S. 297 (School voucher bill)

Science quiz from a sectarian school.

I received some mail from Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It seems there is a renewed push for school vouchers at every level of government.  The thing about this is that tax money will essentially go to provide these vouchers for various schools - many or perhaps most being religious in nature.

I went to a sectarian school, a Catholic institution so I know a little bit about this. Aside from the unconstitutional nature of funding tuition bills with taxpayer money, there are some other issues with these schools. For one, discrimination of various stripes is rampant at these schools. We see this in the news when a Catholic school fires yet another LGBT faculty member. Many of the safeguards that exist in our nation's public schools are either weakened or non-existent at these institutions.

As you can obviously see from the picture on the left, there is also much less of a guarantee of the quality of the children's education. Children deserve a quality education, and each child in America deserves the same level of care going into that endeavor. Religious schools that teach indoctrination need to be funded completely out of private citizen's pockets, and not out of our tax dollars.

AU included a few cards inside the packet they sent with easy to fill out entries for name and address. They were addressed to my senators, and contained their address in Washington for easy mail. AU really knows just how lazy some of us are! I appreciated the notice though about the bills in play, because every now and then I think about the ethics of teaching children lies and superstition at such an early age. While I was able to deconvert myself, I know that not everyone was able to make it all the way through. And each child has a right to at least be taught the basic facts about how the world works. This will only get more important as the world changes technologically, leaving the most ignorant behind at a faster and faster rate.

Addresses of MI Senators:

Office of Senator Debbie Stabenow
133 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Office of Senator Carl Levin
269 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Accomodationism is dangerous in non-believers

From time to time I get disappointed. I belong to a community that espouses reason, logic, and having the courage of your convictions but doesn't always live up to that standard. I'm not quite sure what is the worst part about the National Atheist Party's recent guest tumblr post by McTavish, because there are just so many disappointments in this single post. It is without a doubt the worst opinion piece on the atheist community by one of our own that I have read in years. I could write more about it in general but I've chosen to drill in to the details of this fractal failure to try and illustrate why this piece is so likely to bother most atheists.

"I spent most of my life in a search for God and spiritual enlightenment, until in my 47th year it suddenly struck me that the very reason I was searching is because I saw no evidence for the existence of God(s) at all. I am an atheist and at the most basic level have always been so, without even realising it. During that search, I encountered a great many religions and belief systems. To quote John Lennon’s song I Found Out, “I’ve seen religion from Jesus to Baal”. In that time I have encountered and read about some of the worst excesses of over-zealous religious belief, and can clearly see the dangers of such beliefs. I would argue however, that religious fundamentalism is only part of the story, and that there is today a growing fundamentalist among atheists which has the potential to be every bit as dangerous."

Fundamentalist religious beliefs are not dangerous because they are zealously espoused. They are dangerous because the beliefs themselves are harmful vices that need be moderated. We don't moderate virtue, we moderate vice. McTavish seem to recognize this on some level but also seems to want to deny what logically follows. Calling atheists fundamentalists is just a complete non sequitur, although he does this throughout the piece as if that's saying something meaningful. Its doubly ironic considering the dictionary definition of fundamentalism and what follows next.

"As I have stated from the above, I am indeed an atheist. And what is atheism? The Oxford English Dictionary gives this definition; “atheism: noun; disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” That is it, there is nothing more to it. Yet to listen to some of the more strident atheists today, one would get the impression that, like religions, atheism somehow has its own set dogma and rules."

Up until this point I had heard rumors of atheists that use a dictionary to explain their atheism, but I had never actually seen an example. It is true that the definition of atheism is such that nothing immediately follows from it. But that's not particularly interesting, is it? Those of us 'strident' atheists that are referenced are probably not talking about atheism per se, but about the atheist movement and atheist community. Confusing the two is where the myths popular among the religious about our organizations and meetings being about 'nothing' come from. 

Rather obviously, atheism itself is rarely an interesting topic for most of us. For myself in particular, talking about whether sky fairies exist or studying ancient mythology is a complete and total waste of my time. I want to talk about building atheistic communities, advancing secularism here in the states, and ending the harmful conflation of arbitrary religious morals and normative ethics that infects my society. I am not so sure that McTavish whiffed on all of this and I suspect it's intentional, because I see the same sleight of hand move used by those that want to silence a particular group of atheists simply because they don't like what is being said.

