Heaving Dead Cats » Important

Tell your Senator to Stop the Federal Funding of Religious Schools

Neece — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:43:37 +0000

Last night Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) filed a D.C. voucher amendment to the second jobs bill under consideration by the Senate. The D.C. voucher program uses taxpayer funds to pay for parents to send their children to private religious schools. The program is called the “D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program,” but a 2007 government report found that these vouchers do not give D.C. students seeking a private school education sufficient secular choices, forcing them to attend religious schools or remain in the failing public school system.

By design, voucher programs aid struggling Christian schools. A July 2009 report by Rutgers University on the D.C. voucher program concluded that the way the voucher program is structured “essentially push[es] students into Christian Association and Catholic schools, pricing out independent (non-religious) schools and Hebrew schools.”

By continuing this program, those of us who do not wish to subsidize someone else’s church will continue to be forced to do so through our federal tax dollars.

The vote will occur sometime today. Please take five minutes and email your Senators below and tell them to vote against this amendment that would re-authorize this program.

The Secular Coalition for America opposes the use of government funds for religious purposes, including vouchers for religious schools. We agree with the founders of the United States that no individual taxpayer should be required to pay for someone else’s religion. We agree with James Madison. Senator Lieberman wants us to go in a different direction.

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship, with your tax money, funds and enables proselytizing and religious discrimination. Recipients of the vouchers who attend religious schools are not even allowed to opt out of religious activities at their school—a direct affront to religious freedom.

It is critical that you write your Senators today and ask them to oppose Sen. Lieberman’s amendment that would re-authorize this program and spend your taxes to fund the religious education of children in D.C.

Go to Secular Coalition for America to send a letter today.

Conversation with Anne About The Meaning Of Life

Neece — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:09:03 +0000

The other day I wrote to Anne in response to some questions she emailed me. She replied not long after in another email. Here is an excerpt (I’ve removed the more private information): (Note: I’ve added some happy puppies playing in the snow since this topic can be rather serious, and we are having the biggest snow in WV that I’ve seen since we moved here 5 years ago)

Thank you for answering my email. I am only 21 and it seams that I am searching for myself and what it is that I can believe. I see how people lie on a daily basis to make the even more entertaining than the event really was so I find it hard to believe anything that is told to me. Giving this way of living I find it tremendously hard to base my life and way of living around things that have been written in a book (the bible) that has been translated umpteen different times before coming to english. The thought that people let their lives revolve around something that was written 2000 years ago just amazes me. As humans are we so daft to do such a thing? The more I look into religion the more I am amazed at the living situations of some people in this world.

My dad did not express any beliefs of god when I was young because he is like me a firm non-believer until there is hard core facts to show him. He wanted me to believe what I wanted and didn’t want his opinions to influence me so he felt it best not to tell me anything. My mother… well she didn’t teach me anything about god or religion until I was 12 we went to church for the first time. She stuck me in Sunday school before a service. Now my father’s mother was catholic. She went twice on Sunday and Wednesday night. I stayed the night with her several times and went to church with her I believe when I was 7. That was enough religion for me. I still remember sitting in the pew looking around saying to myself “are these people really this crazy?!?”

I went to public schools in Indiana. I went to ten different schools before 9th grade so needless to say I was not well adjusted. I never really had any foundation so to say.

I have two children and I want to be able to educate them on religion and allow them to choose their own way. I don’t see the point in trying to force them to do things my way because they need to find out who they are maybe then they won’t have the same struggles that I do.

To answer your question no I was never taught the prevailing theories of how the earth was formed through natural cosmic events. As I said we moved a lot and the curriculum was different at each school there were several things I missed out on. That is why I am so ignorant on religion because I was never taught the scientific end of the world.

I don’t feel that I “NEED” a religion. I would just like to know a little more about why I am here on this earth. I feel there is a purpose for everything because it just doesn’t seam like we exist just to exist. There is some sort of purpose behind our being. So now my job is to find the why.

Thank you so much for this information!! You are right I will have many more questions for you. I want to look over the information you have given me and I want to do some additional research. (Internet based because I now live in the middle of BFE so no museums in my area and the library has a limited amount of books. Besides the fact, I am in the middle of the Bible belt so there will be virtually no literature supporting the thought that there could be an existence not provided by god.)

And here is my new reply:

Thanks for answering my questions. Yes, please research for yourself. The internet opens the whole wide world of information up to you, even in the middle of BFE. I live in a small town that is quite heavily populated with churches and one sad library. There is one small set of shelves for the science section in there. It’s pathetic. I do almost all of my research online, too.

