Is ‘Freethinker’ Synonymous with Nontheist? Well, no. It isn ‘t. Atheists need to drop the sham; I am a freethinker by definition, and am positive that there have been numerous deists, theists, supernaturalists, pantheists and polytheists that have come to their conclusions on metaphysics as freethinkers. There were long expanses of time when pre-scientific answers were reasonable (case in point, animism at the ‘Dawn of Humanity’) or when the existence of a philosophical First Cause/Unmoved Mover God as ‘essence’ (think deism at the turn of the 18th century) just worked. Of course, being an atheist, I think those arguments have been undeniably refuted as science has continued to explain much of the mysteries of the universe. But still, if you embrace theism as a freethinker and can demonstrate how you came to your conclusion, I salute you. Isn’t that a good part of what this site is about? Discussions on matters of truth, critiques of argument, debates on important questions, tentative vindications of worldviews? Yet, I think the disparity of belief between scientists and the public (.pdf) says a great deal about free thought and science.

Ready for a laugh?

Then read on…

Continue reading Some Comedy Bits

After speaking with believers for some time, I’m often asked So where does morality come from? Why be compelled to be good without belief in God? Some times the questioner is genuinely naïve and cannot understand how I can function without belief in a god; other times the questioner believes he has stumbled on a fatal flaw to my worldview: while I may have valid points about epistemology or faith, naturalism fails at explaining ethics.

Of course, I respond with: So you have me to believe that without belief in God, you would kill, rape, enslave and torture others with impunity? If so, please by all means continue to believe. But if not, sophistry doesn’t make an argument.

There are numerous other objections to the claim that belief in God or religion provides a foundation to morality that I won’t tear into (it’s likely we’ll hit into them in the comments section), but instead, I’d like to explain that I do have an answer (So where does morality come from?), and while it may not be satisfactory for some, I think it provides a basis for a naturalist system of ethics.

Radio Lab has provided a superb synthesis of several scientific explorations into morality. While I’m sure most have heard of these thought experiments before, the neuroscience behind them is brilliantly conveyed in only an hour. Of course, it’s only a brief overview of a hefty subject. You can hear an .mp3 of it here.

And while you’re at it, you didn’t hear it from me, but someone’s leaked The Atheist’s Bible (.pdf)!

I. It’s not just angel books, astrology, and acupuncture.

A front-page article in the New York Times of October 22, 1996 (subscription required), delved into the ‘conflict’ between two views of where Native American populations originated—the scientific archaeological account and the account offered by some Native American creation-myths. According to the former, humans first entered the Americas from Asia, crossing the Bering Strait more than 10,000 years ago. This answer, I should hope for most readers, provides an authoritative, extensively confirmed, scientific answer.

Some Native American creation accounts hold that native peoples have always lived in the Americas. That is, Native Americans have been present ever since their ancestors first emerged onto the surface of the earth from a subterranean world called the Lower Regions. If there’s anything we know, it’s that some things are definitively wrong.

That’s one of ‘em.

Yet, the Times noted that many archaeologists, torn between their commitment to scientific method and their appreciation for native culture, ‘have been driven close to a postmodern relativism in which science is just one more belief system.’ Roger Anyon, a British archaeologist who has worked for the Zuni people, was quoted as saying: ‘Science is just one of many ways of knowing the world. … [The Zunis’ worldview is] just as valid as the archeological viewpoint of what prehistory is about.’

Continue reading Postmodernism in a Theocracy

I’m no theologian, so I only understand (and read) a bit of theology. What I see is that many theologians take as a premise the existence of not just a god, but the god of their birth or culture: prima facie belief.

Those theologians that have attempted to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural — of a god — of the god — have provided far more interesting questions than (and I hate to be so harsh about it), those that pontificate not just on how many angels may dance on the head of a pin, but those who try to discover if angels engage in bowel movementsAn aside: Of course, if ethics that stem from belief in the supernatural work for you, that’s wonderful. Perhaps, if you believed otherwise, you would maim, steal, rape and murder others; thus your belief is a necessary thing, albeit unjustified in my eyes.
But I don’t think that’s true. I hope you can be just as ethical without a system of ethics that relies on, what seems to many nonbelievers, as magic beans.. (Of course, I’m speaking of Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.)