"The greater danger however comes that from formulating strident views many atheists, sometimes unwittingly, become antitheists, often with views which are openly hostile to religion, seek to attack believers when there is absolutely no reason to do so and actually espouse views which are openly bigoted towards all or one particular religion. Such people are all too prone to see religion as nothing but a force for ill in the world which can only ever hold mankind back, while also claiming that atheism and the removal of all spiritual belief is some great panacea which they seem to believe would cure all the world’s problems."

I'm not sure how to respond to the first run-on sentence here but I will try. Apparently those of us that have integrity and simultaneously value honesty are prone to 'attacking' theists? I have to assume McTavish means criticize rather than attack, and is resorting to hyperbole yet again. Criticizing religious ideas is not 'attacking' religious people. Religion is nothing but a force for ill in the world, because the only unique thing about it is supernatural beliefs. In other words, it is nothing more than an illusion. Values requires truth as a precondition to hold them. You can't be as good of a person as you should while holding onto delusions, just as you can't be as good of a driver while believing that stop signs mean 'go'. As for the final statement I would appreciate a citation of just where anyone is claiming something as ridiculous as atheism being a panacea for anything.

"I have heard and read atheists openly state that if we got rid of all religion, then there would be no more wars or atrocities. Even as a pacifist myself, I find such views to be naive in the extreme. If one looks at warfare and violent atrocities throughout history, it is true that religion has often been the root cause. Indeed, religious fervour was indeed responsible for a great many slaughters and clearly illustrate the dangers of fundamentalist belief, yet in many other cases, had those behind the killing not had religion to fall back upon, they would just as quickly have found another “cause” to justify their actions. It is the religion which is dangerous, not the faith. There are many Christians who understand this and who openly state that they love their faith but hate religion."

I will acknowledge that there are some ignorant atheists that might think such blatantly false thoughts, though I don't see anything like this in popular atheist writings. Towards the end McTavish gets things completely backwards. It is in fact faith which is dangerous, as without the faith there is no religion. Faith is the acceptance and encouragement of ignorance, and ignorance is dangerous. The last sentence really only makes sense in the light of the fact that there are a large number of Christians that hate their own religion, but are too afraid to leave. The answer is not to praise that, but to provide examples for them to see that show it's alright to not be a Christian anymore.

"Some atheists would have you believe that religion serves no useful purpose whatsoever. And whilst on face value, this would appear to be true, I think there is a huge danger of missing the bigger picture. Charitable actions carried out by the faithful, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever, indeed have their place, and there are many people around the world and in your own home town whose lives would be a lot harder without them. Consider the Salvation Army alone, without whose hard work, a great many homeless would suffer all around the world. Other charities hand out food, furniture, and other resources to the needy. And these are not all Christian charities. It may surprise many readers to learn that there are Muslims who are just as deeply involved, as giving charity is a fundamental cornerstone of the Islamic faith."

The charitable actions of religious organizations cannot be attributed to religion itself. The only thing that can be attributed to religion is superstitious beliefs. For it to be attributed to religion, it must be something that is unique to religion. If you need to read further on this, read Greta Christina's baseball analogy. It is surprising that this basic and obvious fact is missed by so many. And yes, this means in order to criticize religion and faith, you need to criticize something unique about it. But it also means that in order to defend it, you need to be defending what is unique about it and the above completely fails to do so.

"And it is not just abroad that the faiths help people. Contrary to the claims of some not all clergy, particularly those of the Roman Catholic Church, are merely perverts out to prey upon little children. The vast majority are integral and central figures of support to and champion for their local communities, whom they work hard for in return for very little in the way of reward."

One can hardly begin to try and comprehend what could possibly make an atheist think that attempting to defend the Catholic Church is a good idea. The harm done by that particular institution far, far outweighs the good done. This is painfully obvious to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.

"And even if they are purveying a message of faith which we atheists may find absurd or even distasteful, if it gives comfort to those in need who share that faith, as long as it is not hurting us, what right do we have to ever question that? And let me answer that question for you; none at all."

