Welcome to Factonista.org

Factonista is an online freethought advocacy organization that relies on its users for content. Through international broad-based collaboration with its users, and other groups and organizations, it strives to provide timely and comprehensive news, views, reviews, and creative multimedia on issues at the forefront of everything under the umbrella of freethought

Not a member? Register | Lost your password?
Hi and welcome to Factonista. Please keep in mind we're still in BETA. We'll be fully functional very very soon. In the mean while feel free to browse around, read our articles, and participate in our discussions. If you note any bugs and feel like helping us out, forward a quick message to us here. Thanks! [close]

Posts Tagged ‘atheist’

Friday Five

Thursday, October 23rd, 2008

Every Friday the crew here at Edger will rank the top five blog posts, videos, science news, and anything else of interest to the freethought community.

5. On the Evolutionary Origins of Religion

The cultural naturalism report brings us this descriptive post on the debate over the evolutionary origins of religion.

“The divide on the question of the naturalistic origins of religion is between the adaptationists and the by-product theorists. The adaptationists are led by David Sloan Wilson and Jonathan Haidt, while Daniel Dennett is the major proponent of the religion-as-a-by-product hypothesis. In this essay, I outline the issue briefly and mention some implications of these ideas.”

4. Daylight Atheism: Advice to an Atheist

Deacon Duncan from the evangelical realism blog gives us this well reasoned and contemplative analysis of how an atheist should act during a particular case of public prayer.

“By standing during the prayer, and visibly pledging to support the community without sacrificing their personal principles, atheists can lead by example, demonstrating that tolerance can be helpful, non-violent, and principled.”

3. Why ‘Stayin’ Alive’ could literally save your life

In another awesome mix of science and music, scientists at the university of Illinois have discovered an ingenious way to ensure people conducting CPR achieve the ideal number of compressions per minute to resuscitate the heart.

“Nadkarni said he has seen ‘Stayin’ Alive’ work wonders in classes where students were having trouble keeping the right beat while practicing on mannequins.  When he turned on the song, ‘all of a sudden, within just a few seconds, they get it right on the dot.’”

2. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

The Atheist Bus Campaign finally got underway this week in London, with Richard Dawkins matching donations.  Ariane Sherine wrote about the campaign in the Guardian.  This was definitely worthy of the number one spot this week, simply because of the exposure and controversy it will generate.

“Your donations will give atheism a more visible presence in the UK, generate debate, brighten people’s day on the way to work, and hopefully encourage more people to come out as atheists. As Richard Dawkins says: “This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think – and thinking is anathema to religion.”"

1. CFI Pushes Back Against Religious Restrictions on Free Expression

And Edger’s number one spot this week goes to Austin Dacey and the Center for Inquiry, who represented those who believe in freedom of speech at the ninth session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland.  CFI has been working alongside the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) to combat the defamation of religions enactment.

“Austin Dacey drafted and read a statement urging the Council to abandon the dangerous notion of the defamation of religions, asserting: “Rights belong to individuals, not ideas. . . . Belief depends on the freedom to doubt, to dissent, to discover.””


This term “fundamentalism”

Monday, October 20th, 2008
Fundamentalism is one of the most problematic and misread/misused terms in all of the discussions I see about politics and religion, even on this site. It is used in an inappropriate context and is made into an uncontested term. It has been given this really horrible negative condentation… It has been turned into a short hand inprecise pejorative of modernist arrogance. Its like the word terrorism, what are we even talking about anymore when we talk about terrorism? It is automatically assumed that we know what we’re talking about when we say “the war on terror” but what the hell does that even mean?!The easy way of seeing this is to think of where the term fundamentalism *should* be used. To do this we have to look at the history of it. The fundamentalists come from the 19th century. They were against all biblical reforms and humanistic developments. The protestant biblical hermeneutics were threatening classical thinking of the church and the fundamentals were striving to protect that classical way of thinking. The modernizing and liberalizing of the classics resulted in this modern reaction of trying to restore classical and originally revealed words as to access their original knowledge.

Thus it is use most correctly when we are using it in response to liberalizing modern biblical hermaneutics – or to give this some modern condentation, those that strive to keep the constitution in its original form, those that treat it as a pseudo-sacred text and as the inviolable foundations of which the U.S law is based on.