I was thinking about you today and found something that you might enjoy: a set of 5 videos for young and old alike by professor Richard Dawkins. He is an evolutionary biologist. It’s 5 lectures he is giving to children in England but I just watched the first two and really enjoyed them and learned little bits and pieces of information I didn’t know before. He talks and then demonstrates what he says in ways that are easy to understand. But trust me, he doesn’t talk down to anyone. He is quite interesting and has a great passion for life and how we got here and what our place in the world is.

Here is a link to his website with all 5 videos. They are an hour each, I think.

Finding meaning and purpose in your life is not the same as looking for something to believe in. Perhaps you’re using the term differently than I am. Perhaps what you mean is that the two things are the same. Let’s look at the definitions to clarify.

belief: 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction; 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof; 3. confidence; faith; trust; 4. a religious tenet or tenets

purpose: 1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.; 2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.

meaning: 2. the end, purpose, or significance of something

So a belief is a conviction that doesn’t have proof to back it up, which means it’s similar to faith.

faith: 2. belief that is not based on proof

You said you want to know why you are here on earth and that you feel there is a purpose for everything. Why do you feel this way? Is it because it gives you comfort? Just because you want to believe there is a deeper meaning to the universe doesn’t make it so. There is no evidence that there is any validity to that kind of thinking.

Let me put it this way. You say you feel there is a reason you are here on this earth. This leads to fallacious thinking where every little thing that goes right in your life affirms this false belief. Of course this is cherry-picking because you ignore all the things that happen in your life that are completely meaningless or downright negative. This leads you to think you (and the human race) are special, that we have some magical purpose because you have ignored the whole of reality to focus only on what you feel and what confirms what you want to believe to begin with.

The human mind is amazing and awesome, but it does take shortcuts and can easily be misled and make wrong conclusions. It’s very easy to cherry-pick and remember only what feels right or what seems special. This is dangerous and will lead you down a path of lies and myths in trying to believe in and confirm something that has no basis in reality.

It’s normal to ponder why were are here and what it all means. We have consciousness and an amazingly complex brain that can handle complicated concepts like the number 0 and the number 1 for example.

I also think this is one of the toughest issues an atheist deals with. If there is no god then what is the reason for existing? What is our purpose in life?

Well, it’s pretty simple. There is no purpose for everyone. You make your own purpose. You have to find your own meaning. I think some universal ideas would be to always keep learning, and do your best and be a good person. What is the meaning of life? There isn’t any one meaning. It’s what you find important. Try to find your own happiness and do as little damage to others as possible along the way.

Since you have children, nothing is more important in this part of your life than raising them to the best of your ability. Raising them free of dogma, with honesty, with a the ability to ask questions and think for themselves is the best thing you can do for them.

I know that thinking there is some cosmic force for good out there is really appealing, but there’s no evidence for such a thing. While it’s nice to chalk up good things to such a force, there are an awful lot of bad things – no natural justice, natural disasters, birth defects, etc – that make that seem pretty silly.

Basically you are here on this earth because life moves inexorably on. Within life, the need to procreate is part of evolution and natural selection. Again I recommend the videos by Dawkins that I linked to above. They will really give you an idea of evolution which will help you to see that we evolved naturally, and will continue to evolve unless we destroy ourselves and the planet by being careless, short-sighted and selfish.

Instead of searching for why you are here, make the most of your one precious life. Raise your children to the very best of your ability, be good to yourself and others, learn as much as you can. Make your own meaning and purpose with what you have.

Sometimes thinking for yourself, being free of religious dogma, reminds us of our grown-up responsibilities that religion masks. Thinking about such topics are part of being truly grown-up in this life. It might not be fun when you first encounter the new ideas, but reality is always preferable to fairy tales and lies. Give it a few days. Learn as much as you can about evolution and you’ll see. Truth and reality are magnificent and beautiful.

Don’t Give Up!

Neece — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 03:10:28 +0000

To the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, don’t give up! Fight the good fight!

I just read an article by Staks Rosch in the Philadelphia Examiner about the FSGP and their Tree of Knowledge. It’s an evergreen tree decorated with book covers (how shocking, how impudent!) from books representing knowledge, education, science, philosophy, morality, diversity and curiosity. (I am so offended! What? No Twilight?! No Dan Brown?!) Here is a complete list of the books represented.