And now we arrive at one of the two worst passages in the text. What right do we have to question? And McTavish answers (for us atheists, apparently): none at all. The level of ignorance on display here is just plain amazing. If I didn't know this piece was written by an atheist I would assume it was a professional Christian apologist. Well some of us do have courage, both intellectual and moral, to not only question religion and faith but be outright dismissive of fantasy, superstition, and other forms of Mickey Mouse nonsense. And if you don't like that McTavish, let me tell you how many of us atheists will respond: Fuck off.

"And among all this, where are the atheists? Where are the atheist charities, soup kitchens, homeless hostels, clothing and furniture distributors and various other resources? How many atheists are in developing countries helping the poorest of the poor? I see a Red Cross and a Red Crescent, where is the Red A? Where are the atheists people can turn to and give support and comfort in times of need and their darkest hours? Certainly some atheist versions of the above do exist, but compared to those from a religious background, they are but a drop in the ocean. It seems to me therefore that until the vast majority of atheists are prepared to get off their bums and get their hands dirty, they should put up or shut up."

They are out there, in several forms. The first is in all the usual charities - its not like the charities that are out there have no atheists in their ranks. Their demographics are likely to be the same as the general population. Just because there are non-believers that are volunteering doesn't mean they need to wear a big RED A on their chests while doing so. As far as organizations doing charity work that are mainly organizations for atheists there are two reasons the numbers are small. The first is that the organizations are probably devoted to promoting secularism as well as defending the civil rights of atheists, which are also good causes. The other is that in sheer numbers, they are several orders of magnitude smaller. So we wouldn't expect the same output.

"As has so often been said, and I count myself in this, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. And those who have allowed themselves to become fundamentalist atheists and antitheists would do well to consider that and much else of the above before deliberately going fighting online with theists in their warm homes, in their comfortable, little first world lives."

And now McTavish just devolves into full blown crazy. His ridiculous argument is apparently that convincing people that religion isn't a good idea about how the world works and charity are mutually exclusive. That you can't be a charitable person and at the same time think faith is harmful. There are numerous counter-examples to this.

"Whether we atheists like it or not, faith in God(s) is with us and does not show any sign of going away any time soon. The 2012 discovery of the Bosonic Field, far from destroying the faith of millions, has done nothing to lessen it. As long as this is true, there shall always be disagreements between theists and atheists. And make no mistake, if someone tries to push their faith down my throat, or impose what I consider to be mythology as fact onto children or vulnerable adults, I shall always fight that, as all atheists should. But if people wish to believe in a particular faith without bothering others, then that should be of no consequence to any atheist. It has always been my experience that one need not go looking for trouble; it will find you soon enough."

Actually there are signs that faith in gods are becoming much less popular, at least here in the states. People don't believe things without bothering others, because beliefs are a motivating factor in actions. Beliefs plus intent will equal action. That's why even with good intentions, bad beliefs about how the world works will still lead to bad actions. McTavish seems willfully ignorant of this, despite all the loving parents that allowed their children to die via prayer healing illustrating my point for me. All of our historical experience with religions and religiosity is evidence of this. Even the last sentence is evidence of that as atheists don't go looking for religious people, they come to us to make trouble whenever that happens.

"Religion shall always be with us and that is not always a bad thing. Whether we agree with it or not, faith in God(s) remains a huge positive in the lives of billions of people. Far from conflict therefore, it seems to me that both atheists and theists need to find a middle ground and reach some degree of accommodation with each other. Only the most fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, or any other theist would disagree with that, as I am sure so would only the most fundamentalist atheist."

This is just so ice-picks into the eyeballs dead wrong. Its like saying 'Racism shall always be with us and that is not always a bad thing. Whether we agree with it or not, racism is a huge positive impact for the many racists'. And here we see that accomodationism is either pure authoritarianism or just plain pure nonsense. Its the same idea essentially as what Adam Lee calls the Golden Mean. Its compromise not because it makes rational sense to do so, but because the person advocating it has no courage.

