurrence was released in Portugal.

The Archbishop Marcinkus responded with, “You can’t always believe everything you see on television.”
But don’t take his word for it… check out the footage and original BBC coverage story for yourself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7674020.stm

Ingraham begins by noting the variation between his opinion put into his article The War Between the Wars for Slate in July and his newfound admiration for Barack Obama. In the July article, Hitchens wrote:

If we had left Iraq according to the timetable of the anti-war movement… the Iraqi people would now be excruciatingly tyrannized by the gloating sadists of al-Qaida, who could further boast of having inflicted a battlefield defeat on the United States. I dare say the word of that would have spread to Afghanistan fast enough and, indeed, to other places where the enemy operates. -July 14, 2008; Slate.com

Hitchens then responds by saying that Obama’s values have been getting progressively “better and more teachable”.

During the program, I did notice that Ingraham acted defensively and on several occasions, cut Hitchens off. I think it would be reasonable to say that she behaved unfairly, making connections to her personal life and in support of McCain-Palin in order to give the notion that she was under personal attack. How she performed did not entirely matter, it was just bad journalism.

Though, because of her behavior, it was difficult to extract the real roots of Hitchens’s change in opinion.

I’ve seen, like, ten stream-of-consciousness notes, posts and blogs this week. These days, it seems like rhetoric is a popular guy.

And then you have “the meaning of life”.  What kind of question is that? It’s basically the same thing as purpose, and it seems to be almost universally understood that the answer is just “out there” until someone finds it or the world explodes or something.

Mostly, the meaning of life is applied to humans exclusively, but that seems a little bit selfish. Wouldn’t that kind of purpose apply to all life? But then, I mean, how could you put one general meaning on all life? Not to mention that nearly all (99%) of the life forms that have ever been on earth are now extinct.

Honestly, I don’t really think that there is an absolute purpose of life and everything else just out there. A lot of people seem to think that means there is no reason for us to live or that our happiness means nothing. It probably doesn’t in context with the rest of the universe, but, (quote) “does any of us tie our fate to the cosmos anyway?”

What we do with our own lives seems a lot more important.

Its roots can be traced all the way back to ancient Greece, in the 6th century BCE. In fact, Greek pantheists like Thales of Miletus (”know thyself”) made the path for humanists later. Early freethinkers like him rejected their culture’s gods and preferred a naturalistic point of view.  Pericles was such a person, who advanced science, thought, and democracy. Athens was an especially prominent place for these values. In its golden age, gods were only a subtle part of life, and participating in public debates was as much a civic duty as voting or working.

Fast forward a bit and humanism comes into play during the medieval time period in Islamic culture. This brand was subtle, and outward doubt was discouraged, though freethought was acceptable.

Renaissance humanism is most notably the era which we borrow aspects of modern humanism from. Values of science, debate, thought, and philosophy replaced those of the Roman church. 14th-15th century Florence was where this all started. The Italian Renaissance itself was a time of learning and opinions.
Not surprisingly, humanism of this time actually meant fascination with the classical (ancient Greece and Rome) world, which is why there was such an emphasis on learning. Contrasting with the Dark Ages, the image of man was all of a sudden transformed into one of high position, instead of all of humanity being a manifestation of sin and damnation. This time period, unlike the Dark Ages, was all about this life.

Though we can still make connections to its origins, modern humanism is more of a literal interpretation of the word. Today, humanism is about civil rights, and the power of humanity. Current humanism outlines a broad set of philosophies, but most notably, secular humanism. Like the humanism of Florence and the classical world, questioning and secular values play a big role. But with or without secular attached, humanism is still all about human reason, ethics, logic, observation, and thought.

It’s interesting to look at humanism in this historical light because secularism can be seen before the supposed birth of Jesus, and ultimately much before the spread of Christianity. While your particular bit of humanism (if any) may not be exactly like that of the Renaissance or classical age, you can at least appreciate the historical significance of philosophies older than their counterparts.