Staks makes some points that I really like: “[The Tree of Knowledge] is not an attack on religion, but rather an expression of an alternative set of values (i.e. knowledge and reason).”

How horrific! Now I understand why the good christians of the area are so up in arms, vandalizing the tree and organizing call campaigns to get it removed. And why the county is bending to the will of one religion on government property. It’s just so hateful to have a tree decorated with thoughtful, intelligent books. What? Oh? It’s not threatening at all? EXACTLY! WTF!

Staks also says, “Many Christians have claimed that the inclusion of humanist values next to the Jesus Crèche is an attempt to “steal” Christmas. It seems that many Christians are of the opinion that Christians own the winter season. They do not.”

Later he says, “Atheists aren’t trying to “steal” Christmas any more than Christians stole Saturnalia… oh wait, never mind.” Again, I agree completely.

This kind of thing makes me so angry. Religious organizations bully their way into having their cake and eating it too. Politicians and the masses alike bend to that will for what reason? Why do they get to own most holidays? My sister in law is offended when I say happy holidays instead of merry christmas. It’s the classic bully at the pulpit who then cries and runs for the government to protect him when someone brings up that he’s breaking the law or that he’s being a bully.

christians and muslims don’t want to play fair. They want to win. Which is why I am an activist atheist. I don’t want to be forced to pray to a man in the sky that doesn’t exist. I am moral and ethical on my own without being forced into the barbaric false ethics of an iron aged society of goat herders from the Middle East.

I suppose here in Morgantown, if such inequities are occurring, we’ll put up an atheist/humanist display soon too. At this time, I am not aware of any. But I haven’t checked every government building lawn for crèches either.

Keep an eye out in your town. If you see religious displays on government property, take action, form a group. You can then turn it into a community of like-minded people like we’ve got here in our sleepy little town. It’s the most wonderful feeling to hang out with a bunch of freethinkers. But don’t just take things lying down. Don’t let the religious people bully us into giving up our freedoms and our constitutional rights just because we are too apathetic to make a stand for those rights.

EDIT: The Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia has helpful hints for setting up your own Tree of Knowledge.

Advice For Freethinking Kids?

Neece — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:33:19 +0000

The other day I got an email from an atheist couple who have two kids, one 9 and one 10. They asked me for information regarding websites or literature that might deal with “god pressure” for kids at school. This would be the 4th and 5th grade. Apparently kids at their school are proselytizing and mocking these 2 kids for not believing.

The parents don’t want their kids to feel like freaks and also want to help them counter the exasperated ‘you don’t believe in god!’ remarks. Sam, the father, admits that it can be lonely to not believe in god sometimes. I understand. I feel that way too, although not as much as before I belonged to Morgantown Atheists.

Diane, the mother, says they are open to ideas and suggestions. She says they have friends who aren’t religious but still believe in god. It’s not the same thing.

Seeing as how only about 10% of the population would go so far as to actually use the dreaded A-word, it can be isolating to be godless in a sea of believers. As I’ve mentioned, I still keep my atheism to myself when around Butch’s family. Some of them know we’re atheists but it’s never been brought up or mentioned. This means that a huge part of what I spend my time thinking about and being an activist over can’t be talked about when I spend time with others. It’s kind of lonely, in a way.

For Sam and Diane, I suggested they join a local atheist/humanist/freethinker group to get some community support. There’s nothing like simply hanging out with like-minded people to feel more connected. In my personal experience, the benefits of belonging to a local organization are numerous. I have felt much happier since joining. Just knowing there are others who think like me is a great relief, in a way.

I know, many atheists are loners and not into joining. I used to think I was like that too. Then I realized I am just picky. I don’t want to belong to a group that has wildly different values than me. But having a coffee and talking to someone who is also a godless heathen is, well, liberating and intellectually stimulating.

I have to say something now regarding children and atheism. One of my friends, I think it was Dan, recently commented ( I can’t remember if it was here on HDC or Facebook. And I think it was Dan… or Steve. I’m sorry, my friends, I am not positive. Please feel free to correct me) about a conversation he had with his 9 year old daughter. She asked her dad about god. Dan gave a good answer about what god is, and said something along the lines of that’s how a lot of people believe. His daughter asked him what he believed, if he believed in god. Dan explained he is an atheist and that no, he doesn’t. Then he asked her what she thought about god. She said the smartest, most amazing thing, which told me he’s a wonderful dad. She said, “I think I’m too young to decide.”