I live in a country where young teenagers are bullied non-stop for being atheists, and receive even worse treatment when they bring lawsuits to try to get the Christians to stop breaking the law which they do on a constant basis. It is a never-ending nightmare here, and its not getting any better. What is needed is a strong atheist community to provide support for these young non-believers, so that they can be proud of who and what they are - not ashamed of it. That requires the rest of us to have courage and integrity, to be 'strident' about who we are and what we know.

Arab Fest and Christians

Christian missionaries protest the Arab Fest.
(Photo: Niraj Warikoo, Detroit Free Press)

Recently I've become aware of the Arab Fest being held in Dearborn and the tension between Christians and Muslims that seems to be growing each year. This year, Terry Jones, who is known for burning the Qu'ran is coming to join the missionary protests. I also note that the city of Dearborn had to issue a public apology for the unlawful arrests last year.

I discussed this recently with some friends at an atheist gathering and I think its somewhat interesting. I have to admit that initially I had an emotional reaction to the news stories. Between the pigs heads on display, burning of sacred texts, and the various insults used to refer to the Islamic prophet I had a hard time finding much sympathy for the missionaries protesting. I also realized after some time that I have some empathy for the Muslim crowd as they are not demographically a large segment of our population and also face a significant amount of prejudice in our society.

The Christian missionaries level of aggression in their protesting and conversion attempts was a bit startling to me. I have a feeling that this type of behavior has increased in the recent years corresponding to the constant news attention given to terrorist attacks that are done by Muslim perpetrators. Recently we saw this kind of news coverage with the Boston bombings, most notably the idiotic and disheartening discussions of whether or not the wholy Caucasian bombers where in fact 'real' white people. I can remember being a target of these kinds of protests myself, but it never fails to surprise me. At the Reason Rally I was subjected to similar attempts at conversion. A female acquaintance next to me walking was called a 'hooker' and a 'whore' by the men yelling at us through the megaphones. Kirk Cameron DVDs were forced into our hands and of course there were the usual posters and boards conveying a variety of threats. I can recognize that there are similarities between those of us that are atheist and those that are Muslim in the states insofar as the kinds of treatment we get from various form of Christianity.

On the other hand I have a problem with some of the news coverage and reactions to the protests. They have a right to be there. They have a right to protest the event. They have a right to say whatever they want about Islam. In essence what they are doing is blasphemy (from the viewpoint of the Muslims), and I support people's right to blaspheme. I do it myself quite a bit. Whether or not they are ultimately correct or not is besides the point, though you wouldn't get that feeling from reading or listening to the news coverage.

I also don't think press releases like this one are making things any better for either side. After losing a lawsuit for violating the constitutional rights of the protestors last year, the decision by the mayor to publicly announce that there won't be any form of protection for Mr. Jones rubs me the wrong way. It seems to quietly defend the sometimes violent acts that can erupt in these situations, as if it is somehow alright if Mr. Jones gets hurt. It also seems to rely on an irrational and prejudicial fear of violence from Muslims from the public to make any sense. Otherwise I wonder why Mr. Jones would need special protection? And while reading that particular news release I am somewhat reminded of all the atheist protestors over the years that have been subjected to violence acts during protest activities.

I hope that the Muslims who attend the Arab Fest this year take a page out of the book from the atheists at the Reason Rally. I hope they enjoy their event and that their interactions with the aggressive Christian protestors are peaceful in nature. The best strategy for them is to allow the ridiculous actions and words of the protestors (do my eyes deceive me or has that man cut a cross into his forehead?) speak for themselves.

We Are Designated Drivers

There is an analogy that I like to use when thinking about religion and religious believers in particular, especially when I am speaking with an atheist. We have a human tendency towards tribalism that has been a part of our psyche for so long that many atheists don't even realize when they are doing it themselves. We are no less vulnerable to using 'Us versus Them' kinds of language than believers. I have fallen prey to this trap myself from time to time, especially when some of the more depressing results of religion in my society happen. When this occurs I try to remember this analogy as it helps me deal with being confronted with nonsense so often in my society. The analogy is this: Faith is an intoxicant and the believers are intoxicated. Atheists are the designated drivers of the world.

