1. MySpace: No place for Atheists?

Comment #119883 by Doug Indeap on February 1, 2008 at 12:47 am

I sent the following email to MySpace customer service: I just learned that MySpace has deleted an atheist group not because of any abuse or problems, but because some simply take offense at atheism. Such bigotry is bad enough. That MySpace would sanction such bigotry is outrageous and unacceptable. Rethink this decision and correct it ASAP--with a public explanation and apology.

2. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #116824 by Doug Indeap on January 27, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Here is a copy of my simple letter to my Representative, Tom Lantos, of California:



I urge you to vote against H.Res. 888 and do all you can to prevent its passage.

Ostensibly aimed at "[a]ffirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history," the resolution offers an erroneous, incomplete, and unbalanced description of our nation's history and founding principles. Some of the items touted in the resolution, moreover, are unwise, unconstitutional, notorious missteps of our past, including, for instance, the insertion of the phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. Our government has no business promoting religion, and it certainly should not couple our nation with god(s) when calling on us to pledge allegiance.

The resolution seeks to undermine the secular nature of our government. It should be rejected.

3. Why do atheists care about what others believe when it doesn't affect atheists?

Comment #98570 by Doug Indeap on December 13, 2007 at 9:53 pm

Here are some reasons atheists care about religion:

1. Because the constitutions of seven states--Arkansas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Texas--contain provisions prohibiting atheists from holding public office or testifying in court.

2. Atheist boys cannot be members of the Boy Scouts even though the Boy Scouts commonly receive public funds and special consideration in the use of public lands.

3. Politicians like President Bush Sr. feel free to say: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

4. "Blue laws" in many states restrict what can be sold on Sundays based on religious considerations.

5. The phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.

6. The phrase "In god we trust" was added to U.S. coins in 1864 and to dollar bills in 1957.

7. The U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation, yet I see some Christians seriously attempting to make it so.

8. Those professing religious beliefs are attempting to control what is taught in public schools so as to conform to, or at least not conflict with, their dogma. They seek, for instance, to have creationism or intelligent design passed off as science in public schools.

9. National, state, and local policy decisions are being decided based not on rational thought and discourse, but religious belief and fervor.

10. Fanatics are killing people in the name of religion.

11. Atheists are the least trusted minority in the U.S. simply because they have no belief in god(s).

These are drawn from a YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

4. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85090 by Doug Indeap on November 5, 2007 at 12:07 am

Tedious as it would be to compile, a numbered list or catalogue of the common arguments presented by theists would be useful. Then (as in the joke about numbered jokes) we could just observe that she tried her hand at say #3 and #18 and laugh.

5. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65086 by Doug Indeap on August 22, 2007 at 9:41 pm

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. It is important, I think, to weigh in when such opportunities arise. My submission:

I am one of the millions of people who live by reason and who watch, dumbstruck and frankly fearful, those pointing to "faith" as a basis for believing all manner of nonsense.

Is religion "under attack"? To the extent that knowledge attacks ignorance, understanding attacks confusion, reality attacks fantasy, and honesty attacks deceit, yes, I suppose religion is and always will be under attack.

Politics reflects the marketplace of ideas. To the extent that those professing "faith" offer that as the basis for political views, they should expect the marketplace to examine that faith just as robustly as it does any other political viewpoint. And if it turns out that reason and evidence reveal the utter inanity of the faith on which such political viewpoints are based, our natural desire to avoid offending or embarrassing others should not prevent us from saying so. In the political marketplace, there are no free passes.

6. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #64953 by Doug Indeap on August 22, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Bravo! Sam makes an excellent point with characteristic brevity and wit. As often as otherwise rational people speak of the beauty of the emperor's clothes, we need to point out that he wears none. Those caught going along with the silliness may be embarrassed when the nonsense of their utterances is revealed, and that is fine—they should be embarrassed, and learn from the experience not to spout nonsense simply to "go along to get along."

Bizarro, the "mode of thought" displayed by Collins--and you in your assimilation discussion—does not remotely resemble "reasoning." Don't take my word for it; look it up. Just calling a mode of thought "reasoning" does not make it so.

7. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64388 by Doug Indeap on August 19, 2007 at 10:47 pm

Having read plenty of threads such as that prompted by darwin2 as well as writings of various "fleas," I am amazed--truly amazed--at the capacity and willingness of seemingly intelligent and educated individuals to put stock in patently irrational arguments. It appears to me that in an effort to understand and/or persuade such sorts, the real action may lie more in the field of psychology than in science or logic. I'm thinking of adding one or two books on the "psychology of religion" to my reading list. Has anyone gone down this trail? Any recommendations?

8. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60559 by Doug Indeap on August 2, 2007 at 8:48 am

I read Douglas Wilson's "Letter from a Christian Citizen" out of curiosity. A brief review:

About the lack of evidence for a god, Wilson says little, arguing mainly that the Bible's accounts of historical events/miracles serve as sufficient evidence. To say the least, those taking to heart Carl Sagan's admonition that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence will likely find this (well worn) argument wanting.

Wilson offers an interesting objection to Harris's observation in "Letter to a Christian Nation" that Christians understand "what it is like to be an atheist with respect to the beliefs of Muslims," since "[i]sn't it obvious that Muslims are fooling themselves?" As Harris puts it: "Understand that the way you [i.e., Christians] view Islam is the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions." Wilson argues that this is a "false analogy," since both Christians and Muslims at least understand that some god created the universe while atheists don't. No effort is made to explain why it matters that Christians disbelieve both what Muslims and atheists think, but for different reasons since they think different things. Without recognizing it, Wilson effectively acknowledges Harris's point later in his book, stating "I believe that Islam is a false religion, and I believe that the people who adhere to it are deluded."

Wilson focuses most of his attention on Harris's criticism on the morality of Christianity. Rather than directly defend and explain the morality of Christian dogma, he mainly disputes whether or how an atheist can question the morality of anything, arguing that without reference to the Bible, no standards exist by which to judge the morality of anything. To the extent that Harris displays some sense of morality, Wilson argues, it is "a hodge-podge of Christian leftovers." Harris, of course, argues in his book that it is the other way around--Christianity didn't invent morality and instead borrowed from an innate sense of morality common to humankind, adhering to it in some particulars and deviating from it in others.

Wilson's arguments, it will come as no surprise, are underwhelming. To the extent that it's just nice to know what and how some people think, his book offers the benefit of a sample of the thinking of some religionists.