What that tells me is that Dan is raising his daughter, not to be an atheist, but to think for herself. I think the most important thing you can ever do for a child is to teach them critical thinking. Let them figure things out for themselves. Let them reason and make mistakes. Teach them how to think. Not what to believe.

I’m still thinking about what to tell Sam and Diane’s kids, in how to deal with other kids who are brainwashed with religion already. Do you have any suggestions, websites, or books that might help them?

The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

Neece — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:13:30 +0000

Skeptical thinking is such a wonderful tool to have. It means you don’t get scammed or BS’ed nearly as much by shoddy news or dodgy advertising. You also get to save money because you’ll be less apt to buy gimmicky cure-alls that do nothing but drain your wallet and give you false hope. In his book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan wrote about this. It’s called the Baloney Detection Kit. (see below for an excerpt)

Michael Shermer recently made a great companion video talking about The Baloney Detection Kit: (approx. 14 min)

Here are the 10 points from the video:

How reliable is the source of the claim?
Does the source make similar claims?
Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
Does this fit with the way the world works?
Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works.

Here is an excerpt from Demon-Haunted World:

Among the tools:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.*

* NOTE: This is a problem that affects jury trials. Retrospective studies show that some jurors make up their minds very early – perhaps during opening arguments – and then retain the evidence that seems to support their initial impressions and reject the contrary evidence. The method of alternative working hypotheses is not running in their heads.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

The reliance on carefully designed and controlled experiments is key, as I tried to stress earlier. We will not learn much from mere contemplation. It is tempting to rest content with the first candidate explanation we can think of. One is much better than none. But what happens if we can invent several? How do we decide among them? We don’t. We let experiment do it. Francis Bacon provided the classic reason:

Argumentation cannot suffice for the discovery of new work, since the subtlety of Nature is greater many times than the subtlety of argument.

Another aspect to keep in mind, as talked about by Carl Sagan, are common logical fallacies, something we talk about often on Heaving Dead Cats. Here is another excerpt:

In addition to teaching us what to do when evaluating a claim to knowledge, any good baloney detection kit must also teach us what not to do. It helps us recognize the most common and perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Many good examples can be found in religion and politics, because their practitioners are so often obliged to justify two contradictory propositions. Among these fallacies are:

ad hominem – Latin for “to the man,” attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g., The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously);

argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia — but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a mistake, as it turned out);

argument from adverse consequences (e.g., A God meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He didn’t, society would be much more lawless and dangerous — perhaps even ungovernable.* Or: The defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives);

appeal to ignorance – the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist — and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we’re still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don’t understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don’t understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compassion — to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You don’t understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.)

begging the question, also called assuming the answer (e.g., We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. But does the violent crime rate in fact fall when the death penalty is imposed? Or: The stock market fell yesterday because of a technical adjustment and profit-taking by investors — but is there any independent evidence for the causal role of “adjustment” and profit-taking; have we learned anything at all from this purported explanation?);

observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses, (Neece calls it cherry-picking) (e.g., A state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers);

statistics of small numbers - a close relative of observational selection (e.g., “They say 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese. Yours truly.” Or: “I’ve thrown three sevens in a row. Tonight I can’t lose.”);
misunderstanding of the nature of statistics (e.g., President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence);

inconsistency (e.g., Prudently plan for the worst of which a potential military adversary is capable, but thriftily ignore scientific projections on environmental dangers because they’re not “proved.” Or: Attribute the declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union to the failures of communism many years ago, but never attribute the high infant mortality rate in the United States (now highest of the major industrial nations) to the failures of capitalism. Or: Consider it reasonable for the Universe to continue to exist forever into the future, but judge absurd the possibility that it has infinite duration into the past);

non sequitur – Latin for “It doesn’t follow” (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great. But nearly every nation pretends this to be true; the German formulation was “Gott mit uns”). Often those falling into the non sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative possibilities;

post hoc, ergo propter hoc – Latin for “It happened after, so it was caused by” (e.g., Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila: “I know of … a 26-year-old who looks 60 because she takes [contraceptive] pills.” Or: Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons);
meaningless question (e.g., What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? But if there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can be no immovable objects, and vice versa);

excluded middle, or false dichotomy – considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities (e.g., “Sure, take his side; my husband’s perfect; I’m always wrong.” Or: “Either you love your country or you hate it.” Or: “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”);