The first half of the analogy helps me deal with the believers and their ofttimes irrational behavior. I try to remember that they are under the influence of a vice called faith. Like other intoxicants, it makes them feel good, reassures them when things don't go their way and provides a release mechanism from the many perils of the real world. I can recall speaking to so many atheists that really think that religious people believe because they are unintelligent or ignorant. If this were true, it would be such a simple matter to educate them away from religion or belief in gods. No doubt this is true for some, but they are a  minority. When I was a Christian I was a believer for many reasons, but they were almost certainly based on emotion. When I was frightened I could turn to my faith, when I was lonely I could pretend that Jesus was with me, when I was trying to make sense of a world that has so much going wrong in it I could find relief in believing a good god was going to fix all of that. Nowhere in any of that was there an intellectual thought or reason, and I obviously didn't become much more intelligent upon becoming god and religion free. The best way I can explain what happened is that at some point faith had just stopped working for me. I had come to realize that confronting the challenges life poses without it was simply more effective and that I was responsible for making the world a better place because there was no god to do it for us. I had grown up and put the bottle of faith down.

Upon doing this, I began recognize that I was in a unique position in my society. At first I had kept my lack of belief to myself, simply thinking that it was solely a personal struggle that I had overcome. There are so many other things in life that are actually real and interesting that I didn't think much of the fact that so many others were believers. I must confess that I actually thought that everyone else leaves their faith upon growing up, and that the respect for religion we see so much is just a society-wide form of gas-lighting to encourage those young people that still believed. Jesus was just like Santa Claus, except you stopped believing in your late teens or very early twenties, right? Over a span of a few years I discovered how very wrong I was about that.

I came to realize that I was actually part of a small group and that my lack of faith in the supernatural was definitely unusual, at least in my country. The politicians weren't just producing claptrap, most of them actually believed what they were saying about religion. The people around me weren't pretending, they were telling the truth about their beliefs. At first I wrote this off to a lack of education or intelligence in those people. But I began to see people who were educated, some of who had very advanced degrees. I also saw people I knew to be intelligent who were very religious. I began to realize that it was nothing other than the intoxicant at work. For some reason I had become immune to this effect, and this put me in a unique position.

I had the same responsibilities roughly as those that volunteer themselves as designated drivers to others knowing that they will be under the influence at some point. However I think the importance of secularism in our public policy and society is much greater than the importance of designated drivers however important they still are. I came to realize that I had a duty to my country and society simply because I was one who was no longer affected by faith. Freedom of religion requires freedom from religion, and only an atheist is uniquely situated to confront religious bigotry head-on. This is apparent whenever we see a so-called moderate believer attempting to argue against a fundamentalist believer. You cannot fight the bible with another interpretation of the bible and you cannot argue against nonsense with more nonsense. Only us atheists have the ability to safeguard our nation's secular past.

I have often seen atheists that desire a community, and are drawn to atheist communities because they are struggling with a recent loss of faith. I can empathize with these sentiments though I feel a greater sense of duty. I understand that the faithful are not stupid, and I doubt that it is a congenital condition especially given that I was a former believer myself. I think I can sympathize with them, as faith is not the only vice out there. Many atheists drink alcohol yet they seem too quick to judge a believer for their faith. Many believers understand this, and willingly give us the keys we need. Some will not give up their keys willingly, and we have no choice but to fight over them. The alternative is just not acceptable.

I live in a nation that was founded strongly on the concept of secularism, with a bill of rights that was created specifically to counter several hundred years of superstitious witch-hunts. The Constitution was created, as sad as this is, to protect us from ourselves. However the recent history of our movement away from secularism in the states shows me that this is not enough, that it was the tenacity of the founders rather than the documents and rules that are important. Rules can always be overwritten, and amendments can be created to reverse prior restraints. History can be overwritten in the future so as to doom a new generation into ignorance of a problem that was solved in the past. The cause of secularism requires devoted and persistent atheists to ensure that there is meaningful dissent to protect those under the influence of faith from destroying their own freedoms and ours.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair Day

Madalyn Murray O'Hair Day has come and gone, and I got the chance to get to a meetup complete with birthday cupcakes and hear the stories of many members who knew her personally. In the last couple of years, I've been watching videos and becoming more familiar with her to try and get an appreciation of the person that started the modern atheist movement. In particular I found a video that has become one of my favorite videos about the subject matter and I'd like to share it here.