When people start talking about “fundamentalist islamic terrorists” or something of that nature I want to rip my hair out. Not only are the more common areas of Islam *not* fundamental on any level, that entire phrase has almost lost meaning.  Its the same as when people refer to the conservatives in the United States as fundamentalists.

The American movement of American Portestantism that came up a centruy after the fundamentalists stressed the infallibility of the Bible, all the way through to historical records, such as creationism and a physical resurrection. However – just because someone is a conservative who doesn’t believe in abortion doesn’t mean they’re a fundamentalist.  If you’re refering to a creationist who wants to stone gays and ignore millions of years of history … then fine, throw out the word fundamentalist. But seriously, Fox News, CNN and bloggers everywhere throw the term around like it holds no real context. This is tres stupid, and not to mention, tres annoying. Please stop.

Now I understand the argument that “words change meaning” over time. That is absolutely true…like naughty, the immediate thought with crack, gay, nice, queer, punk, brat, hot (or hawt)… etc. But the issue with fundamentalism is that people are still technically referring to what it *used* to be, it hasn’t changed meaning at all – people still mean it as being a totalistic commitment to something. If people were using the word correctly there wouldn’t be any “fundamentalist atheists” out there…and someone deeply in love with Christ but who is a member of the United Church of Canada also wouldn’t be called a fundamentalist.

[/rant]

I ought not to say such things

Tuesday, October 14th, 2008

I’ve saved writing about the recent vandalism at the University of Alberta on Edger until now for a few reasons. Mainly, I wanted all the heat to settle down, for our new banner to go up, and for as many facts and opinions to come in as possible. Also, it should note this post will mirror the original and follow up posts from my own blog.

So first, let’s try to go through the order of events as objectively as possible.

  1. We’ve been working at the University of Alberta for a while now to try to achieve a secular convocation ceremony. As part of this campaign, I wrote an opinion article for the campus newspaper, which attracted both negative and positive reactions (about two weeks worth of letters).
  2. The UofA Atheists and Agnostics large (5′ x 8′) hanging banner gets vandalized over a weekend after hanging in an atrium for several weeks and the entire previous semester. The contact email and website were cut from the bottom and the phrases “God loves you,” “Jesus is coming,” and hearts and crosses are drawn across the banner.
  3. We later figured out, after removing the banner (while unveiling the new one), that the heart and cross were added to cover up some other writing. We couldn’t make out what was written under the heart, as the writing was mostly indistinguishable.
  4. I reported the incident to campus security the morning I discovered the banner and issued press releases to all the media outlets in town that I could get a hold of. CTV (local television) later did an interview with me (not YouTube’d yet). I also wrote my first blog post on it.
  5. After having a number of the “atheist community” blast me for using the word “hate” I wrote my second post saying simply that I called this act for what it was, although it wasn’t the position my group had taken. This was further clarified later in the week when another member of my club’s exec appeared on campus radio to discuss the issue.

So what are my thoughts on the issue?

First, one of my Christian friends (who heads the local IVCF chapter), wanted to point out:

1. The hate crime (I don’t mind calling it one… it was) was performed as it seems as a response to previous events on campus in which I had only a few glimpses of knowledge.

2. To comment about the vandalism without commenting about the convocation debate seems in some sense to be making a sideways response to the one event.

I find it utterly appalling that he tries to justify this action as a retaliation for my writing an article in a campus paper. I wrote some words. They drew and permanently damaged property that wasn’t theirs. Big difference. I may have offended them, but they actively worked to remove the ability of my group to advertise itself – a right possessed by every group on my campus (including the Pro-Life group). Being offended isn’t a protection we afford people in Canada (generally).

But what else happened here? When I went out actively looking for support, I instead was told: “this is more of a love crime” from some atheists. People I expected to side with me and back me up in denouncing an act of targeted intolerance against my group instead chastised me for overreacting.

Let me emphasize, my friend, an evangelical Christian, and the Pentecostal group on campus agreed with my denunciation of the event, while atheists and the United Church chaplain (a very liberal church in Canada) thought I was being unreasonable for expecting some sympathy.

I can understand having small posters vandalized or ripped down – at 5-15c a piece, I would be surprised to see all of them after a week. But for someone to go out of their way to deface and damage a large hanging banner, required planning, time, and effort (I believe they actually removed it from the building it was hanging in, did their damage, and then re-hung it – mainly because it was attached to the wire it hung from differently).