short-term vs. long-term – a subset of the excluded middle, but so important I’ve pulled it out for special attention (e.g., We can’t afford programs to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets. Or: Why explore space or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?);

slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits abortion even in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our bodies around the time of conception);

confusion of correlation and causation (e.g., A survey shows that more college graduates are homosexual than those with lesser education; therefore education makes people gay. Or: Andean earthquakes are correlated with closest approaches of the planet Uranus; therefore – despite the absence of any such correlation for the nearer, more massive planet Jupiter — the latter causes the former*);

straw man – caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack (e.g., Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance — a formulation that willfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn’t. Or – this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy — environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people);

suppressed evidence, or half-truths (e.g., An amazingly accurate and widely quoted “prophecy” of the assassination attempt on President Reagan is shown on television; but – an important detail – was it recorded before or after the event? Or: These government abuses demand revolution, even if you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Yes, but is this likely to be a revolution in which far more people are killed than under the previous regime? What does the experience of other revolutions suggest? Are all revolutions against oppressive regimes desirable and in the interests of the people?);

weasel words (e.g., The separation of powers of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the United States may not conduct a war without a declaration by Congress. On the other hand, Presidents are given control of foreign policy and the conduct of wars, which are potentially powerful tools for getting themselves re-elected. Presidents of either political party may therefore be tempted to arrange wars while waving the flag and calling the wars something else – “police actions,” “armed incursions,” “protective reaction strikes,” “pacification,” “safeguarding American interests,” and a wide variety of “operations,” such as “Operation Just Cause.” Euphemisms for war are one of a broad class of reinventions of language for political purposes. Talleyrand said, “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public”).

Knowing the existence of such logical and rhetorical fallacies rounds out our toolkit. Like all tools, the baloney detection kit can be misused, applied out of context, or even employed as a rote alternative to thinking. But applied judiciously, it can make all the difference in the world — not least in evaluating our own arguments before we present them to others.

Today’s Score: Atheists 2, Churches -100

Neece — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:42:56 +0000

Hello everyone! I hope you’re having a great day!

This is one of those catch-all posts where I have several items to share with you.

Some atheist news and education which is great, and some church news that is horrible. So the score for the day is Atheists 2, churches -100.

First, the United Coalition of Reason is getting ready to post ads on the subway in New York. These are different than the ones they posted for us here in Morgantown, WV.

The bus ads say: A million New Yorkers are good without God. Are you? That’s awesome! The NYTimes wrote a long article about it, and our Morgantown billboard even gets a mention!

Next, I saw a video on The Friendly Atheist of Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining the Argument from Ignorance. Dr. Tyson really knows how to explain things. Since I wrote a logical fallacy article about that, I posted it on that page with the other information. Here is the link: Logical Fallacy 4: Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (Argument from Ignorance)

Also, Jose Saramago, a man who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1998, spoke at the launch of his new book, “Cain”. He said his book, which is an ironic retelling of the biblical story of Cain, wouldn’t offend catholics “because catholics do not read the bible.” He added, “It might offend jews, but that doesn’t really matter to me.”

Apparently the catholics and jews are both offended, but what else is new? They have carte blanche to say whatever they want, but when someone says something against religion, they get all pissy. That’s the hypocrisy of religion and bullies, though. So it’s not really a shock.

And last but certainly most awful, is some news from Africa. The LATimes reported today about churches involved in the torture and murder of thousands of African children denounced as witches. Apparently some pastors and people read the bible literally, especially Exodus 22:18: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Children are tortured or killed by pastors and family members.

For their part, the families are often extremely poor, and sometimes even relieved to have one less mouth to feed. Poverty, conflict and poor education lay the foundation for accusations, which are then triggered by the death of a relative, the loss of a job or the denunciation of a pastor on the make, said Martin Dawes, a spokesman for the United Nations Children’s Fund.

“When communities come under pressure, they look for scapegoats,” he said. “It plays into traditional beliefs that someone is responsible for a negative change … and children are defenseless.”

The idea of witchcraft is hardly new, but it has taken on new life recently partly because of a rapid growth in evangelical Christianity. Campaigners against the practice say around 15,000 children have been accused in two of Nigeria’s 36 states over the past decade and around 1,000 have been murdered. In the past month alone, three Nigerian children accused of witchcraft were killed and another three were set on fire.

Nigeria is one of the heartlands of abuse, but hardly the only one: the United Nations Children’s Fund says tens of thousands of children have been targeted throughout Africa.