This video describes my general impression of the atheist community and my own journey through time as one almost perfectly. We are all so different, which only a member of our community would be able to recognize. For those of us that travelled out of belief and indoctrination, the different 'types' of atheists may ring a bell. I've experienced the hate-filled kind of atheism in frustration, the philosophical type that won't declare an idea false until they've beaten it to death several times, and the intra-atheist argumentative type that weighs one group of atheists against another.

Towards the end she describes a kind of atheism that has been the target of my journey - a kind that is no longer concerned with religion or gods but with improving the only world we will ever have. A sort of happy humanist type of atheist. She also ends this by going on about how that relates to atheist activism which should not be directed so much at religion or the religious as at the state and our public policies about how society should run.

Atheistic Goals

There is one enduring meme about atheists that survives most of the others in my experience. Someone can accept that an atheist is a good person and even accept that they are likely to be right about gods and religion. But they often ask why we identify as atheists and why we have to talk about it so much and remind believers so often that so many of us do not believe. Neil DeGrasse Tyson summed up this meme is his own words rather nicely:

It's odd that the word 'atheist' even exists. I don't play golf, is there a word for non-golf players? Do they gather and strategize? I can't do that. I can't gather around and talk about how much everybody in the room doesn't believe in God.

I can actually empathize with Tyson here in that the most boring thing I can think of doing is sitting around talking with another atheist about how gods do not exist. It's a conversation that is simply intellectually impoverished in my opinion. The rare exception for me is when I am talking with an atheist that is newly out, and by that I mean they have recently lost a belief in gods or religion that they once had. And that is simply due to the fact that as a former believer myself I understand the emotional process of leaving it all behind which I think doesn't get as much attention as it should.

While I agree with him about his obvious point, there is much about identifying as an atheist in our society that the above quote misses by a good country mile. And that is what I want to list as my goals or set of objectives as to why I identify as an atheist and think others should as well.

Truth

It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it. -Edmund Way Teale

The first thing I would list as something I value and think is worth working towards is truth. Without truth I cannot see how other values could possibly exist. Other values and goals must ultimately depend on what is true or not. Certainty is not needed, as I've pointed out before as we can claim knowledge of things without it so long as we are justified. Justification is what turns true beliefs into knowledge, and knowledge is something that can and must be updated which you can convince yourself of after a little thought. Claims of certainty about things that lack justification that cannot be updated or falsified are actually the antithesis of the process of gaining knowledge about the world. Or to put it in the vernacular, 'Faith means not wanting to know.' This is why faith, religions, and gods are not and never will be compatible with reason, science, and our quest for knowledge.

I do not live in a society that has much respect for the truth anymore, to put it mildy. I live in a society where one political party has equated a love of truth with hatred for America. I live in a country where half the population believes the planet is less than 10,000 years old, that global warming is a conspiratorial myth and even some think that vaccines cause autism. In fact by championing such things, you can get to the front page of Yahoo as a star that's making the world a better place.

This is actually rather frightening to me given the speed of advancement in our world. Our technological capabilities and challenges are increasing at an ever faster rate, while our respect for science, reason, and ethics are not improving. One issue is that humans are used to thinking linearly, but we face problems that will be growing at an exponential rate. Another is that we have lost our respect for truth and empiricism, in a time when it is more important than ever. We have a chance at fixing these issues and improving our human existence in ways unimaginable. Without respect for truth we risk creating a future that looks like a badly written cyberpunk novel with a miserable ending.

Justice

Justice is the second value and goal I would offer as a reason to identify as an atheist. Without truth I do not see how you can have justice. In fact injustices throughout history are often made possible by deception and dishonesty. Without justice there is no freedom in the world and no real progress. It is not a mystery to me to look back and see that economic and technological progress in my own country followed social progress. Civil rights, child labor laws, and women's rights preceded a time of great flourishing and development. We see the same progress in countries that have greater economic equality than here in the states.