So why the argument? I really don’t see why, as an atheist, I can’t say that an act of intolerance against my group is equivalent in terms of intolerance and hate to writing “God hates fags” on a gay-support group’s banner, or “terrorist” on a Muslim banner. Just because they put a heart on it doesn’t mean that’s what they’re feeling.

Even if I grant that they may actually feel that God does love us, that still doesn’t change the intent of the actions, which was to imply that our group shouldn’t be spreading its message, and should instead accept Jesus (or burn in hell, as the implied alternative).

So I just thought I’d put it out there: clearly a double standard exists within the atheist community that we can’t cry foul, even when it happens to us. And I think this is the greatest tragedy of this entire debacle.

So here’s where I’ll summarize my positions:

It’s a hate-crime to commit any crime based on intolerance. However, standing on a bench shouting that atheists should burn in hell, while in bad taste and rudely offensive, should not be a crime, but should not be encouraged.

Finally, to end on a positive note, here’s the video of my group coming together to repaint and hang a new banner:

Standard response to an atheist article

Friday, October 10th, 2008

To save Christians the time in writing original responses to articles written by atheists, I’ve taken the time to compile a basic template that any fundamentalist could use to respond to these sorts of articles. I figure it’s a sign of good faith (puns always intended).

That Ian Bushfield is one angry atheist.

He’s such a fundamentalist, with his belief that God doesn’t exist.

He’s so militant, writing words in a campus newspaper rather than taking up arms or violence.

He’s so arrogant, suggesting we should test ideas against the real world before accepting them.

He’s so intolerant, speaking out when we want him to shut up.

He’s so evangelical, wanting people to question their beliefs, regardless of what they may be.

He’s so Utopian, hoping for a better world.

He’s such a progressive liberal-leftist, even though he hasn’t written about politics or economics yet.

He’s so ignorant, for not accepting or understanding every nuance of my religion.

He’s so immature, clearly belief in God is sophisticated endeavour.

He’s so immoral, I mean, how can you really be good without someone watching over you?

He’s so self-centred, because he doesn’t think God talks to him personally.

He’s so nihilistic, for thinking that for him since life ends at death, he should value every moment he has alive.

He’s so communistic, since he clearly worships the state above his fellow human being.

He’s so angry, because he has to put up with intolerant jerks like us.

God loves you,

Anonymous Christian Student

(Adapted from my blog Terahertz)

Nica’s Nothing Turns Out to be My Something

Friday, October 3rd, 2008

Everyone knows that i don’t hold particularly high regards for the poster boy atheists. I’ve written about it, and been destroyed for my opinion in a few places (some worse than others) and everyone thought I was some anti-atheist without even taking into consideration the positive posts I had written before. After the whole “why atheists annoy me” thing I sort of shied away from writing about atheism all that often. I’ve long argued that to make yourself feel included and comfortable within a movement you need to find someone who you can relate to. Someone that makes you think “Yeah! That is so right on!” someone who you wouldn’t mind speaking for you anywhere at anytime.

Nica Lalli is a mother of two (two who sound intelligent, and adorable), a PTA mom, painter, has a master of fine arts and married to a man she met when she was 21. ( :D I love love.) She is also the author of Nothing:Something to Believe In, and an atheist. Most importantly (at least for the matters of this post) she is the first atheist who has come to speak at CFI that I’ve ever been able to relate to. Ever.

Although our back-stories are extremely different (she was raised secular by non-religious parents and has never been religious …I was raised Christian by Christian parents and a minister), what she has to say now resonates with me deeply. I knew as soon as she said “I didn’t want to be the voice, I just wanted to be one of many” that I was going to like her much more than the other “voice” I’ve heard. (that makes me sound crazy…) But what we both are, is “interested in why religion is interesting” to us.

At first I thought she was going to be a cope out because she was calling herself “nothing” instead of slapping the word atheist on her forehead. But once she described that she wanted something “outside the debate” it made a lot more sense. All the other words, atheist, agnostic, freethinker, bright [thats the worst], humanist, rationalist – all have a stigmata (heh) behind them from being inside the religious debates.