… Churches outnumber schools, clinics and banks put together. Many promise to solve parishioner’s material worries as well as spiritual ones — eight out of ten Nigerians struggle by on less than $2 a day. …

“Pray your way to riches,” advises Embassy of Christ a few blocks away.

It’s hard for churches to carve out a congregation with so much competition. So some pastors establish their credentials by accusing children of witchcraft. …

That’s what Margaret Eyekang did when her 8-year-old daughter Abigail was accused by a “prophet” from the Apostolic Church, because the girl liked to sleep outside on hot nights — interpreted as meaning she might be flying off to join a coven. A series of exorcisms cost Eyekang eight months’ wages, or US$270. The payments bankrupted her.

Neighbors also attacked her daughter.

“They beat her with sticks and asked me why I was bringing them a witch child,” she said. A relative offered Eyekang floor space but Abigail was not welcome and had to sleep in the streets. …

Helen Ukpabio is one of the few evangelists publicly linked to the denunciation of child witches. She heads the enormous Liberty Gospel church in Calabar, where Nwanaokwo used to live. Ukpabio makes and distributes popular books and DVDs on witchcraft; in one film, a group of child witches pull out a man’s eyeballs. In another book, she advises that 60 percent of the inability to bear children is caused by witchcraft.

In an interview with the AP, Ukpabio is accompanied by her lawyer, church officials and personal film crew.

“Witchcraft is real,” Ukpabio insisted, before denouncing the physical abuse of children. Ukpabio says she performs non-abusive exorcisms for free and was not aware of or responsible for any misinterpretation of her materials.

“I don’t know about that,” she declared.

However, she then acknowledged that she had seen a pastor from the Apostolic Church break a girl’s jaw during an exorcism. Ukpabio said she prayed over her that night and cast out the demon. She did not respond to questions on whether she took the girl to hospital or complained about the injury to church authorities. …

Just mentioning the name of a church is enough to frighten a group of bubbly children at the home.

“Please stop the pastors who hurt us,” said Jerry quietly, touching the scars on his face. “I believe in God and God knows I am not a witch.”

How repulsive is this? All in the name of god, religion and superstition.

And what about albinos in Africa? Their body parts are considered potent for black magic rituals. They are hunted and murdered by witch doctors for their potions.

How do we get through to people who are indoctrinated into christianity then mix the bible in with their own superstitions, gods and religions? We have yet to “cure” people of religion here in America, so maybe it’s going to be awhile before there’s any hope for third world countries. Especially since churches proselytize so heavily in them.

Well, on that unhappy note, I’ll wrap this up for today. Wait, let’s have a lolcat to make us smile again, shall we?

Should Religion Be Taught To Minors?

Neece — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:49:13 +0000

I don’t have children, but this issue is still very important to me because I care about kids being indoctrinated and screwed up by their parents and role models.

But as an atheist, freethinker, or skeptic, what do you teach kids about religion? Maybe because I’m removed from the issue it seems rather easy to me. Teach them the same thing about christianity, islam, judaism and all the other active religions that I was taught about Greek Mythology.

I think religion plays such a huge role in the world today, you can’t ignore it. But you don’t have to believe it to share it with young people any more than my teachers believed Zeus threw lightning bolts at people when he was mad at them. I don’t feel religion is helpful in any respect except as a cultural phenomenon. The big three certainly don’t have good moral values. So don’t try to raise an atheist. Try to raise a child to make their own decisions given all the information.

Kids need to learn two things, above all else. They need to learn critical thinking, how to think for themselves. And they need to understand basic morals and ethics. The school system doesn’t teach either of these things. And really, it’s more of an issue that parents should want to handle themselves.

Here’s the thing, though. If you are a parent you might never have been taught critical thinking. So guess what? You need to learn it too! I only learned to think critically a few years ago, so even old dogs can learn to think for themselves. It takes practice and diligence, but it isn’t an insurmountable task.

I’ll share what I know in a future post. In the meantime, read what Michael Shermer has to say about skepticism, which is closely related to critical thinking.

Heaving Dead Cats » Important

Tell your Senator to Stop the Federal Funding of Religious Schools

Related posts

Conversation with Anne About The Meaning Of Life

Related posts

Don’t Give Up!

Related posts

Advice For Freethinking Kids?

Related posts

The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

Related posts

Today’s Score: Atheists 2, Churches -100

Related posts

Should Religion Be Taught To Minors?

Related posts