It is not enough to merely value truth and neglect or deny the value of justice. Within the atheist community this is known as 'dictionary atheism' or the idea that since atheism itself is nothing more than a lack of belief in gods then nothing else can possibly follow. This is an absurdity of course, due to the fact that so much of our societal reality is based on religions and gods that an atheist has quite a bit to say about our society ought to be. And making 'ought' statements rather than 'is' statements is the territory of moral philosophy.

It is this reality that makes identifying as an atheist more important to me than a mere respect for truth. Ethics cannot be found in ancient holy books, revered dogmas, traditional religions, or from a god. The first three are awful because mistakes get written in stone for centuries, causing immense harm to us. The last option, even if it existed would not provide us with any useful information as it is not possible to know the desires of a deity. Even if we did such an absolute authority is a subjective set of rules depending on the rule-maker rather than the utility of the system. It seems religious morality is a great way for bad people to feel better about themselves when one of the signs an ethical system is correct would be that it often doesn't make you feel so good about yourself.

This leaves us to come up with ethical guidelines on our own, and to devise solutions to our problems that lie in the real-world. I see many atheists that give in to subjectivity, moral nihilism, or the delusion that evolutionary science has something to say about right and wrong. I think these all suffer from the same defect religious morality has, that they are designed to make you feel better not actually act better. There are better systems out there in moral philosophy and disagreements happen but that doesn't change the fact that religious morality is a serious impediment to social progress and has been in every historical situation I can think of.

Freedom 

Freedom is my last item of value although it is something I think results from a commitment to truth and justice. I see that a lack of freedom exists where the opposite of truth and justice exists - where there is ignorance and inequity. I think inequity in itself is a lack of freedom by definition. As for ignorance I think it produces the same results. Without knowing what is true in the world I fail to see how anyone can be free.

Freedom is also a concept that is misused and tossed about without much regard to what it should mean. It seems to be a staple cliche of political speech and commercial advertisement where it seems to mean the ability to be dead wrong about something and free from criticism. This is often bandied about by theists, citing their 'right to believe'. Another version of this mockery of reason is when someone attempts to use 'free speech' to shield themselves from criticism when they say something ignorant.

The freedom that results from having a society with a sincere concern for truth and justice is vastly more valuable than that. Someone that is fully informed and well educated and has no unjust restrictions on them is fully free in a way that few in this world are. Superstition and supernaturalism naturally disappear when people enjoy these freedoms, as they are a vice designed to anesthetize us from the perils of life. We are no longer at a point in history where we can afford to have only an elite fraction of society fully participating in our affairs. 

I do not claim that gods and religions themselves cause all of the harm in the world. But I do claim that I could not honestly hold these values in the manner I discussed when I was a believer. How I could claim to value the truth while maintaining that my supernatural beliefs were correct? How I claim the desire to make the world a better place while defending a religious institution that apologized for past injustices while continuing to do such things in the present? The answer for me was that if I actually wanted to champion real values that make the world a better place, I had to start with my own mistakes and relieve myself of religion, belief in gods, superstition and other forms of make-believe and begin to find real-world answers to real-world problems. And if I do all of that, why would I not call myself an atheist and be proud of it?

Boy Scouts of America Battleground

There is phone and email war going on at the Boy Scouts of America. They are thinking of lifting their blanket LGBT ban in approximately a week. America's national treasure George Takei is leading the fight for the good side via his facebook page while various hate groups we all know having some variation on the word 'family' are on the other.

I was a scout as a child for a few years, and I have fairly decent memories of that time with childhood friends. It wasn't until I reached adulthood that I rejected religions and gods and later realized that the organization I used to belong to would never have accepted me if I was an atheist at the time.

So I decided to follow what one of favorite writers and do what Greta Christina did. I'm writing an email not just about their vicious anti-LGBT ban, but I'm also taking the time to let them know that their anti-atheist discrimination is just as bad. (And no, they aren't considering lifting that).

Its time the Boy Scouts of America grew up and ended their bigotry. But I also want them to know that its disappointing that they feel they can drop one and keep the other.

BSA contact:
nationalsupportcenter@scouting.org
 972-580-2330