If you’d like to work through, as one would with a scientific hypothesis, several of the classic ‘proofs’ of the existence of (1) the supernatural, (2) a deistic god, (3) a theistic god, let’s talk it outAnother aside: Of course, if any of these proofs should fail, that does not mean that the god you believe in does not exist. And if your proof should succeed some serious scrutiny from doubters, then it is a powerful argument. Either way, believers in this situation will not be put on the spot. If an argument doesn’t work, it doesn’t work; nothing more.
But if an argument works….

… or, Why Some Atheist are Wrong about what Matters Most.

Christianity makes broad claims about its power to change people and situations. The single largest disproof of our faith lives in its failure to do so, especially in the West. If our faith is proven by experience, then there in lies the realm of disproof. But please take into account the affects of nominalism in all truth-systems and the universal warnings against it in all wisdom traditions. At their heart, no faith endorses such living. There are even atheists that refuse to live by what they know to be true and good to the peril of us all. Nominalism, wherever it exists, is just a fancy name for cowardice, apathy, complacentcy, and laziness which are always contemptable and tradmarked by no system of thought. (Soulster, How to Talk to Believers)

Soulster’s ‘How to’ stands out as a fantastic piece on how to promote the development of atheist/believer relations.

Read it.

And Continue reading Erring on the Side of Truth: A Mistake

Frank Walton of Atheism Sucks! briefly stopped by to link to his views on The Rational Response Squad’s Gift of Life Day. After reading a few posts at Walton’s blog, I saw his reaction to the ‘debate’ between Richard Dawkins and Bill ‘falafel’ O’Reilly (you can read my more visceral reaction here). In this post I wish to firmly argue in favor of Dawkins’ position – even though I think he communicated his message very poorly to a demagogue. Much has been made (and Walton’s post and subsequent comments are a prime example) of Dawkins’ words ‘We’re working on it.’ What I think Dawkins failed to communicate was that science is always working on it; there is no finality to discovering the Truth.

Continue reading Dawkins & O’Reilly

We want to make a public statement about how nonreligious people can observe the so-called National Day of Prayer, which we have renamed Gift of Life Day… So on that day, we atheists will be engaging in action that we can prove scientifically has real-life impact on our fellow citizens. (Brian Sapient of The Rational Response Squad)

I’d love to see both atheists and Christians (Matthew 26:28“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”) get behind this: Donate blood on May 3rd!

There are four options you can take on this day: (1) Participate in The National Day of Prayer, which is scientifically provenThe Templeton Foundation spent ten years and $2.4 million, only to grasp the obvious: “prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery.” (The New York Times 3/31/2006) to be ineffective“Even in the best studies, the evidence of an association between religion, spirituality, and health is weak and inconsistent. … [I]t is premature to promote faith and religion as adjunctive medical treatments.” (Lancet, 2/20/1999), something I personally think is a waste of time; (2) Give blood, which saves lives; (3) Spend the morning in prayer or quiet meditation, then go out and give some blood; (4) Do nothing, go to work, come home, watch TV, then go to sleep, all this time living in apathy.

I suggest taking option #2.

This post has nothing to do with atheism, theism, belief, dialogue, &c; it’s about programming code. If you’re interested, then read on. Otherwise, it’s for those that are willing and able to solve a goofy problem I’ve been having.

For everyone else, if you think the site could use an overhaul, then now’s the time for some suggestions. Just comment about the color scheme; font size/style; format… now’s your time to gripe!

Continue reading Anyone Know CSS?

Lately I’ve been encountering something that is disturbing to me. There is a popular version of postmodernism — an on-the-street version — far from the literary deconstruction where it was born. It seems to over-simplify a great deal of information, leaving behind a great deal of the nuance and intelligent dialogue for a sort of shallow relativism. Taking up the slogan of our age, it pronounces “whatever” on every aspect of life and every human endeavor. For one thing, such thinking uses the label “pluralism” to equalize and homogenize all faiths. Deep down, it believes religion is like blue jeans — all that’s different is the label.

Continue reading On Pluralism