Her book doesn’t fit in, where her book is about living life as an atheist – raising kids, dealing with in laws and just being her the other books about atheism and religion. About why atheism is the be all end all marvelous anti-faith that is going to save us all from our narrowminded and blinded views. Dawkins et al don’t show their weaknesses or talk about their lives rather they’re more interested in telling everyone else how stupid they are. Where Dawkins and his posse make it very hard to like atheists, Nica makes it very easy to fall totally in love with her. The poster boy atheists are making it very hard to say “I’m an atheist” without getting a million nasty glares and grilled with a lot of questions based on the assumption that you think just like them. Nica tries to describe and help us learn how to live in this world, where we’re not quite liked yet. Unfortunately the poster boys are very good at describing what it is that makes us angry, so they go off and get angry. Everywhere. All the time. And look silly. But Nica is right in saying that it is good that we have someone expressing those views – I just wish it wasn’t the only “mainstream” (so to speak) view out there.

Near the end of her talk, she did it. She did what no other atheist speaker I have ever seen has done before. It was like she was sent from God to help me understand my non-belief. She described what she believes in. She describes it with a story where she is in New York, surrounded by people while she’s in her car. At that moment, she was thinking, that all those people are thinking something. Thinking, remembering, wishing, dreaming, hoping…and being an individual. That was so overwhelming to her, and it is to me too. Although I take this a bit further, and include the sheer overwhelming feeling that the universe in general gives me. The beauty and power of discovery, the inconceivable size of the galaxy and yes, like Nica, the amazing thought that everyone is here, thinking, being and living.

Nica wrote her book to show how normal she is. So believers and non-believers could read it and relate to what she had to say. And then, perhaps, turn to the person beside them, no matter what denomination, and share a story with them. Stop the bickering and build a stronger relationship with those around you. A relationship that goes beyond lables and the armor so that we can just be, and understand one another on a new appreciative level. It’s pretty pathetic when you can’t have a discussion because religion overkills. Nica, like me, is unwilling to say that all belief is bad. It is absolutely tragic that there is an automatic assumption that they hate us, and we hate them. Then the world just seems so much more fragmented.

It’s too bad that she isn’t tough enough for Americans. She isn’t spitting in people’s faces and tearing down the religious fundamentalists that threaten our lives, rights and countries. Instead she is too normal, so people pay far to little attention to her. She is not an arrogant scientist. She’s not stuck up. She doesn’t act like she has the answers. She isn’t untouchable. She is approachable. She is intelligent and well spoken. She is a good writer. And she says what is in my head. She is someone I can relate to, which makes it a lot easier for me to call myself an atheist, or rather…nothing.

Not allowed to fight for the right not to believe.

Tuesday, September 16th, 2008

New York Times Article

Usually, when I read an article about the Christians attempts to stop the Secular movement, I end up giggling or staring at the screen, blinking, trying desperately to make my little brain follow the author’s argument. However, when I read this article, I felt like a small puppy being kicked in the side, and wishing that my bite was a lot stronger.

Basically, the article is about a soldier, Specialist Hall, who is an active atheist in the U.S. Military. After being constantly harassed for his beliefs, he was eventually sent home early. This man was willing to sacrifice his life in order to protect a freedom that many of us know all too well isn’t anywhere close to being guaranteed. And yet, he was denied that right, on the basis that he wasn’t fighting for God.

Many people look at Atheists as being unpatriotic. I completely understand where they are coming from. I mean the forefathers didn’t really want a democracy. No, no, no. The were actually hinting around about a theocracy, as it should be. Therefore, Atheists are unpatriotic. Yay for kindergarten logic!

Now, perhaps it’s just me, but why would you send a willing soldier home just because he’s fighting for a bigger cause than God, especially when there is already enough publicity on the war being “God’s War?” Wouldn’t you just stop the harassment? I mean, if God really had that big a problem with an Atheist soldier, he could always just smite him…right?

Finally, the Video: Secular Coalition for America’s Lori Lippman Brown on the Colbert Report

Monday, September 1st, 2008

On Friday, August 29 Lori Lippman Brown, head of the Secular Coalition for America, was featured on the Colbert Report’s Better Know a Lobby segment. Initially, the taping was supposed to show on Thursday, August 28, but was postponed till the next day.

Enjoy!